Jake_Ellison

And unfortunately it's working. In fact that statement by the cardinal completely turned around the catholic vote, according to a poll I saw(it was on Drudge, they claimed it's the poll that most accurately predicted the last election), and has brought McCain dangerously close to Obama. That is why we should be more afraid of the religious right than the socialist left: their message resonates with people far better than anything Obama could come up with. In fact if Obama would just shut up, and just answer "I'm not in the same party as Bush" to every question by every plumber or journalist, he would be winning by a landslide. The one thing that hurts him is his ideology, and the one thing that helps McCain is his religion. I don't care which is the lesser of two evils here, in the short-term (even if I did, they both want the same things, for different reasons), I just care about which is the weaker of the two evils, and that's the one I'm rooting for.

Well, you say you disagree, but you're not really doing any disagreeing as far as I can see. Instead you're making an unrelated (although perfectly true) statement.

Ayn Rand's works (which still "speak for Objectivism at this point", to answer one of your questions) have obvious answers to all the points you raise in your article, I'm just gonna answer this tiny part -- because I never actually articulated my take on the subject before, in writing -- : I did the numbering(1.,2.,3.), everything else is copy/pasted from your article. 1. Objectivist philosophy holds that the ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. Logically, I see no difference between what you wrote in point (1.) and what laissez-faire capitalism means, although it's obvious you think there is a difference. Capitalism is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights. You on the other hand believe, for reasons that to me are not apparent, that such a system can exist without a government which retaliates against criminals. I've heard anarchists dismiss the idea that people would face violence and abuse on an unimaginable scale from both criminal gangs and groups of people who's justice will have nothing to do with this libertarian ideal, and they seem to base their idea on their view of human nature, which would supposedly not allow that: the fact is that the human race always lived in anarchy, and we still do: countries, different ideologies, nations, tribes etc. are the natural result of such a closed system. There is no other force that acted on human civilization in the past: only the same human nature we have today, which gives us "free will" to choose. There is no reason to think that suddenly everybody will choose to think and act rationally. My point, on the other hand, is that a government, which is separate from economics (the same way state and church are separate), does in fact allow for what you described in point (1.). How does a government which only uses force against those who initiated physical force against others conflict with "individual liberty, that means anyone can make his own choices as long as it does not infringe on another’s similar liberty." ? Well, government is not by definition coercive. In fact, a government that only acts as a policeman to protect man's rights is by definition not coercive against people who don't coerce( =to restrain or dominate by force, to compel to an act or choice) anyone. As far as something being immoral, you first have to describe an ethical system according to which it is immoral. Then you can act on principle (favor morality over pragmatism). Now, an ethical system, like everything else in life, should serve a purpose: namely to help you survive as a rational being. In order to formulate an etchical system that is useful to you, you first have to understand reality, and even before that, you have to understand that there is such a thing as reality. For that, you need philosophy.( in our case, you need Aristotle's law of identity, or what Leibniz called "A is A"). Here's a webpage to get you started: Objectivism Essentials Or, if you can formulate an ethical code to support your theories, please do, I'd love to comment. Of course, you need to leave out the part about government being by definition coercive. That's false.( not according to objectivism, but according to any dictionary) You are right, there is no authority needed for such a transaction to take place in a society where that man's children are safe to walk to school by themselves, while he is working, where an employer's property is safe even if he decides to fire all his employees at once, etc. What is to stop the employees from not accept being fired, simply because they disagree with the decision. Is the employer going to have a security force to make sure they do? If yes, what's to stop this employer from keeping his employees there by force, the same way a tyrant can use the police to control the population?

A prime example on how leading an evil life, or even just holding an evil job, corrupts a person. How could he still be an objectivist (if he ever was one), after he acted as a statist for so long? Of course he’s going to attack capitalism. It’s like asking an abortion doctor to defend the catholic church from a moral point of view. He could be spending his entire life in church (except for those few hours on the job), he still could not, in good faith, say the pope is right to condemn abortion. He’s no more a catholic than Alan Greenspan is an objectivist. P.S. Just because I consider him corrupt and evil, doesn't mean I want to offend him, or that I wish him bad. It's not like I believe he's going to hell, or want him to go to hell, the way a religious person would feel when they call someone evil. It just means he's not a moral person, and since he's at the end of his life, his past actions speak for him more than they would speak for someone in their twenties, who hasn't always led a moral life, but intends to in the future. Such a person could still mount a valid moral defense for capitalism, Alan Greenspan could not, even if he wanted to. That being said, America would probably be a lot worse off than it is if it wasn't for Alan Greenspan: just look at Japan or Western Europe, who didn't have a Reagan and a Greenspan.

I honestly doubt you heard him "endorse" anybody. He may have urged us to punish the republicans in 2004, by voting against them. As far as this year, all I've heard him say is that he, personally, is probably going to vote democrat. That hardly fits your characterization of an endorsement. Obviously you're not likely to get dr. Peikoff to answer you, and I don't think anyone here is able to speak for him, so here's why I think republicans are more dangerous: In the 60's, leftist ideology and government policies peaked in America. There were price-controls, huge amounts of regulation, windfall income taxes all throughout the 70's, the culture was quickly moving toward the left well into the 70's. That ideology however, while it suited the cynical intellectuals, had no answers for the growing masses who fell for it, so many of them turned to the Evangelical Church for guidance. (for a more detailed account of that period check out the video lectures on the ARI page) My main point is that socialism is indeed a failed ideology, rejected for practical considerations by almost all Americans: in fact, when I talk to any of my non-objectivist friends, the only reason they will all vote democrat (at least for congress) this year, is because they hate the religious right, not because they want more government spending. The reason why the democratic party is weak is in fact their ideology: in a country that didn’t clearly recognize the perils of socialism someone, anyone, running for president against the incumbent republican party, after 8 years of George W. Bush, would be ahead by over 40 % easily. His approval ratings have been under 25% for the past 3 years, and they are much lower than they were two years ago, when the republicans were crushed in the midterms. The only two things holding Obama back this year are his leftist ideology, and to a lesser extent, his history with reverend Wright’s Baptist church. Anyway, concentrating on Obama is pointless. Even with the huge hype in some of the media, very few people are buying into this cult of personality type coverage: not because Americans are so wise, but simply because he’s not all that charismatic. The crowds of “millions” who show up at his speeches are actually the same few thousand people who show up for Al Gore or are willing to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide(see funny episode of Penn&Teller’s Bullshit). While I can’t imagine the American people being self-destructive enough to vote for the incumbent party again, Obama will only win by a small margin, according to all the polls, even though a huge republican defeat would make more sense than ever. So, while people are voting democrat for practical reasons, the only irrational ideology still growing in America today is religion, mainly of the evangelical variety. If you listen to what they preach (or just play close attention to Bill O’Reilly), socialism is definitely part of the package. Now you will ask: But didn’t you say socialism is dead? No, I said it has been rejected out of practical considerations. What has become clear is that the religious right in America is rejecting reason completely, and is sinking into a deeply irrational, medieval frame of mind, in which neither logic, nor practicality are considered. (that is why we have 5000 dead soldiers in Iraq, and is also why Bush has done nothing to curtail the welfare-state or government spending) What is also clear, is that the Republican Party has become the political wing of the religious right. If you look into human history, at what caused the fall of the Roman Empire for example, what brought about the Dark Ages, you will understand that the right is in fact the nightmare of anyone who loves reason, science, technology and individual freedom, far beyond Obama’s short-term plans to tax the middle class or even his plans for the healthcare system.

I'm curious on your opinion on a film I saw recently, that I found interesting. Here's a link to the rottentomatoes.com page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10008909-e...d_of_the_world/ I think you might have to watch it where you can, I doubt it's widely available. It's about Antarctica, and the researchers and workers who live on a settlement there. A lot of interesting characters, but more importantly they are doing interesting things.

Only watched the Tarantino half (Deathproof), because he always finds a way to come up with something visually spectacular, and he has interesting characters. I don't see how you could complain about it. It was exactly what one would expect from a Tarantino movie (as far as quality and message, of course, the content itself always something new and interesting). I highly recommend it, especially if you liked Kill Bill Vol. 1. I found it better than the second Kill Bill. P.S. Looking forward to his World War 2 movie. I'm sure it's gonna be just like Shindler's List

I remember seeing it a long time ago, it was very funny. I wonder though how many of his viewers got it.

I tried watching this on DVD the other day. I almost ended up walking out of my own house when Indy started running around in that warehouse, that's how bad that scene was. Anyway, I realized I could just turn it off, and ended up watching a South Park episode on the subject instead. I highly recommend it, it sums up the movie quite well in a brief 20 minutes ( they even manage to add in some of the most outrageously racist stuff ever, on an unrelated topic --- so it's not for the humorously challenged): South Park - The China Problem If you're offended, read the disclaimer: "All characters and events in this show --even those based on real people-- are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated ... poorly. The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone."

Not necessarily underrated, because I guess most critics liked it, but it wasn't talked about at all, and it really should've won everything at the Oscars last year: "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" (directed by Sydney Lumet). It's easily the best movie of the decade (which is not saying much, unfortunately) Overrated: "There Will Be Blood" --good acting, decent style, but the movie is useless-it was made just to pile on the oil guys, when there already was a campaign against them in the news. If it at least had a message that went against the mainstream, I would've had more respect for it, even if I didn't agree with it. Really overrated: "The Dark Knight"--Heath Ledger was good (considering the role-as great as he was, he's still wearing paint on his face, and using a voice that reminded me of Al Pacino in Devil's Advocate) --everyone else is horrible. Special mention for Cristian Bale, who's voice is ridiculous while he's Batman, and who is incredibly stiff as a millionaire playboy. (otherwiseamazing actor-see American Psycho) --the substance of the movie: if I didn't know any better, I would think Nolan is an objectivist who is making a parody of altruism, that's how far he takes this obsession with sacrificing the heroes for the sake of a stupid, moody mob, dominated by frivolous emotions and amorality. "Ironman" --went in expecting a great movie , but ended up seeing a Robert Downey Jr. at his most mediocre, in a movie so predictable that I had guessed the final scene to the last detail in the first 10 minutes, even though I had never even heard of Ironman the comicbook before. What happened to all these great actors? The most briliant actors of our generation are running around in front of green screens, being chased by imaginary special effects, or spewing horribly written party-line dribble most of the world doesn't even care about. I'm not even gonna bother seeing Edward Norton in The Hulk or Robert Redford and Merryl Streep in Lions for Lambs. Why even bother anymore? I'll just stick to Tarantino movies. At least in his movies everybody dies:)

I didn't see this movie (waiting for the DVD) , but I've seen almost all previous Coen Brothers movies, and they are far from "unbridled idiocy". Most of them are comedies, or at the least have a comedy component to them (I watch them all for the funny parts) , and the characters are ridiculous by themselves (hence the funny), and they tend to die in hilariously horrible ways. How much more do you want in terms of a message? If you understand their dry sense of humor, you really should be entertained by their movies. It's comedy at it's best. On the other hand, if you don't get it, and try to watch it as a serious film, you're bound to find some fault in their logic:)

Why doesn't anybody mention Fargo? At least in the comedy section, it has to be at the top. A lot of people who know good comedy agree with me that as far as movies go, Fargo is among the funniest. There were of course a lot of great movies made in the 90's: Seven, Silence of the Lambs(just because of Anthony Hopkins), The English Patient, The Shawshank Redemption, Goodfellas, Casino, Reservoir Dogs, etc. Then, after 2000, there is nothing in the mainstream that even compares to any of these. At first, I thought it was because of 9/11, but then I directed my attention towards Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, and the stupid superhero movies: the studios realized that there is no need to take any risks by making movies like The Usual Suspects, where you might even produce a masterpiece and still not make huge amounts of money. Instead, you could take a safe, cheap plot, add some special effects, and make hundreds of millions of dollars. Since the last Batman movie I lost hope completely. I think it had the second largest box-office revenue, and there's even talk of Oscars (for a movie that actively promotes sacrificing heroes for the good of an undeserving mob, and openly advocates for tyranny), while an amazing movie like "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" (the first great movie in years btw) tanks, or a pretty good movie like "No Country for Old Men" barely makes back its costs.

Criminal Minds used to be great, but in the third season the writers really dropped the ball. Or maybe I found out some new things about psychology since I last checked it out, because the last few episodes contained some ridiculous theories. Anyway, it all culminated with the episode that ended with the Ayn Rand quote. I admit, the quote fit into the theme of the episode, but it was the only good thing about the whole hour: before that they depicted libertarians as a bunch of fringe groups which live isolated from the world, in rural areas, at the end of some dusty road. Of course, like all extremists, they are all highly susceptible to being seduced by a charismatic figure, so they get turned into religious fanatics by this guy who used to be on Beverly Hills 90210. It actually had one of the members of the elite FBI team asking who these mysterious libertarians are(the third largest political party in the US, if I'm not mistaken, is called the Libertarian Party). How stupid do these writers think their audience is, that they describe a libertarian as "someone who doesn't like to pay taxes" to them?

Here's a current example of what some people in the media might describe as an invasion of privacy, but is in fact more of an abuse of power on behalf of people in government: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local...oe.html?sid=101 The main point of the article is that someone (in local government) accessed the DMV records of "Joe the Plumber" guy who asked Obama that tax-related question last week. The McCain campaign labeled the incident an "abuse of power", while the Obama campaign are calling it "invasion of privacy", thus lumping it in with everything else they call invasion of privacy. I would argue that our rights are broken the minute private information we submit to the government, to receive a driver's license, is used for other purposes: for instance made available across a network, to police, children's protection agencies, etc. Making this info so easily available to so many people in government is obviously more than would be needed for the police to protect the public. Sure, if we have public roads, we need to have licenses for those who drive on them, and cops need access to those licenses. The problem is all the activities government is involved with, that have nothing to do with law-enforcement, wich are connected to the same databases law-enforcement is legitimately connected to. If by "invasion of privacy" you (the author of this topic) are refering to abuses commited by government workers who should never have access to this type of info in the first place, I absolutely agree with you: the government should not be used to spy on people, unless there is a legitimate national security or law-enforcement related motivation.

I said it was a good point, so I wish you would address me directly. The difference is that Lieberman ran on an independent ticket, and is in favor of McCain's policies on national security. Him switching parties obviously has nothing to do with Obama's race, since he let his views be known for years now. On the other hand, Colin Powel does not offer a rational explanation as to what changed that made him switch parties one month before the election. That leads me to believe that he would like to see a black man in the White House.

Cheer up people. No one can stop progress at this point. Even if America falls, or stalls, there will always be a country somewhere that’s free enough for good people to do good work. We should be critical of the world, but I see no reason to be this pessimistic: after all, look at the rate of scientific progress in the West, and the spread of western ideas to countries that a few decades ago were in the middle ages or under the deepest communist rule: if anything, the world as a whole is the best it’s ever been for a human being to be born into.

If a piece of information is obtained ilegally, or it was obtained to help step on your freedom or property, then it should be a problem, and I think it is, in the US. (In the second ase the peopl obtaining the information are accomplices to the later crime) However, I think privacy laws go far beyond that, to where your face has to be blurred if you are filmed in public, you can't be shown on TV if you give an interview but don't sign a waver, etc. I think that if anything, privacy laws go too far. The job of the government is to protect your freedom and property, not information about your whereabouts, the way you look or the fact that you don't have anything intelligent to say when asked a question in a public place. As long as there are property laws, anything that's on private property should be protected by them.(including magnified photos, or even the view of your bedroom with the aid of a telescope, and many others:phonelines, computers etc.)--and all these are protected by current privacy laws. What you decide to bring out into a public space, or leave out in the open to be easily seen from a public space, however, should be shown on TV without the fear of a lawsuit. Why would something the lady at the supermarket can see not bee seen on Google Earth Street View for example-wich is what a lot of people are trying to shut down, and succeeding partially. The photos are intentionally blurred, to not show the faces clearly, in many places.

It looks like I was wrong. After I reread the article, I realised she was arrested for refusing to accept a citacion. If you dropped your car keys into my yard once, the government might have the right to step in and force me to return them. I did not take this argument into consideraton the first time, so I guess I dropped the proverbial ball on this one. I still think a football being repeatedly thrown into someone's yard is a different issue though, and perhaps there should be a limit to how many times some old lady has to get up and give it back. I'm still not convinced though that this is theft. I'll just have to think it through: you did convince me of the fact that it is an issue the government should decide, when it cannot be resolved between the parties. Don't be silly.

Medical research on animals definitely falls under the definition of torture( and according to you that automatically means cruelty), and it is also "Pro Life", (meaning that past research saves millions of human lives every year, and future research will save millions more no doubt). Quad era demonstratum, my friend. So now you face a conundrum: you can either come out in favor of the right to torture animals, or admit that you're full of crap, as evidenced by your silly made up definitions and logic. Any time you try to make up your own "objective" philosophy, designed to suit your personal feelings( in this case the feeling of disgust most of us have at the sight of a tortured animal), your arguments are gonna be pretty easy to counter. As you don't seem to be a PETA fanatic, there are three options for you here: 1. be a pragmatist, and allow animals to be slaughtered for food, or tortured for medical research, but put someone who tortures animals for fun, like Michael Vick, in jail. 2. Be a relativist, and say that bullfighting is OK in Spain, eating cats is OK in China, but in the US people should go to jail for doing that. An extreme for of relativism would I guess be to say animals should have the same rights humans have, just because they are alive--even though they obviously are nothing like us) 3. You can be an objectivist, and say that animals are private property, which is not to be interfered with by anyone.

Some conservative analyst actually had a good point: If he's not rasist, where are all the white, inexperienced liberals Colin Powell has endorsed in the past?

The principles are property rights and the government's limited role in society, namely, in this case: STAY OFF MY GOD DAMN PROPERTY!!. As far as the police are concerned that should be the only concern. It certainly isn't theft, since the owner of the property did not steal the ball. In fact she was probably watching jeopardy in her own house. (she also didn't obtain it by fraud unless there was a "This yard has a forcefield around it that will bounce your football right back to you" poster on the fence, and it's right next to a special needs school.--I'll admit, that's a bit wordy for a joke which isn't all that clever) It should be illegal for anyone, including the police, to enter her property for any reason, as long as no one there violated someone's right to their freedom or property. Remember the principle, as to the role of the police (and government) in a free society: arrest those, and only those, who violate others right to freedom and property. Now I'm not a fancy lawyer or a police captain, but I'm pretty sure it is physically impossible to violate someone's rights, while sitting in your house, watching TV. When you allow the police to enter people's back yards to get balls(or in this case arrest them because they felt the owner should've allowed someone on her property to get a ball) , the slippery slope argument is a perfect fit: under the same principle of "common sense" (which tells us she probably should be more neighbourly), the use of your land to build an important highway, etc justifies eminent domain. (after all it is common sense that land should be used to everyone's best interest, just as the old lady should act in a peaceful, friendly community's best interest) Despite me being the only one who feels this way (on an objectivist website on top of things), this is the right stance on the issue, and you don't have to be a grumpy old lady to believe it. You can be the nicest person in the world, who would always get up and throw back a ball to a kid, you should still stand for a property-owner's absolute right to their property.

No one claimed everyone who is rich produced their wealth themselves. (Although Paris Hilton is a bad example: she is yet to inherit what's left of her great graandfather's fortune, and she is earning money herself-sure, it's partly from getting paid for going to a party or having sex on tape, but that still is wealth she herself produced, and is therefore perfectly entitled to) The point is wealth is produced by somebody, it doesn't fall from the sky. If you have wealth, there are only 3 possibilities: 1. You produced that wealth yourself, by hard work and consentual trade, with other productive members of society. 2. You were given that wealth by someone who produced it themselves. 3. You obtained it through fraud (theft, breach of contract) or force(such as armed robbery or a government program). In the third case, it is the government's job to punish you, however in the first two cases, it is imoral for members of the govenment to even ring your doorbell over it, let alone take half your profits at gunpoint.

At least they know why they arrested him: Looks like I've found a way to commit the perfect crime: all you have to do is go to Winchester. Police detectives there are absolute morons. Oh boy, does this mean I can now be arrested for terrorism in Kentucky?

Laws are written by people, so what are the principles behing writing the laws/setting the precedents on BF/GF relationship cheating? Somewhere, deep inside the system, someone has to be acting on principle, rather than pragmatically. Please, describe that principle, or any principle related to the subject of cops arresting cheaters, judges sentencing cheaters( or ruling against them in civil court). Let me put it this way: You are saying cops act in accordance with the law, which constitutes their "principles", and those principles should be objectively derived and defined. Define them, please.

Not to brush practical considerations aside, but the police, and more importantly the judge, ought to act on principle. Describe this principle, please. On the subject of marriage: In many states (definitely NY) divorce courts do not take cheating into account. Do you believe they should?