Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aeinste1n

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/21/1993

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Interested in meeting
    fellow objectivist friends
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    I am a high school student that has an interest in politics and philosophy. I have read many works of Ayn Rand and consider myself a knowledgeable objectivist. Despite the seemingly humorless interests of ethics and debate I have a generally happy and upbeat personality.
  • School or University
    Blue Springs High School
  • Occupation
    I love politics and philosophy

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Blue Springs MO
  • Interests
    debate, philosophy, politics, computers, and chatting
  1. I personally love Colbert's humor. When I saw this segment I first danced for joy that objectivism recieved free advertisement, but then later sighed because I remembered that he only brings things up to make fun of them. As far as humor goes in objectivism, I would say that nothing that is serious and a statement of ones values can be made to laugh at. In other words, Colbert was in the wrong, whereas if he would have said it sarcasticaly like "why would anyone ever want to be interested in themselves" then this would be fine as it illustrates the truth of the principle.
  2. Thanks so much for the replies. I really appreciate it. I suppose you are right, I assumed that it would be operated in a completely rational society. The are, however, many venues for corruption. I never meant that the government would use the money for anything other than to pay for the actual prison costs. So, in that sense yes, I can see how any source of income to be generated by prisons would be against a capitalistic society. I guess then all we can do is lower the cost of living quarters and use the prisoners to help maintain the jail. As for Joe Arpaio, I don't really kno
  3. I have been toying around with the idea of a way to make imprisonment a more practical punishment. Currently, prison costs millions of dollars and is more of a punishment for the state than the criminals. Many of whom recive modern comforts. I have borrowed several ideas from a warden in Arizona named Joe Arpaio. My proposed system would be like this. First of all, instead of buffing up and raping eachother, the prisoners will be working. This prison will be less like a hotel and more like a sweatshop. I'm not so concerned for the prisoners comfort, but we won't work them to death.
  4. "The only thing we have to fear, is accessing our porn at rates slower than 3 gigabytes per second." Hmm, we invented cars, but we don't give every child a free car now do we? Oh, wait that's what you're trying to get passed right now isn't it. Really guys, really? sigh Well, if you can't beat'em, join'em.
  5. Yes, but the question is why are they altruistic. In their studies wouldn't they see that reason would favor an objectivist stance? Intellectuals are mainly altruist because that morality has been taught to them in most of the higher coastal schools, and they spread it around the country. These schools have been heavily influenced by european ideals and for that reason a more socialist european code of ethics is taught. Another reason is that most intellectuals view capitalism as irrational is because it is favored by the right. The political right (i.e. most republicans) are suppor
  6. Of course! Justice is silly. Who cares if someone is right or wrong. The evil and decietful people are the same as the good and honest ones. Why judge people, it's not like we need to determine if anyone is right or wrong. Morals shouldn't be applied to reality, that's just ridiculous. Oh, but wait. Saying that wishing to succeed is like a "parasite", that it is "wrong", is exactly what you are trying to condemn. This is the stance of a mysticist. That it is not our place to jusdge, and that morality has nothing to do with life. Objectivism condemns some as evil and some as good, if
  7. No, the republican party was not influenced heavily by Ayn Rand. Niether was America. The republican party chose capitalism not because it was championed by objectivism, or because it made any sense. The republicans chose capitalism on arbitrary grounds. We chose without reason and we aboandoned it just as quickly, which is why we are no longer followers of the free market and why we are suffering econmically. No, I'm fairly sure there are successful people that remained successful all their life. If continuous failure were ultimately unavoidable, there would no such thing as inhe
  8. Jeez, simmer down. That comment wasn't directed at me, and this is really late, but I still feel the irrational anger. A blog isn't worth it.
  9. While I agree that the war on the south was in many ways unjust, and Lincoln may not have been as much of an abolitionist as he is made out to be, Lincoln is not the most horrible person in history. There have been so many more terrible and hate-deserving people in this world. Is Lincoln really deserving of so much attention? Find someone more evil to burn in effigy. Look, the civil war was fought brutally and was not really started for just reasons, but then you would also agree that we should hate our leaders for starting: the mexican american war, the war and genocide of native america
  10. Alexander was best known for his close support and backing of his troops! He was one of the last great commanders to actually fight with his men, and he was very close friends with many of them. The high morale of his men was what allowed him to defeat armies that were much larger than his own. He was also one of the first generals to employ heavy cavalry and charging tactics with his companion cavalry. The reason he didn't invade India was because his cavalry and phalanx were ill-equipped to fight elephants, but admittedly also because he had never encountered the typhoons that whipped ac
  11. Muslim writings also say that you should be hospitible and never initiate violence unless you are being opressed. Like any other irrational belief system Islam can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. Some as, Thompson noted, are a more imminent threat because they advocate the direct use of force to achieve their goals. We use the term "radical" to describe these interpretations because they are not just irrational, they cause people to commit immoral acts therefore stopping them is a higher priority.
  12. Hmmm, that's a tough one. If democrats count as animals I think I would have to go with the Dean Scream. If not, I would say a hyena laugh.
  13. I generally agree with most of the other posts. This is not a huge deal, and you won't accomplish much with an angry letter. This is one of those let out this anger by writing such a letter, not by sending it. You need to take a calm and rational approach to this. If you alienate people they are less likely to look into objectivism. I had a teacher like this, and the best way to deal with it is to be tactful. Get on good terms with your teacher before you start argueing. If she doesn't respect you at all she won't listen to your arguements. Just mention little objectivist snips at
  14. As if animals had rights. But yes I agree, this is a small victory in the sense that something right was done. Unfortunately that's about it.
  • Create New...