Lucio

Maybe what you perceive as an opportunity to learn, is perceived by your friends as an insurmountable problem. Get your IQ. (http://iqtest.dk) If you're above the median, then you must learn that you have a world-view that is different from your friends. Keep that in mind and do not think that everybody sees the world as you do.

Yes, you're right. It's underground, but with "light and space". Thanks. The identity of the character is kept in the dark, but not the scene.

The cafeteria was underground, and Galt sits in a dark corner, at least in the scene where Eddie reveals to Galt that DT and HR were lovers.

I see the fact of not showing Galt's face as to be consistent with the book. Galt doesn't even "talk" in the first part. When he's talking with Willers you only get a glimpse of the questions he make, when Willers repeats them. I have a image in my head, from reading the book, of a dark 50's cafeteria, the ambient denoting economical depression, and so badly iluminated than you can't see Willers's interlocutor.

Are you sure that the problem is how she looks? Questions: What does her skin tastes to you? How can you describe her smell? Have you had sex in the dark?

http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html My two cents: You can create wealth, let's say you assemble a MP3 player, but if you can't sell it in the market at a price above your cost, you're not "making money". I think "making money" means creating monetizable whealt in a market, vs. just "creating wealth". Another two cents: Gold is wealth, and, if broadly accepted in the market in the form of coins, is ALSO money. A Federal Reserve Note is only a medium of exchange, it's only money, it's not wealth. Fiat money is the biggest magic trick in the history of governments and economics, It's so powerful, that 99.99% of the "audience" can't even "see" there's a trick.

So there are some forms of blackmail that involve force? Cool down. I didn't make it up, it is a paragraph form the link included in the post. Again, cool down and look for the definitions of the terms. Blackmail DOES involve coercion.

OK, You're rigth. I was just exploring universal affirmations... Using objectivism definitions, all rights violations are immoral, but not all immoral acts are rights violations.

If it is immoral to initiate force, you must stop aggressors with guns. Then you're enforcing moral behavior with guns. I wrote "(objectively) immoral" in order to use the term "moral" as defined by objectivism and of course differentiate from any definition of moral that includes a "soul". You didn't read "(objectively) immoral" or it was not clear enough? (fair question, not rhetorical)

"Fraud" it is immoral and illegal and does not require explicitly "initiation of the use of force". Please re-read Dante´s argument. By Blackmailing you're extracting a value from an individual by means of a threat to destroy another value. "Give me money or else I'll cause you harm" http://www.atlassociety.org/cth--775-Force_Fraud.aspx Ayn Rand wrote that "To violate man's rights means to compel him to act against own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force." ("Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness [paperback], p. 111.) ... But in Rand's mind, the scope of force was not limited to the blatantly physical: shooting a man, tying him up, burning his house. She (like most people) considered force to include threats of force: pointing a gun at a person and declaring, "Your money or your life." And she termed "indirect force" such actions as unilateral breaches of contract, fraud, and extortion

I believe Dante's point settled the question. It's objectively immoral => It should be illegal in an objective gov. On more general terms: Is the following affirmation true? "In a Oist gov, all that is (objectively) immoral should also be illegal"

I agree. But when it's cheaper to pay for the eventual accidents, the most common scenario is the mine owner's falsely claiming to the workers that "there is no problem, nor serious risk" (committing fraud), since "There is a serious risk of death" it is not a good marketing slogan in order to attract workers. So, to hold the owners accountable on their claims of working conditions you need some form of legal documentation, and you (as a government) can/must force him to sustain the claimed working conditions (to avoid fraud). That's a needed form of objective regulation. Also you'll need some kind of inspections in order to check periodically the working conditions. (it can be done by private agencies). As a worker, you cannot work AND assess the working conditions at the same time without loosing productivity. Note: I'm playing Devil's advocate here.

That's a good question. Free market requires failure in order to separate good products from bad products. It's ok when you're talking about apples, but it is not ok when the required failure imply deaths. For example, bad doctors in a free market will be discovered -after- they kill a few pacients. In this free market doctors regulation/deregulation case, there is a response: Doctors qualification can be handled by private quality assurance companies, and patients can choose a "qualified" doctor from a trusted qualifier. But, in the case of coal mining... What would be the proper oist position? What if it's cheaper for the company to pay for the eventual deaths than to pay for the safety measures? People buying energy, can choose one company over another?

How about http://www.freestateproject.org ?

100 is the median, but what 132 means depends on the "standard deviation" of the test used. For example, in USA, a SD of 15 it's normally used, so an IQ of 130 imples the 98th precentile, and is required to join mensa. In UK, (the original mensa tests), a SD of 24 was used, so an IQ of 148 was required to join mensa.

Aclaration: I was referring to the specific part of (1986) Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act mentioned in the article, not to the Dem healthcare plan. Yes, I mean that we should lobby for tiny positive changes, using reason and philosophy, instead of scaring people by asking for huge changes repealing a law so hospitals can refuse care in an emergency setting, based on ability to pay. That's not asking for "the moon". Asking for the moon is admirable, quixotic. This is not. We should not support it. It is not reallistic and hurts other attainable goals. Anyway, the law (I guess) does not say that emergency treatment should be free. I'm lobbying for more flexibility, pragmatism, gradualism, to get objectivism (or some of it) to mainstream.

From the article: Forum poll: Who think that a proposal to change this law, let's say a law proposing that hospitals can refuse care in an emergency setting, based on ability to pay, would be approved an cheered by public opinion? Another question: If objectivism is about using reason to analyze and understand reality, avoiding evasion, shouldn't we be more pragmatic in certain situations? When accepting middle-ground is an advance, it's in your self-interest to accept it?.

That someone is a stupid he said: "you cannot own yourself" "life cannot be owned"

"If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, widespread death would be the consequence" really? Wikipedia: Libertarianism has generally come to be associated with propertarian minarchism or a general tendency to reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) the role of government in the economic and personal realm. This definition of libertarianism is the most influential among the general public I see libertarianism as a friend, socialism as the enemy. It's stupid to declare war on libertarianism (as defined above).

At least they are direct and crystal clear. "there is no such thing as objective reality" The editor looks like a character from an Ayn Rand unpublished novel. They're saying: we have a side, and we will choose what facts to report in order to advance our agenda. Better this confession than to claim they're objective and reason based.

Why are you so sure they "WILL" find out? There are lies that never are discovered. Everywhere. If she gets adopted, and moved away from the family, maybe told their parents died in an accident... Much better than growing with this shit, even if she's coached. In this case, ignorance is bliss. Put this two situations in the balance, a) knowing this shit thru adolescence B.) being an adopted-my-parents-died-in-an-accident child Wich one is better to give this child an opportunity to develop a strong and stable mind?

It's unexplicable. Goya (the town where it happend) is like a samll rural town, near a river, like Tom Sawyer's St Petesburg. He was 56 ys.old, she was 22. I guess the guy was mentally ill. "Global warming" is just an excuse, could have been Nostradamus, 2012 Maya's predictions, the rapture or anything else. I hope nobody, never, reveal this history to the baby.

Time Will Run Back, by Henry Hazlitt Non technical http://mises.org/books/time.pdf

You can simply stop considering religion relevant. If you do not actively talk against it, your current friends and family will not freak out. They're trained to ignore reality, so, unless you force them to deal with your enligthment by confronting them, you can continue with your life and let them discover gradually your changes.

Congrats on your journey. Great for a 22 year old. On a side note, how did "anime" entered the thread? He said he was Chinese not Japanese... On the syntactic corrections, I've seen "tired" when you mean "tried" Nice to have you here. Good Luck.