Space Patroller

This points to a common misunderstanding of Socialism. Under socialism. there is a heavy governemtn presence in the means of production (industry). I say "heavy" rather than complete "onwership" because it varies from workers' paradise to workers' paradise and from time to time. Beyond that property rights vary from minimal to nil. However Socialsim is just one form of the Welfare State of which redistribution is the major economic goal. It is in this respect that John Maynard Keynes considered himself to be in the capitaistic camp. However what he was was an atavism; a throwback to the pre-capitalist system of mercantilsim. This all stems from the fact that "capitalist" preceeds capitalism. and they were the "money poeple" of the mercantile era c1550 Hobbesian England to c1800 when companies were chartered by the governments; "Royal Charter"s and had monopolies in their fields, such as the London Company. The shortcomings of mercantilism were what led to the American war of Independence of 1776. The name "capitalism" was sort of grafted onto the system that evolved out of mercantilism since the system of liberty engendered the free flow of capital to the areas of highest return rather than to places directed by the monarchies. Marx never saw capitalims. Ironically, he believed that the most promising country was the United States. In Marxian terms, "capitalist" and "bourgeois" are very different from what they came to be in the real world post 1870. In fact, it is capitalism that meets the stated goals of wealth spread and greater input by the bulk of the population in the command structure of the economic system by the creation of common stock and mutual funds that marshal small individual amounts of capital into larger systems with these small inputs coming from the populace at large rather than a specific rich class. This system also attenuated the severity of socio-economic class differences by facilitating upward SES mobility and the "all ships rise with the tide" effect. The "harsh conditions" of the 19th century about which we moan and groan were a paradise compared to preceeding ages; the fledgeling capitalism inherited the conditions of previous eras, as well as we inherited the advances that they engendered.

Looks like a refugee from the "Bits and Pieces of Ayn Rand' era (c1976-80) which was their equivalent of "Going Galt". What makes this semi-plausible is that they echoed ideas that many of us first came upon from Rand so there is a connection of sorts.

No; THIS is "Chairman Rand" http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/randquote.html Submittals are welcome. I don't know how I can give proper credit. I guess I can do a credits page and link to it from the bottom of this page. They have to be quotes from Rand If I may suggest, How about making those rays in different colors

what do you mean "trying to be clever"? Since when do I have to try to be clever? What I meant was that he got the point, as deomonstrated by his reference to Orren Boyle types. The purpose of content is to make the point. The purpose of style is to make it personal and/or put some oomf behind it to drive it home with force and vigor. Otherwise it becomes plodding and eyes glaze over. Besides which, persons would be surprised at the affinity between Objectivism and "old 'neo-tech'", which upon first encounter sounds a bit oxymoronic and I didn't know that this had a name but I like it. Many of the (then) hippest ideas in sci-fi, like the Xylophone and "ray screen" mirage generator, which were very au curant in SF, show up in AS and the archetechtural style in THE FOUNTAINHEAD is futuristic. That and some of the allusions Rand made in her essays lead me to believe that she was one of us at heart. Who can argue against the idea that ANTHEM would be classic post-apocolyptic material today? I'd bet dollars to Denebian donuts that the golden age of Objectivism (c1965 to 1978) was fuelled to the greatest extend by the "space cadets"* of the 19i50's who would be in the 19-25 age bracket in '65. You have no idea what a phenom the "spacement" were. I was priveleged to be part of that http://spacepatrol.us/firstpage.html Sondra Marshak of STAR TREK: THE NEW VOYAGES was one of us. *Actually, there are 3 kinds of us based on which TV show you were a biggest fan of . "Space cadets" were Tom Corbett fans, "Video Rangers/Space Rangers" were the devotees of Captain Video and Rocky Jones; Space Rangers. the Space Patrol fans are simply "Space Patrollers" although we were pretty much fans of all of them. The big rivalry was between us and the cowboys whom we regarded as representing the past while we were the future. If you get the chance, look on the cover of AMERICAN WEEKLY from very late 1952 or early 1953. It says it all. This later became a close affinity since we were all champions of the same ideas of moral absolutusm and what started as a celibration of the Old West acquired, through the good offices of Jan Merlinn, a large contingent of space cadets and is called the Williamsburg Western Film Festival and Solar Guard Cadet Grand Reunion.

HURRAY!! Somebody fianlly gets it! The remark about "Objectivist School" is a reference back to the title "Big Business: America's Persecuting Minoity" . It is a take on the Essay in CtUI "Big Business: America's Persecuted Minority". Objectivists have been too cloase to the Wall Street establishment; too ready to defend them over the years for my liking, Probably because that is the presumed home of "American capitlaism" while, in fact very many of them have gone over to the other side. when Greenspan started writng for Barron's, I was a bit hesitant: Torn between thw opposing thoughts: Was he going over or was business starting to see where its interests were? That was in no way, shape or form meant literally. What I meant by Daffy Duck (D) MA (used here as the archtype of the collectivist/statists and party hacks) "can't stab me in the back" is that I've got my eye on him (them) and am watching them like a cat. The Big Business establishment purports to be, gives the appearance of, or is ID'ed with capitlaism and is therefore, ostensibly, worth our defending and then they go about promoting the ideals and actions of the other side. There is a remark dating back to at least the 19l70's: "The trouble with socialism is socialism; the trouble with capitalism is capitalists" Judging from what Rand wrote in "The Pull Peddlers", I conclude that she was in favor of banning lobbying entirely. Also see http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/07nov.html Thanks for putting it back on topic.

The point is that I was addressing thing that Branden castigated Rand for not believing. Did you see me reject the notion that life evolved? What I, and others, reject is that the choice is between Darwinism and creationism. In fact I've seen theological material from the 1200's that held that "things go from teh lesser to the greater..." As for ESP et al to show how bogus all that stuff is use http://console.spacepatrol.us/bsboard.html This is basic stuff and one would expect a trained scientist, especially one who shoots his mouth off, to know better. In this case, would it be better to be though evil or dumb? This was listed in the Hazards (of Objectivism; while at the same time, trying to appeal to Objectivists [scratches head]). They do not pertain to Objectivism in any way. Thereefore it was part of a package deal. If he wanted to attack Rand for some antiquated attitudes that's one thing (and why wait until she had passed away and was unable to make a rebuttal or racant? THAT is evil). Now she was wrong in many cases. Hypnosis is real, I assure you and I stipulated that it was presented in a certain way at the time. However she claimed to be neither omniscient nor infallible so why castigate her for being a person of her time and try to tag Objectivism with it? all they amounted to were personal quirks. My point is that, given these antics, Brnaden's credibility is precariously close to fallign into the crapper. It may not make him totally wrong; even a blind sow can find some mash, and the question of evil, well, the jury's still out, but it does make him suspect. and does not augur well. That's my point.

What do you call a tex-and-spend democrat who gets the rules changed to suit him that runs as a Republican? Mike Bloomberg. What do you call the Republican Party? Stupid. In fact, David Brudnoy used to call it "the Stupid Party" which he picked up somewhere. You would think that having been beaten by letting the lines blur between them and the 'crats, the Republican'ts would learn, I mean, I only get kicked in the groin once. But guess who these clowns are letting use their party brand to run for his dishonest third term. There's something about fairyhoppers that brings out the mean streak in me.

Thank you for the compliment. If there were shame or anything needing forgiveness in ignorance then each of us would be a woefully shameful being since we have long passed the time when one person could know all the knowledge in the world. A question asked is a light being turned on in a dark area so that the Law of Identity can be brought to bear. This is a 3-part story 1) The type of disability is this. One eye is dead. the other sees but at 1/14th the size of things and with a somewhat restricted field so it's like a world in minature. I was born totally blind but got some eyesight at age 20 months so I am told. When a child turns 4, he can go one of two ways; remain a child or turn into a kid. To understand what I mean. If you can find it in ROMANTIC MANIFESTO, read what Rand had to say about children and building blocks. My blocks were worn out by the time I was 5. at the spacified time, I turned into a kid (by the time I was 5-1/1, I'd caught my hand in the wringer and nearly dumped a truck in a ditch both from imitating what I saw grownups doing. I loved seeing things that flew of their own accord, Airplanes were a joy to see. I remember when I was almost 4 when I would hear a plane, I would run out to see it. In the early Spring of 1952 at about age 6-1/2 I saw on a TV newsreel program called "Time Marches On" the now famous clip of the rocket taking off wht the camera pointed back at the Earth. This blew me away and gave me a bad case of the Space bug. then came Space Patrol and that's where we are when I turn 7. 2 Eyes on the Prize and Where there's a Will, there's a Way. I was reading but mostly large print and some regular print if I was motivated. Well, LIFE and COLLIER'S magazines were doing articles on space. Now one gets tired of FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS and NEW FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS as Dick and Jan'w world expands. But now we're taling serious Spaceman stuff. I used to have these cheap little plasitc maginfying glasses that were stronger than the big glass ones. I started by reading the text under the pix then the text of the whole page with the pix then moving to pages with no pix. By the time I was 8-1/2 I was comfortable with all-text pages and foind the mag glasses to be cumbersome and dispensed with them. The leitmotif of my life became self-development. Because of what was not known about me I was not taught the usual tings like catching a ball (at whicn I never got any good) but when I was 9 I could throw an object with deadly accuracy if I could see the target or enough of the target to discern where it was. My interest in science was as a means to an end. 3 If Galt can't Go to the Mountain, then the Mountain Must Come Tko Galt. The only problem I have with web pages is the black on white creates too much glare since the page is backlit and not using reflected light and the pointer matches the background color. In Bio lab back in 1972 I became aware of the Darkfield Microscope. Most microscopes pass the light from under the stage and through the slide and the specimen. Darkfield technology uses a black background and lights the specimen. This is to reduce eyestrain at medium power and long use. If I could duplicate that then it would be no problem. Well In FireFox and IE, there's Options/Internet Options in the Tools menu. Find Colors, uncheck use system colors and let page select colors (disable page background and text colors), then go to the Select colors, set the bacground to black, the text to whate and chose the link and visited link colors and there you are. If I want the page colors and backgrounds, which I use when writing a page I go into Tools, Options. colors and check Let page select its colors and when I'm finished I go back to my usual page setup. I can pretty much read regular text I use in text size 10 to 11 and font size=5 and I'm there. If you go to Productivity and the Space Patrol Power Console, worth having on its own mertis, and read the part about Accessibility you'd get better insight (a term which we must replace with some Politically Correct phoney word, since it is an implicit sightist slur against Persons of Blind:) ).

Well, now that I'm getting squared away and settled in. I think I'll use this thread as my personal comments thread. I am greadually filling out more and more of my profile and will avail myself of the decographical doodads here as time goes on. I believe in transparency. Understanding is the application of the Law of Identity to a person, place or thing. I have a large and solid ego from 40+ years of Objectivism. I plan, ceteris paribus, to expand my presence here. I might become the 800 pound gorilla. I get disappointed when I look at profiles and see practically nothing. I'm of the belief that if you don't speak your mind, you have no mind to speak of. The means by which ones speaks one's mind here is the profile. If you look at mine, you know exactly with what you're dealing and what you're getting. Here is the scenario of a cautionary tale (or tail, as the case may be): "Granny, does the kitty scratch". "Why no child". Two minutes later: Rwwwffff! Rrrippp! "Waaahhhh!!! You told me the kitty didn't scratch". "Well, you DIDN'T tell me you were going to try to pull his tail off. Now did you?"

What a blowhard Branden is: 1) Rnad's distrust of the new is probably well justified. Even if you don't know the ins and outs. we're all eqpuipped with BS dectectors. In philosphy, it's called "conatural" and means "goes with being a grownup" e.t. "If it sounds too good to be true; it is". When I hear the crap that hss come down in psychology, mostly about stress and self-esteem since the Revisionism of 1978 I understand her point. When I see the way things in medidcine change every 5 years, I'm tempted to say, "Hey, come back when you get it right. If you ever do!" For how many years was Pluto a planet? Now a bunch of Eruo-Weenies get together in 2006 and change the street signs again. Short Attention Span is endemic. 2) The "theory of Evolution" is in fact a hypothesis. As of 1974 it was stlll being discussed as a non-settled issue. Petr Beckmann rejecited what is commonly called "the theory of Evolution" in the latge 1980's. The reason is that "The Theory of Evolution" is taken to mean Darwin's theory. The real kicker here is that in 1975 or 6, Rand wrote in her letter titled The Missing Link that she had a hypothesis that the "range of the moment menality" is the "missing Lin". It also appears in either PHILOSPHY, WHO NEEDS IT or THE NEW LEFT: THE ANITI INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Now the rest of the stary; from SCIENCE DIGEST 1983 in an article titled "Was Early Man Schizophrenic", a Dr.Jaynes located the defining characteristic of man in the rational faculty. I hope I don't have to explain the connectin to "The Missing Link". 3) Given the understanding of hypnosis, especially before 1950 and how it is portraayed, one could hardly blame Rand for not buying it. Granted she was wrong but hindsight is better than foresight by a damnsight. 4) We are supposed to take ESP and that kind of stuff seriously? Nathaniel? What's next alien abductions? Majestic 12? shadow people? fairies, elves, demons and "nature people? Why don't you just fill in for George Norry on Coast to Coast? You'll fit right in. It's been a fact for some times that the "scientist" is easily fooled and ends up falling for what a conjuror like the Great (James) Randi refutes in 3 minutes flat. e.g. Uri Geller: He had everybody buffaloed until Randi showed that he could do all those trick on demand. 5) Science is by nature conservative. We don't rush headlong into accepting novel ideas. Remember cold fusion? We've been knoked ass over tea kettle too many times. Any more Hazards?

I believe it was Hunter Thompson who said "Anything involving alcohol and firearms can't be all bad". Now if you thow in about 4 girls. I'm there for it! BTW; no designated drivers. Whaddaya think we are; a buncha fairyhoppers!

Futurerama? We had this attempted by one of the villains on Space Patrol in 1953 If this is "Obama's Mr. Bruns" Ithen you must be slowing down: Not one of you have mentioned his skinny girl arms or made fun of his genitalia:).

Tey reading it in the context of the enumerated material. Failing thattry expanding either your horizons or your mentality The person before you seemed not to have a problem. with my main propositions

I'm on Yahoo IM as space_patroller_laser Sorry it took so long but I did put it in my profile.

In the fall of 1972, my best bud, also an O'ist like me, brought home some student newpapers from MIT where he was starting his first semester as a grad studnet in Physics. There were four of these. What we found in the first 3 was the usualy left-wing crapola and the College rag itself. Well, we get to the last one and its title is Ergo. (Latin; therefore). So we're ready for a real hoot. I open it up and looking at the first page, I almost died of shock. Staring up at me as bold as brass cajones is "Basic Principles of Objectivism". Well from then until 1984, when it went out, I was a loyal reader and subscriber. It was the training ground for Ron Pisuro (Second Renaissance; mid '80's) Robert J Bidinotto and Gary McGath and was part of the Golden Age of Objectivism. Here is the Google search page http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...amp;btnG=Search So that you can get an idea Here is the Bidinotto link from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bidinotto#External_links I would dearly love to get some of those folks back together. Another from the Golden Age is Kerry O'Quinn, a founder and editor of STARLOG http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+o%27q...lient=firefox-a Last I heard, he was doing a theatrical version of ANTHEM, which he told me would be quite a ride, saying that because it was so short, he had to add material.

Awright you guys, just what the hell did I miss? If I missed a good melee I'm going to be very angry and you won't like it when I get angry. I'd rather fight with a gun than a missile, a knife rather than a gun, a club rather than a knife (I can do the job more brutally, slowly and painfully that wa) and my body rather than a club (there's something about a bad guy that brings out the apex predator in me. Rand always regarded the evil as pathetically helpless; that says "prey" to me. After I finish ripping out his throat, I stand over the body and purr). What, no feline emoticon? And Ayn Rand did so love cats! Besides, I kind of resent the Humanist bigotry. What stars have you been to? Kitty Lib: We want freedom and we want it meow!

I like the reportorial neutrality that the quote has, really let's people make up their minds without prejudice, right? Well, the world is talking about "Going Galt" and the NY Times is circling the drain hot on the heels of the Boston Globe. Why should I complain about them disparaging Objectivism? We should help them along. If they want to make fools and corpses of themselves, don't let them stop on my account. In fact I'll gladly pour gasoline on their self-immolation pyre.

Not to disparage any one or thing (nor will I allow myself to be disparaged: I've fought; and wone, too many battles and have moved beyond what concerns many here), but we've outgrown the dollar sign. It never really was an official symbol that I recall, more like a brand (if you saw it somewhere, like ERGO or the old New Right Coalition: 1970) you got the message. Like Mopsy, it "just growed". First, as a monetary identifier, it is limited in reference. It links to a free mind by the concept of free trade which then links to Reason etc... It is the end of a chain, not the beginning. Second, having it's roots and definition as a monetary identifier. other uses add too it which multiplies the meaning which adds confusion. or rather, more confusion. Third, it has other cultural meanings outside the economic realm. Therefore it has "baggage" that does not pertain to us. Fourth, it is not of our own design so it is not unique to us. Corollary to that is that it is not fresh. Beyond that, capitalism is not the essence of Objectivism, nor is it the end all and be all. It cannot be since it is not an irreducible primary. Given this, I think it's now time for a logo more than a symbol. I have gotten into the rudiments of its design elsewhere.

How about have sold us out at warp 10? This didn't even take into account how Big Business has been promoting the Green slime. and this is the "honor roll" of business like car companies such as GM, and General Electric and IMB taling about a "smart planet" Maybe some day, they'll go on strike. Ya think? It'd be a great idea for a science fiction book although, given what I see in real life, it would be more like social fantasy. I'm beginning to feel a bit sorry for Al Qaeda. They thought that the Twin Towers, being the World Trade Center, read Big Business on a global scale, was a "symbol of American capitlaism". They missed the mark by almost a century. Poor deluded madmen. Actually, they're not that mad. It's just that this is what you get when you mix mysticism and integrity

Those "seeds" were aberrations, not the norm. If you look at our founding documents, "they speak of the inaliable right to life, liberty and the puruit of happiness" and the mission "to ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity" point to something written into our identity as a nation whereas the previous nations had been founded on ethnic, cultural or geographical terms or some admixture thereof. our principle of being was the ultimate truths of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason. That's what I mean by the lessons that we wrote. So we know what is explicitly stated. We were put on the right track with knowledge, intent and forethought. Now it is true that nature sides with the hidden flaw so there's always that. But what we're finding is that we are becoming out of phase with ourselves. This cannot be by accident and therefore must be deliberate, like 3-1/2 generations of those who know better telling us we are a democracy. The fact that the first act of the destruction of our economic system was called "the "NEW deal" and so forth. There is no doubt that in 1955 we knew what we were. Had you lived when I did you would know that. We were the "Shining City on a Hill". That was the leitmotif of the future civilizations presented in the "space cadet" shows of the 1950's and especially Space Patrol, in which it was made close to explicitly clear with "The United Planets of the Solar System". The TV version of Flash Gordon, made in Germany and France, set in the 32nd century spoke of "The United States of Earth". We were the envy of the world and the model for it's future. All countries think that what they do is right by their own standards and culture. Do you think that the Arabs think that Sheria Law is evil? So that dones'n make us unique

Been watching CONgress over the past few months? That's becomming a difference of degree, not of kind There is one big difference. They have yet to discover it and are not nearly as oppressive as they were 30 years ago, when I was alive and looking at this sort of thing. What's our excusez; Alzheimer's?

While I don't know about Finland, I do know that many of the semi-socialist countries avoid the "capital gains tax". Notice I said "semi-socialist". Besides which, when was the last Fino-Scandinavian manned trip to the moon? How long did the Norse last in WWII? Do you know what "Finlandized" means? I understand the rate of drunkeness is apalling in these nations. When was the last time you ever heard of a "great Swedish Industrialist" which used to be common? How long has it been since France mattered? Do you know that the fifth largest economy in the world is a single US State? Beyond that. these are tiny, homogenious nations where everyone pretty much wants the same things so whether or not they used the government for those things may be just a matter of convenience. Even in a cpaitalist country, an official may use his "good offices", the respect he has earned in a non-corrupt way, to get things done on a voluntary basis by acting as a high-profile magnet for like-minded persons. A;sp tje government is not the geographically (and socially) isoloated entity it is here. It was much the same here before the politicians turned against the folks. Besides all that, I just wonder where we're getting the data of "successfulness" anyway? In line with that, the next time President Obama goes to and from Europe, he should go by boat. Now it might be a bit hard to get on the waiting list for reservations for his return to the US but he'll have plenty of room on the trip from the US.

What few persons realize is that much of the leftist agenda comes from Wall Street as well as Washington. 1) Binny & Smith a few years back put out a set of Crayola crayons of different "skin tones" called "Multi-cultural" 2) Verizon includes in it's bills something called Extra, a kind of newsletter. Some four years ago, it anounced it was supooritng financially "multi-culturalism" 3) GM has been a big supporter of socialized medicine in order to escape the financial consequences of some of the mediclal "bennies" that it put in it's contracts. 4) If you look at the support for the health and safty naziism that we are being served up daily you find the insurance companies in it up to their necks. If this is what I can remember of what I've seen, and the Third Rule of Psychohistory is that you only see 10% of what's going on, do you really want to think of the enormity of the betrayal? In fact the biggest enemies of Capitalism have not been the two-bit cafeteria socialists who have less credibility than the Easter Bunny or the parrots they imitate. It's been the members of the Fortune 500. They have the bucks to back the bullshit so I don't know who's worse. But I do know who the traitors are. One thing Rep Daffy Duck (D) MA can't do is stab me in the back. I'm beginning to think that we should simply find ways to benefit from this dog and pony show since they all suck and would sell us out at warp 10.

The problem here is twofold. 1. The Well-to-do tend to support this kind of crap. Rand used to tolk about the "socialistic rich" 2. Google up "Brain Drain". Income taxes are not aimed at the persons of accumulated wealth (too many of them are liberal) It is aimed at the high earner/high achiever. This happened in England in the early and middle 1960's and the US benefitted handsomely Well there's a pack of hungry Tigers elsewhere who will be happy to accept our unwanted wealth-generators. "Communist" China is becoming the biggest stealth switcheroo of the century. learning the lessons we wrote and are forgetting at lightspeed in the biggest case of national Alzheimer's since 4th and 5th century Rome. Zhaing Galt, anyone?

The first is Social Security. According to Warren Brooks and James Dale Davison in the middle 1980's. On a class basis, Age correlates with wealth aoccording to the US Censuns and that has held over time. Without a means test, Social Sccurity is Walfare for the Better Off. Poverty is by and large a youth movement. The Cigarette Tax. We are told that this goes to fund S-CHIP. In a law passed by the DemocRat controlled congress. This no reaches into the middle class and can cover "children" of age 30. This is a tax targetted at the poor and working stiff. It is also apporved by Neal "Boot-in-Boca" Boortz along with the Soviet Union of the Seat Belt. These are examples of upward transfers of wealth perped by your favorite Liberal Moonbats. A fine example of robbin' hoodlum law: Take from the poor and give to the rich I've heard of several millionaies voting Dem to keep Medicare up and running for themsleves.