Randroid

Thanks. I'm still at the beginning of Atlas Shrugged, and I think you just ruined for me. Well, not ruined, but I won't be able to get that out of my head.

Okay, it's probably been said before, but I'm gonna explode unless I weigh in: Jennifer Garner as Dagny Taggart.

What's wrong with it is that those ideas are presented in a quite favorable light, despite being irrational and morally wrong (redundancy intentional).

Yuck. I haven't read the book, is there also a presentation of Objectivism in there? Ha! Good one, eh? I kill me! Seriously, maybe something about Adam Smith or anything favorable about capitalism at all?

Thanks for the clarification, that was really helpful. Makes a lot more sense to non-Lituanians now. I like your fairy tale, excellent work.

If you were found guilty of an actual crime (violation of another person's rights), and if during your due process it was found that you are not sane, involuntary confinement to a psychiatric facility is an alternative to incarceration in a prison. Only if you committed (or were apprehended during commission of) a crime against another man are you the dangerous kind of nutjob. Otherwise, you're just excentric.

If anyone is unfamiliar with the rendition of Galt's Speech by XCowboy2, here is his YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/XCowboy2 He is currently working on version 2.0 of the speech, which IMO is a great improvement, but only part two has been published so far. Version 1.0 ain't shabby, though. Check out the playlists on his channel page.

That's one reason not to use the phrase that I had thought of, but that is the way it was used in AS. In our world, the meaning is slightly different. When we see the widespread stupidity and depravity of our society, it's easy to feel helpless, but those who ask this question know that A is A.

If not, why not? I'm in no way implying that you should! I would, however, like to know: If you have decided against it, what were the reasons? Are there good reasons not to do that?

D'Oh! So obvious... well, hindsight's always 20/20.

I agree with John McVey and Zip that this proposal creates a whole bunch of perverse incentives. That said, what does "LFC" stand for? A search of several acronym directories turned up nothing that would fit the context. Thanks!

Thirded. Plus, she could have taught me some Russian.

Excellent point, softwareNerd.

A dictionary does not necessarily need to have authority over any other, although one that has the quality you mentioned certainly has advantages over others. All it needs in order to facilitate communication is an agreement of both parties to defer to the definitions given in any one dictionary, whether you settle on Webster's or Oxford's doesn't matter. In other words, yes, words can have different meanings in different contexts. Both parties need to have the same context, or dialogue will be much more difficult, if not impossible. Agreeing on a dictionary (i.e. context) (and, as you point out, some are more agreeable than others) saves one the trouble of defining the meaning of words from scratch.

Of course it should be based on reason. However, reason, in order to be communicated, needs a medium, i.e. language. There is no way to deduct logically the One True Meaning of the word "gift". In English-speaking countries it means present, in German-speaking countries it means poison. Who has the one, true, logical meaning? It's much more efficient to agree to accept the authority of a (any) dictionary and go with it than to pull a Clinton and endlessly bicker over what the definition of "is" is. An argument need not and should not rely on the authority of a dictionary. Your use of language, however, can and should do so, if only for practical reasons.

I have to disagree. More rewarding? Maybe. Less practical? Definitely. A common language is a necessity for efficient communication. Dictionaries exist to codify language, to establish a standard that both parties can refer to. To basically re-invent language every time you start a discussion is unnecessarily cumbersome.

I was a libertarian before Objectivism. As such, the adaptation was smooth and easy.

It's only a bland cracker until it is magically transformed into human flesh.

How can the clerics say that the chocolate Jesuses were tasteless? I'd wager they tasted like delicious chocolate.

"If you don't think your life is worth more than someone else's, sign your donor card and kill yourself." - Gregory House, M.D. I just had to share that.

I know, I wasn't implying that it is intrinsically altrusitic, just talking about my personal experience. To me, children never were a 'value' - all the reasons that people gave me for why having children is great just never made sense to me.

I never wanted children, I just always knew that I was too selfish for that. Didn't have a problem with that, either. I remember a conversation with a former co-worker about my non-existent desire to have children: That was long before I read anything by or about Ayn Rand. It was just obvious to me that neither I nor my hypothetical children could gain anything good from me reluctantly making a huge sacrifice by having children I would have resented.

I know, I'm just saying it should not be used carelessly; it was not my intention to imply that you were using it in that way.

You should be very careful with expressions like "[...] except as prescribed by law." My country's constitution is riddled with that phrase, and it effectively nullifies the very rights it refers to. ETA: What does LFC stand for?

I love the acronyms. The last two paragraphs are best, but I can't quite put a finger on what's missing in the others. Maybe it's that I doubt many will recognize it as satire, despite the title.