Yes

This is the basis for my characterization of the Tea Party movement. Quote: For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs. One more jab, while I'm on a roll: Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. I see no difference between a movement which embraces the likes of Sarah Palin and what Ayn Rand describes above.

How pathetic that Schiff has to rely on the support of a bunch of right wing hippies to get the publicity he wants. I won't contribute a dime to a bunch of libertarian losers.

Sounds like a fun battle- The Tea Party hippies versus the Black Panther hippies. I'll just stand on the side lines and watch these two forces duke each other.

The news, ad nauseum, has let us know the dire environmental impact upon persons and property of this disaster that, in my opinion, could have been avoided by sound construction practices. Be that as it may, I see the "tea party" advocates taking full political advantage of this dour situation and attacking the Obama administration for any which reason they please. Already, a poll shows that 62% of Americans polled disapprove of the way the Obama administration has handled this problem. The poll further mentions that this disapproval rating is higher than that suffered by the Bush administration for its handling of Hurricane Katrina. I expect the Tea Party hippies of the right to really run roughshod with this one.

Those fearful Atlantic hurricanes went elsewhere- to the Pacific, where they sometimes are named cyclones, typhoons, whatever. Blame nature, not global warming

What is extremely important is that measures by other off-shore oil drillers be taken to prevent this disaster from ever happening again. This will involve sound engineering and logic, not government regulation, since all the government can say is that a drilling rig be of such engineering and construction such as to prevent spillage, or have safety measures to mitigate such problem. Like a building code for oil drilling rigs. The wrong approach would be to ban offshore oil drilling altogether. There simply aren't enough resources out there to supplant oil as a source of energy.

After reading this blog, I am reminded of why it is that I think that capitalism is the correct path to sustainablilty. While on LinkedIn, I was intrigued by a post referring me to a project done in Toronto which was a 55 million dollar example of how great a goal sustainability is. So I went to the Consilience-the blog website to read this article, and was distracted by another article regarding "Ayn Rand Revisited- Radical or Real?" So I went to this article and read it in full. I carefully noted that this blog showed, once again, yet another person's gross misunderstanding of the role of the individual, the capitalist, and his gross misunderstanding of objectivism and individual rights. The article was subtitled "Rand & Objectivism, a Shortcut to Extinction." Mr. Neville, in his blatant misunderstanding of Objectivism, states "Here, in my mind, is where the tenets of Objectivism and larceny overlap. If I can get rich at expense of others, then that is good, and society should allow me to pursue that form of happiness. How is that different from a thief breaking into your home and taking your possessions because he wants them for his own self-interest? If he is very careful not to get caught, is that not a good thing, too? Whether one steals goods or money directly out of someone’s pocket or indirectly through the Objectivist form of capitalism, by manipulating the price of stocks or pocketing tax-funded bailout money, it is still theft." The last statement, in this context, the equating of those who earn by production and those who take by larceny is grossly wrong. It is grossly ignorant of a tenet of capitalism in that it is always immoral and wrong for one to initiate force upon another. So, with that in mind, are the usual misstatements pertaining to altruism and how necessary it is to "share" in order to sustain. So how is it that capitalism is, indeed, the correct path to sustainability? Let's examine some of the tenets of capitalism. In general, capitalists respect the individual rights of others, and their right to pursue their ambitions. The capitalist produces for profit, with a keen eye for what the market will support. Since there is no overproduction, there is no waste. And waste is an anathema of any program which focuses on sustainability. As the capitalist respects the property rights of others, he/she is careful in his production not to infringe upon the rights of others by polluting adjacent properties with air, water, or hazardous waste byproducts. One will read these as goals of sustainability ad nauseum. The modern capitalist will actually see that there are self-interest goals in recycling materials that are indeed recyclable, as he/she recognizes that nature is finite, and that it is meant to be understood and obeyed. Government's role in sustainability should be no different than its role in protecting the rights of its individuals. Once government sets standards for sustainability, it will in fact cause the undesired effect of creating waste, and infringing upon individual and property rights. To conclude, there is no hard evidence that Rand and Objectivism will be a path to extinction. The more obvious path to extinction is the initiation of force to enforce the common good against those whose prime goal is their life, liberty, and prosperity. FOOTNOTE: I attempted to post this on my blog, but was unsuccessful.

Well, I am a business owner. I find the credit reporting agencies to be appalling. Lots of agencies rely on the Equifaxes and Experians of the world to give them the information they need for a prospective employee's credit status. That despite the fact that the information these reporting agencies have on hand is often out of date and not accurate. Given these tough economic times, it's going to be very difficult to find a candidate with clean credit. If that's a major criterion for a businessman to hire help, and not consider the candidate's track record or talent, then that businessman should prepare to spend long hours getting his work done, because he'll have trouble finding qualified candidates. One other thought- I do not think the State has any right to ban employers from doing credit checks.

I totally disagree. By taking it upon ourselves to set up a government "friendly" to us (the current Karzai regime), we have assumed that the Afghan people would unilaterally support this government and take it upon themselves to help us rid the world of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. This bankrupt approach has all but enabled the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The best approach would have been to look at Afghanistan as an illegitimate government and obvious supporter of the terrorists who staged 9-11, waged an all-out war against this nation, and fought them until they either surrendered or were vanquished. This is the traditional defense of America against the initiation of force against us, and is justifiable as such. What America has done in Afghanistan thus far is very far removed from that principle. Sadly, Obama, who promised in his campaign, to focus upon resolving the conflict in Afghanistan, has only followed the blueprint of his predecessor.

I don't fully agree. Here's why. Rand utilized this statement to help support her contention that capitalism is supported by reason. That capitalism cannot exist without reason. The pro-abortion stance is borne of reason in that reason is directly related to the living, not the potential life or the past life.

Government has no right to regulate a woman's body. The pro-choice movement ought to focus on that main principle and build any other argument around it.

Ms. Rand seemed to handle herself quite admirably, repeatedly mentioning that she does not intend to force her views on anyone, and responding in a simplified manner in clarifying her philosophy. Seems like some of her followers might want to truly embrace her philosophy and not be followers per se.

Sometimes it pays to just think outside the box The band has a cool sound. Don't let whatever your Objectivist views are prevent you from enjoying their sound.

I totally agree with your analysis of this scathing piece of crap Kline wrote. Kline is no purveyor of Objectivism. He is a mere mouthpiece of the Right.

Much of Edward Cline's sorry article is based upon supposition. He fequently cites Obama as being a part of the Chicago political machine as though Obama was born and raised by it. Thus he bases Obama's agenda as though he were the second coming of Adolf Hitler. His critique of Republicans is, in comparison, lacking. It is my view that Edward Cline is an irrational madman. Shake his hand? I'd sooner toss this perverted intellectual to the curb.

The entire discussion of Obama as Marxist is such nonsense that it has given me the impression that a low level of intelligence permeates both this board and the commentators who contribute to Capitalism magazine. I will say this, and I could give a damn whether you clowns want to flame me or not on this opinion- Obama is no more "socialist" than Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Reagan, or either Bush. In fact, he is obliged by the Constitution to uphold the law by oath. That being said, Obama has inherited the mixed governmental system of his predecessors- that which was started even prior to Wilson's enactment of the income tax, and was augmented by FDR's administration. It is a tall order to expect any president to "grow" government given the fact that no funding is available to do so. It is a great challenge to the Obama administration for them to force government to, as Obama has stated in several speeches, "make government accountable" and to force government to make those sacrifices that all of us have been forced by our individual circumstances to make.

Not so. Palin had enough of a personality and was literate enough to promote herself as a viable candidate for governor of the least populous state in the union. Based on what she said, how she conducted herself, her total lack of grasp on many issues, and what I perceived was her total lack of insight, I'd say she was stupid. Agreed.

Had you taken the time to READ my post which responds to your link, I think you would have discerned my opinion on that site. I know I myself have criticized the manner and content of how the media covered various news items. That in no way means I support government trying to control the "truth" content of the media or "balanced coverage." Both of those approaches amount to censorship. Censorship of the media is unconstitutional- don't you agree?

Dare I even look further at this site and the BS it advocates when it becomes clear to me that the author is advocating censorship? The news media is what it is. Is it liberal? Is it conservative? Is it biased towards religion? Is it supposed to report the events as it sees them? Nonsense. if we are to preserve the right to free speech, we then take each report by the media at face value and stop assuming what their job is supposed to be.

I agree.

Why is this a surprise to Eugene Robinson? Also, Mr. Robinson's defense of the progressive tax system is fallacious in that it does not guarantee that the government will obtain enough revenues to support itself. No tax system whose purpose is to support a welfare state can be construed as fair, anyhow. My point of view differs from Mr. Robinson (duuuuuh) in that I never regarded any political party to have a philosophically justifiable purpose.

OK so this post was September the 8th when the Giants (my team, by the way) faced an immediate formidable challenge in the Redskins, a team built on a superb defense. The Giants prevailed. Osi Yumenyora was hurt, Strahan retired, but Justin Tuck and others more than picked up the slack so far this season. The result is a Giants team that has all the tools to be a post-season factor. I agree about the Dolphins. They still gave the Jets a battle, though they lost. Favre has been a factor, though he's been intercepted too much for my tastes. Being a New Yorker, I also follow the Jets. As opposed to the Packers, Favre has a group of young, strong, and talented receivers and tight ends to work with. So, when playing a team with a weak secondary, the Jets can score lots of points. Witness their big win over Arizona. I like football a lot. It is a great game of strategy, and can produce many heroes. Certainly the QB is key, but he needs an offensive line to protect him, and receivers, fullbacks, and tight ends to give him pass options. Besides, I find it's a great escape from the sociopolitical mess out there.

Once again America has shown itself to be the land of opportunity. That opportunity is not limited to those of birthright privilege. I am glad for Obama being elected. This country sorely needs this kind of energy.

Spoken like the true mental midget that you are. All that you are saying here is sheer, unadulterated nonsense. I have never read a more compelling argument for a religious fascist theocracy than when I read your post. Is that what you proclaim is an alternative to Obama? Is that why you spread all these outright lies about him?