Iudicious

If we can get a majority in Norway (which won't be that hard - it's pretty small), I don't think it'll matter that much if they speak English or not. Should I wait for us to establish a political party, or should I join the gullpartiet?

Name: Iudicious Region: Norway, Svalbard Just joined. Worked and trained today. I guess my character will eat automatically? He's at wellness 48.

So I'm about to join, but I'm kinda lost here. Where exactly should I be putting my character? Which country/region?

He can say that. But there's a difference between saying "I don't know why it shouldn't happen" or "I don't know why today should be any different" and saying "I know why it will happen" or "I know why today won't be any different." The man who says the former doesn't know that things won't change tomorrow, as he has no proof for why they won't. The man who says the latter, however, knows for a fact that things won't change tomorrow because he has proof.

Can a second-hander such as they are make their place in reality, except through the exploitation of others? They cannot participate in this job or pleasure of being a person, for they cannot create. They rely on others to do so. I really understand what you're saying here, it struck a note with me. I've had a few things that I've been passionate about, and one of them was space exploration and the uses of space. I view space as the next frontier, just as America was once the next frontier. To see anything except an Objectivist world taking it would seem wrong to me, and only in an Objectivist could the benefits of space be reaped properly: On an individual or business level, unrestricted by the government, open to everyone who works for it. By the way, I like the Telstar playing in the background. I'm not ignoring your post, Thomas. I just don't see how I could say anymore about it - you're right. And I don't think it's "too early" for their rise - such people would fit in in any time, so long as capitalism existed. The real question is when is it time for such people to "shrug"? Is that even possible anymore?

Someone totally different. Funny though: As well as having an article about "the future of capitalism", they also had an article about "the future of work". The latter seems a bit more competent though. That's the worst part of the article to me! It's certainly bad that they want a Socialist system like what Obama is creating, but to call it Capitalism? They want to do this evil, without ever recognizing it for what it is. They want to cover up the atrocity they're committing by giving it the same name as the greatest, and only morally correct and effective, system known to man. They don't want to understand the nature of reality. If one such as any of them understands the nature of reality, they'll realize that reality has no place for them. These people aren't the best and the brightest, they're just the least outstanding and the least precise. None of them have any real opinion on anything - they can't even understand what they themselves are saying! They say they want a capitalist system, and at the same time call for the very things that kill a capitalist system. The best and brightest are the ones who are seen the least in the media, or at portrayed positively the least in the media. Hundreds of years of progress will go down the drain because of people such as the "best and brightest" according to Times. So long as the men and women who make progress, the ones who will ultimately enable space travel, are restricted by an anti-capitalist, anti-intelligence, anti-wealth system, humanity will stay planet bound. In some ways, that may be for the better - give these "best and brightest" the ability to exploit space, and who knows what's possible so long as they exist.

An online link to the article: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages...1898072,00.html A few quotes from the article: "It was clear among many of the founders of capitalist that there had to be a moral foundation. What happened is that capitalism was reduced to Ayn Rand-ian selfishness. We need to recapture the principle that you do well, but in the process of doing well, you give back." - Arianna Huffington "The system as a whole is still working. But for capitalism to have a future, it needs to survive. What are the REGULATORY MECHANICS that will ensure that in 100 years - in 500 years - there still is a system?" - Stephan Schuster "I believe there is a role for the government to play in evening the playing field and investing in development. We need to invest in the future and invest in the global good. Capitalism is not just a free-for-all, every man for himself." - John Legend It sounds a whole lot to me like what they want is the exact opposite of a capitalist system, but with the name and support of a capitalist system. Thoughts?

The biggest problem I have with Objectivism, although it in no way makes me not hold Objectivism to be true, is one of the problems Peikoff listed. In softwareNerd's post: "He might conclude that he is not really a good person because he does not have a central purpose in life, and while he likes various things, none really interests him enough to make it his life's passion." I have no central purpose as yet, I have nothing I live to do. I'm passionate about many things, but I'm not an expert at anything, nor am I compelled to live my life doing any particular thing. Nothing interests me so far. The first two conflicts listed in the post make no sense to me. A philosophy is meant to define one's life, and as such it's going to be harder than living without a philosophy. Without a philosophy, one can do whatever he or she wishes with no guilt. With a philosophy, we must force ourselves to do what is right, which is often in conflict with what feels good. To live life rationally, though, one must not base their decisions on what feels good, but instead on what serves your long term rational self interest without disobeying your morals. The third conflict listed in his post, where some may feel that Objectivism has no use in normal every-day life, has failed to do an essential part of the process of adopting a philosophy - applying it. Objectivism has little use if not applied, and there's no more important application of it than to one's own life. Once one realizes this, and begins applying Objectivist principles to their lifestyle, most will find that their life is greatly altered. I think that adopting and applying Objectivist principles to one's life may be difficult - but that is no reason to not do it. Many of the rational decisions you have to make in your life are difficult, and doing the right thing is often far more difficult than doing the thing that feels good or that others think is right.

I'm only 15, so I was exposed early. My journey was a relatively short one, and began not too long ago. Just a little background first: My parents are both Christians, although rather laid back. I've gone through financial and family troubles through my admittedly short life. My parents were once rather deeply in debt, and my dad took to the bottle and had a heart attack, a stroke, and a number of other problems that made him even weaker to alcohol. We soon found it was his life or ours - so we kicked him out. My dad came back a little less than a year later, and was kicked out once more. When he finally came back again, he was clean, and has been clean for several years now. The whole crazy ordeal somehow led to my parents gaining a stronger belief in God, while I myself felt completely alienated from Him. I, of course, thought it was all my fault that I couldn't hear the voice of God, that I couldn't believe the bible in full, that it simply didn't make sense to me. I was lost. And now the actual story: I entered an advanced program as a freshman at Lakewood High School a little less than a year ago, and this alone was probably the greatest choice I've yet made. I was assigned an English teacher who focused not only on teacher grammar and examining books, but teaching students how to think reasonably. I entered high school believing a philosophy that basically went like this: the moral responsibility of a man is first to his species (humanity as a whole), followed by his varying levels of community (country, region, state, county, city), followed by family, and then finally followed by himself, essentially putting the self at the lowest level aside from animals and insects. On the other hand, I had always believed that reason came first above all else. Objectivism was, obviously, a very large contradiction to my beliefs, but it wasn't too far of a jump due to that final belief: that reason comes first. All Objectivism had to do for me was show that there was an error in my reasoning, rather than having to convince me to use reason in the first place. My English teacher at the time, as I said, focused on teaching students how to think reasonably, and he told me one day after class that I should pick up a book: The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. He had exposed me in class to many of Ayn Rand's ideas, so I was already interested. I found the book, and read through it rather quickly. It wasn't that hard for me - I found that, after re-examining my own ideas and looking at Ayn Rand's, I was wrong. I still didn't wholly agree with Ayn Rand, but I was introduced (as I think The Fountainhead has done for many people). I picked up Atlas Shrugged of my own volition not long after, and it at was this point that I found myself re-examining, once again, the old ideas I still clung to, and once again replacing them with the new. There are still some things I'm unsure of, as I've not even been exposed to Ayn Rand for a year yet, and I've found myself in disagreement with one or two of her ideas, but as a whole, I find Objectivism to be brilliant. Once I picked up on the ideas, I started noticing things I had never noticed before as well; the way many people held the same ideas I once had, the way the schools I've gone to all my life have been opposed on an almost polar opposite level to Ayn Rand's ideas, and other things like that. I've found that I've introduced a more conscious process of thought to the way I live my life, and I think that's the greatest thing I've gained from the whole intellectual journey. I think that I may have eventually come, on my own, to believe many of the ideas that I hold now because of Ayn Rand. My beliefs changed constantly before Ayn Rand, all except for the belief in reason above all else, and I think that would have eventually led me in the right direction. But I can't say with a straight face that I would have been able to reach the beliefs I hold now in full without those books, at least not this early in life. Also: "I was also questioning my religion, which led to me dropping religion and becoming a deist, which lead to me becoming an atheist about two months later." This man went through very close to what I had gone through, religion-wise. I at some point considered myself a Deist (before I entered high school, but after I got over not hearing the voice of "God".) I don't think I can call myself an Atheist, as I believe there is a "first cause". It's the only logical belief to me, that there MUST have been something that came first. But the common idea of a "God" is far behind me. There is no evidence to show that a thinking being decided on a whim to create us all, and further watches over us and all the such. My own process of reason tells me though that something must have come first (Cause - Effect). I'm not sure if Atheists hold the same view or not.