2046

New World Symphony is the general consensus for what the concerto would most likely have been in the book, but personally I always heard Basil Poledouris when reading about it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526972,00.html From the latest Fox News release:

Certainly, and anyone who found it to be an injustice can demand that the other person shove it, that would be perfectly fine too. Either way, it would be up to the employer to determine what is in his self-interest. What am I missing?

Thanks for the link. Dr. Brook did an excellent job of representing Ayn Rand's philosophy and he did not kowtow to the libertarians, even specifically spoke against anarchism in one comment. They didn't put him and Rockwell on at the same time, though, it was Dr. Brook + Peter Schiff with the judge.

I don't really know the details about the 18 versus 14 year old thing, I was simply going from the report that it was the 14 year old at the baseball game about which he made the joke. Perhaps it was probably a misunderstanding on his part as meaning to target the 18 year old for being pregnant / having a kid / whatever. I don't know the details of the joke, at all, really. I am just coming from a point of view that it is perfectly fine to demand someone's employer fire them if you feel like it. I think in essence we are in agreement. I see what you are saying and I don't think it's Letterman's job to not cause anyone emotional pain or that he should be sued or anything, I just still don't see why the Palins or anyone else in a similar situation would be wrong in counter-protesting against their antagonizer.

Of course words do not cause physical pain, but don't you think it is possible to cause emotional pain to the family of Sarah Palin in this way? Isn't it possible to inflict emotional pain? Certainly they would be justified in having the opinion that NBC should fire Letterman, should they choose to react that way? If I were Mr. Palin, I know I would certainly be a little upset about having my wife and 14 year old daughter being degraded in a sexual manor. Don't you think it's perfectly logical for someone to react negatively and desire a course of action in which the employers of Letterman decide it is in their best financial interest to voluntarily remove him? Noted. But nonetheless, the First Amendment prevents government from interfering with free speech. It doesn't claim that one should not have to take responsibility for their speech in a non-coercive, private context. I'm having trouble understanding why the specific principles should be applied in a corporate context, when free individuals clearly disagree with eachother and ought to be able to call upon and convince others to cease subsidation of something they disagree with, without government getting involved.

Why not? Is it just a matter of opposing personal values designated to personal taste? As in, you happened to think it was funny, as opposed to those who thought it was offensive, therefore you want to continue to watch the show, versus people who want him taken off the air? If so, why bring up the First Amendment?

I don't see a problem with the offended people demanding a man be fired, as long as the scope of their complaints do not call for censorship or government intervention. I know you know the difference between censorship and refusing to subsidize your antagonists, so why would you care if advertisers pulled out, or people decided to boycott until he was removed?

How does becoming more competitive result in less market competiveness? The only way to destroy market competition is to decrease competitiveness; increasing it increases market competition.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, I won't pretend to, but my gut tells me this is kooky nonsense. It seems like you are using circular logic: "if humans become more reliant on technology, won't humans be more reliant on technology?" How do you get from an incease in technology to humans becoming degenerated? You'll have to explain that one a little better to me at least, unless someone smarter can answer. In any event, I still don't see what this has to do with laissez-faire Capitalism. Capitalism is a social system which bans the initiation of force and where government exists solely to protect individual rights, including private ownership of all property. If you can make a case of LFC = genetic degeneration outside of strictly in your imagination, okay, but I fail to see it thus far. So, really, if you want to genetically enhance yourself, go right ahead. It's your body, your life, you do whatever you want to it. Even assuming humans were somehow genetically degenerated in the distant future, how should that effect a social system which bans the initiation of physical force? What does that have to do with politics assuming a rights protecting Capitalist government is in place? Are you saying man should be forced to go back to a time when technology was non-existent and man must be forced to survive through back-breaking physical labor, excluding any products or inventions mans' mind can and has created? This whole line of questioning, including the 'overpopulation' talk (more humans = bad for the environment) seems extremely anti-reason and anti-life. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

Excuse me. No one "justified" a nuclear attack on Iran by citing the Barbary Wars. If you had read what I typed regarding them, you'll notice I specifically cited the common ideology that ties these events together. I specifically cited the eventual response to the Barbary States as a past example of a rationally selfish foreign policy as how to end fascist Islamic terrorism, as opposed to appeasing it, blaming the West for it, and shrugging your shoulders while you claim to not see any connection between these events, which is what you are doing. Nowhere did I say that we should nuke Tehran because of the Barbary Wars. You can say I said that, but that would make you a liar. Are you a liar?

So exercise or lift weights or something. What's stopping you? If you want to genetically enhance yourself, go right ahead. I don't see what this has to do with LFC.

What about them? Monopolies are almost impossible to exist in a LFC system other than on a temporary basis (ie. if you happen to the be first one to invent something new or first one to open a store in a given area, obviously you'd have a temporary monopoly.) If one has obtained a single-seller status through peaceful competition in a marketplace and happens to be better than anything else why would that be a bad thing? There would be no way to prevent another peaceful market participant from entering the industry other than the use of force. Observe that all major monopolies in history are a direct result of government. The State is the cause of monopolies, and a market with competition will always beat out a monopoly or a cartel. Government itself is the largest coercive socialist monopoly holder in existence, where are the same people saying that's bad?

So, what you're saying is, there's absolutely no profit motive for a cure for cancer?

Why should it be different than anything else?

ARI should accept invitations to speak on whatever shows will allow them to have a professional discussion without interruption or intentional disrespect.

What part of right of admission and exclusion didn't you understand? They can request it if they want to. If the owner of that bathroom wants to, then yes. Of course they should. As long as they receive equal protection under the law, absolutely. No, they're not. Not in your world. In your world, if you feel discriminated against, you want to use the government as an instrument of force to get your way. Absolutely. In fact, there are many clubs that do exactly this. What about it? I set the rules for my private property. You don't like them? Go buy up or construct your own housing and exclude me if you wish. So? You don't like my business, my housing, my company, go buy or make your own and exclude me for all I care. God forbid we "allow" people to do whatever they want so long as they don't violate anyone's rights. All you need to know when asking yourself if someone should be "allowed" to do anything is: does it initiate force? If taking that action results in the loss of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud, then you may not take that action. If taking that action does not result in the loss of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud, then you must be permitted to take that action. No offense but maybe you should actually read an Ayn Rand book before posting. I doubt others will waste time on your posts if you don't come to the discussion prepared. You clearly have no concept of private property, the initiation of force, individual rights, or the fundamental nature of government. The least you could do to respect anyone else from here on is educate yourself on these topics before you continue.

No man, the US has an all-volunteer military with a selective service that can be activated intermittently. All the nations I listed you literally have manditory military service of some form. In other words, it is compulsory for all males age 18 to report for basic training and carry out any range of duties from a few months to longer.

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1423 This is an article written by libertarian Murray Rothbard (an anti-Objectivist) called "Repudiate the National Debt! It's the just and practical solution." What do Objectivists think about this?

1. A private business has the right of inclusion and exclusion and should discriminate against whomever they want. If I own a restaurant and want to kick you out because I don't like the color of your socks, it is my right. 2. There are no such things as "transgendered rights." Rights are individual, not collective, and certainly not genital-based, and absolutely not whim-based. 3. Government is initiating force in this instance. This is a clear example of "all your toilets are belong to Uncle Sam" and government can tell you what you can and can't do in them. Every transgendered person ought to repudiate this.

There are a lot of Western and/or semi-free countries that have or have had varying forms of manditory military service: Austria Brazil Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Greece Latvia Norway Russia Singapore Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Ukraine Italy (until 2004) Poland (until 2009) Netherlands (until 1995) New Zealand (until 1972) Romania (until 2006) Slovenia (until 2003) Spain (until 2001)

100%. I disagree with the use of "subsumed" in the question.

I answered yes. Right meaning in favor of, in the classical liberal sense, individualism, liberty, laissez-faire Capitalism, and individual rights.

I see. Specifically, they did have self-definitions as I originally stated, however I know of no deal or arrangement between the KDP (German Communist Party) and the NAZI (National Socialist German Worker's Party) parties agreeing on self-definitions. As to a common strategy, as I previously mentioned, the common strategy was anti-capitalism and to oppose democracy and abolish the Republic. I think you are picturing an actual meeting wherein both parties had representatives attending some sit-down conference where a treaty was drawn up agreeing on what to call each other. I think Dr. Biswanger was referring to "you define my gang and your gang and we both oppose any other option such as freedom without gang rule" as the mutual agreement of both gangs destroy each other and to oppose laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights, and their common mission to destroy any liberal or democratic government. Does that answer your question? As far as this left wing right wing thing goes, if I understood him correctly, he was certainly saying if you define "left" as collectivist and "right" as individualist, then all those groups that were mentioned such as fascist dictators and theocratic "conservatives" are absolutely leftist.

Yeah. So didn't I just answer your question or is that where you stopped reading?