Yes

Businessmen like myself should be viewing technology as a means by which to increase production and profits. Take, for example, the old way of designing buildings in architecture, and the new way. The old way involved using drafting pencils, scales, paper, and t-squares. it was slow and cumbersome. Few projects got delivered in a timely manner. Enter the personal computer and "computer-aided design." Design ideas get translated from the mind into a computer quickly. A rectangle gets placed on the screen with two clicks of the mouse- and with some quick data entry, is accurately drawing to scale in less than one-tenth the time it takes to place a sheet of drafting paper on a drawing board. Design details can be stored, re-used, and edited for each project. The latest is building information modeling (BIM). Develop a model which contains object intelligence of all sorts. Also it can be used to represent a building in full-blown accurate color. If one's attitude is that technology is a great tool to increase production and profit, then this is the right attitude. The proper way to view technology is as a tool to increase one's production and expand one's creativity.

I have to admit, I'm with Ms. Rand on that solution. By repealing segregation laws, we are simply placing racism and bigotry in its place- as a means of disrespect for individual rights. Courts then should be able to strike down any race restrictions passed by governments.

What appears to be missing from these woe-begotten arguments about abortion is the right of the woman to her body. Government has no right, moral or otherwise, to legislate what a woman should do with her body. The decision to give birth or abort is hers and hers alone. So debate as you may about this issue, but never forget that government trying to restrict abortion is, at the very least, government laying yet another layer of regulation on individuals, and yet another wanton, illicit restriction on our lives.

i live in Connecticut. Like the rest of the nation, Connecticut is a mixed socioeconomic system, that is, blending government control and capitalism. One aspect of this mixed system that I detest is the ability for state governments to pass legislation which places restrictions on trade. One such restriction is a law meant to prohibit automobile manufacturers from selling direct to consumers. Such law was meant to ensure that consumers buy their vehicles through dealerships. Tesla wants to sell its autos directly to consumers through its company-owned showrooms. Already, Tesla has gotten in trouble for selling cars from a gallery in Greenwich. https://www.courant.com/business/hc-br-judge-rules-against-tesla-in-greenwich-gallery-suit-20181210-story.html The law that caused this ruling goes against the grain of free-market capitalism. Yet the auto dealers lobby is a strong one, staunchly defending this anti-trade law. So much for the bromide foisted by many right-wingers that America is a capitalist country!

Well, he certainly is an unprincipled buffoon. And the country is all the worse for his buffoonery. His latest is that he would have rushed into that school in Florida to take down the shooter with his bare hands. Then there are the buffoons who elected him in the first place.....

There is little doubt about the Russians meddling in American affairs, especially the 2016 election. However, there were many other factors that contributed to Trump's win. His bromides about immigration and how immigrants took jobs away from those in Middle America, his pledge to deport undocumented immigrants, his diatribes about law and order, and even his slogan "Make America Great Again"- these had broad appeal to those outside the Northeast and West Coast. I'm not so sure about the dangers that the Russians pose as much as the Trump government with its staunch defense of weapon rights, it's racist policies, etc. His real slogan should have been "Make America Toxic."

North Korea is blowing smoke. And what better target than our current president, who will spew his aggressive, macho rhetoric in response. We all know that America has the best and most advance missile intercept weapons in the world. North Korea simply does not have the technology to thwart our missile defense. Any missile launches against us would most certainly not get any farther than the Korean Sea. Talk of a pre-emptive strike by America is foolish and dangerous.

One other thing- it is sad that Charlottesville, a city rich in American history and home to some of Thomas Jefferson's most significant achievements, was the target of this shameful demonstration.

It's been argued that Trump had much to do with this White Supremacist rally. Well, he did not. However, the fact that Trump has attracted lots of them leads me to believe that these demonstrators were empowered by Trump and what he represents. And Trump shamefull did not openly denounce these hateful demonstrators and the hate message they openly communicate.

Gio, I think your analysis at the foot of this thread is spot on. Much thanks for that. That being said, I leaned towards Emannuele Macron. I actually have a distant relative in France who is an ardent lePen supporter, the basis of which is his strong opposition to the open immigration policies of Hollande, which he shares with LePen. I wish the French the best of luck with this new leader, a breath of fresh air, a supporter of capitalism, and the dose of energy France seemed to need- and here in America we sorely need!

I totally disagree! One of the most inspiring things about this book was how it contrasted Peter Keating's early "success" with Howard Roark's struggles. It was indeed Roark's early struggles that led him to the quarry in the first place. In my opinion, that was quite an omission not to at least spend the first 20 minutes of this film to tell us how Roark wound up in the quarry in the first place. Roark would overcome his struggles because of his individuality and strength of character and ultimately succeed. Having read the book, which, for me was, for the greater part, greatly inspiring, then seeing the movie, this flaw became all the more apparent to me. The movie was not lacking in good direction and some fine performances- with the exception of Gary Cooper, whose casting was a misstep (although Rand insisted upon casting Cooper). Gary Cooper came off as wooden, for the most part.

OK, having read through his posting, I only agree in small part with his premise of taxation not being theft. However, it has come to a point, ever since 1919 or thereabouts, where taxation has devolved into "legalized theft." Taxation has been used to support government programs such as foreign aid, welfare, education, among other things. This had become a part of our government "contract." As we struggle through yet another instance where we locals have to vote on a town budget, and risk our property taxes being raised, we find that the bulk of our budget goes to education in our public schools. Talk about theft! And these are taxes based upon our property values and have NOTHING to do with our ability to pay! I can go along with paying an assessment based upon my ability to pay the government for their obligation to protect our rights, but beyond that? No!

I really applaud the fact that there are ample resources for all to explore objectivism for all, including blacks. Once each of them pursues Objectivism, then it will become apparent that: 1. Objectivism strongly opposes racism 2. Objectivism opposes anything related to ethnicity, race, even gender, in its stressing individualism over collectivism. Books to read? Perhaps any non-fiction work by Ayn Rand is fair game. But first, there must be an effort to convince those that Objectivism is NOT Conservatism, NOT white supremacist, the aspects which have been wrongly spread by today's "liberals."

Nicky and Software Nerd, I much appreciate your enlightening me on this topic. As I now understand it, there are other factors that have inhibited immigration and may be responsible for the influx of "illegal" immigration. it would be interesting to see how the two candidates address this topic.

Fast forward to 2016. Dr. Peikoff's views are just as pertinent today as they were back in 2008. America has long since developed into a mixed sociopolitical system which adequately protects capitalism, yet unfortunately has strong elements of entitlement in it. The roots of such a system happened in the 1930's under Roosevelt's watch. My main reservation about such a system is that it unfairly expects all Americans to pay into such entitlement. Now more than ever, I view the Republican platform and its vociferous, bombastic candidate, Donald Trump, as an ever-worsening threat to individual rights due to their embracing time-worn Christian beliefs about those who are not white anglo-saxon Protestant men. I note with disdain the current Senate opposing replacing a Supreme Court justice, doing everything in their right to delay such appointment, in the hope that a justice who espouses Religious Right values would get appointed by a Republican president. Such bromides as stopping immigration, building walls between us and Mexico, and prohibiting abortion ring heavily in the G.O.P. agenda. I don't know about the others on this forum, but I do not want to live in a country whose purpose is to further restrict our rights. But I am going to vote this November. And I hope that my vote, along with others who vote, will put an end to Donald Trump's pathetic campaign, send him back to reality trash TV where he belongs, and cause the Republican party to totally reorganize within their ranks.