tommyedison

I doubt any amount of reasoning will be able to convert them. They are not Andrew Stocktons, Ellis Wyatts or Hank Reardens. They don't exist. You'll have a much better chance with small town businessmen.

They won't last a week. They're only as powerful as you let them be.

Looks like Bush has nominated a religious leftist (Miers) to the court. http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_09_...hive.asp#079311 The worst pick there could be. I think even Kerry or even Hilary would have made a better pick. We would have had a liberal but atleast it would have been a liberal on both social and conservative issues.

You're welcome. I don't read the playboy either. Just do a google search and you'll find the interview.

Ayn Rand also said that a boycott aka Atlas Shrugged would only be appropriate when a country virtually becomes a dictatorship (1964 playboy interview). And by that time, competent people will see a problem with the government.

According to The Guardian, in face of international consensus, the US might be forced to give up control over the internet.

Hiding it under the facade of altruism is the most dangerous of all to the businessmen, in the long run.

This is non sensical. Millions of immigrants have come to America since its founding bringing with them their languages and traditions. Yet all of their traditions melted away when they came. It happened because this country was ruled by individual rights and objective law to paraphrase Ayn Rand. When America giving way to irrationalism at a rapid pace, it didn't remain a melting pot. It became a salad pot.

I have read the article. What I am opposing is that GE is basically giving in to the environmentalists. Consider the fact that it is prepared to decrease its emissions by 1% when they would have increased by 40%. This is a clear cave in to pressure from the environmentalists and/or the govt. without a cry of protest. No it is still controversial. The average temp of earth from the 19th century to the 21st has been measured to increase by 6 degrees. The margin of error is 7 degrees. True enough. One does not do that by accepting that human beings are guilty of polluting the environment. The CEOs sure enough don't believe the rhetoric of global warming. But publicly they are accepting it. This will only encourage the environmental groups further. There is no need for them to not look for alternative courses of action. But they should have atleast voiced their dissent. They seem too happy to comply.

What I'm talking about is that Ge is accepting the no logic of environmentalists and is in fact conceding the battle to the environmentalists. Read the last quote you posted. A company opposed to the logic of global warming would not say that there is a need to clean up the environment. Besides coal is going to last for several hundred years and oil for atleast a hundred years.

GE turns Green Today it is the global warming liars. Tomorrow it will be the anti-industrialists. I can't believe how short sighted the GE is being. If they give in now, there will be no end to it. Then again, it is a consequence of their pragmatist mentalities. The refusal to believe that all actions have abstract principles behind them. No matter what comes before them, they'll think it is "practical" to surrender and "impractical" to fight.

What about Standard Oil or the Great Northern or the company run by Cornelius Vanderbilt? They were big corporations and extremely succesful until the anti trust laws got hold of them. As for GE, with a CEO like Jack Welch, I doubt GE would not have diversified even if anti trust regulations had not been there.

Really? Decades of public schools have created a situation where American high schoolers are completely lacking in math and science and quality of education is nil.

Influential my ***. People don't like a woman who associates with breast toting anti war protesters, who constantly spews out anti-american propaganda, expresses support for the murderers in Iraq and deliberately breaks the law and laughs when arrested. Lefties will suffer big time because of their association with Sheehan. Frankly I think she's mad.

so that he can be free.

According to this site, Link Due to a government fiasco and help, the speculators were able to acquire huge tracts of land, effectively creating their own cities. They brought miners from different parts of the US. Because the speculators owned most of the land through govt. help, no competition was possible. The miners who worked at the mines were always in debt to the company due to the high prices of the company stores. The company also issued its own money which could not be used elsewhere. If the govt. had not failed to protect the property rights of the original landowners, instead of a few investors owning huge tracts of lands with no competition, there would have been many investors and consequently such a situation would not have occured.

After doing more research, I have found the answer to my question. Moderator: Please feel free to delete the above two posts.

I have a question regarding the practicality of Laissez-faire. From the informations I have got off the internet, the West Virginian Mine Wars were a product of no regulations from the government. My question is: Did government intervention help create the Mine War situation?

IMO, you are getting too utopist here. According to your equation, Wesley Mouch would have eventually become a capitalist. Wasn't Hitler democratically elected? Even if he wasn't, don't buy into that rhetoric. democracy can go to war against each other. This is simply non-sensical. Need I remind you of Japan in WWII not to mention countless other wars in history? It is not. China while it has allowed for limited economic liberalism with rampant corruption, it still murders dissidents. But you see what impression this could create on a person? He might actually start thinking that the PRC system, communism + limited economic liberalism is actually a very good system. Again take Nazi Germany. Their situation in the 30s and China's situation now, IMO bears many parallels. No. America already had a system of individual rights in place. Taiwan's anti-secession bill. Veiled nuclear threats from China to USA Yeah, tell that to the Federal Reserve. I doubt it. Besides, philosophy does not consist only of economic progress.

Patently false. Economics is not a concern for war, not for people who seek power. If it had been, the Soviet Union would have turned to capitalism. The chances of war are decided on the basis of the dominant philosophy of the day. And the world is falling philosophically by the second. Peace has not broken out! A threat which might very well be sponspored by the Govt. Of China.

A power hungry Communist will never care about money if he can get power. Now are the Chinese power hungry Communists or are they non-power hungry capitalists? Their actions speak for themselves.

I agree. For now it is unrealistic. Power hungry communists will not be stopped by money. It is power they want not money. These countries could also be used by bigger nations like China to wage war against the USA. All the losses will be of Iran or NK and the USA. All the gains will be of China. If the people of Iran really cared that much about freedom, they would have overthrown their government long ago. If countries like NK have long range intercontinental ballistic missiles, they could yield massive swathes of destruction in US through EMP attacks. If they have suitcase nukes, they could use those too. A leadership no one in the US can currently provide.

You are sacrificing your full potential happiness for less than perfect happiness. That is a compromise. If she honestly pursues truth she would give up theism eventually.

Let's define evasion. Here is my definition: 1. It is the refusal to think about an issue, philosophical or not, which is of importance to your life. 2. It is the refusal to accept a position on an issue even if one cannot challenge the reasons presented. Now let us take your fully integrated O'ist. I have already pointed out why it would be immoral for a fully integrated O'ist to marry a non-O'ist. (Currently I am only referring to a situation in which it is possible that O'ists exist, not in which it is impossible to find an O'ist which is a topic for another thread) Now the fully integrated O'ist knows that the compromise will not make him fully happy and that there is a chance to achieve full happiness by marrying a O'ist. If he still marries the student of O'ism who is not an O'ist, he would be commiting evasion as he is evading the fact that the action he is performing is not selfish.

If it happens, what I think, it will be China, Russia, Muslim world (except perhaps Iraq and Afghanistan), Venezuela, many african countries vs America, Britain, other various western countries, some african and south american countries, australia. China: Communists will never let go off their power easily. Besides a large amount of Chinese like the Russians are jingoists. They will not fight for the Communists but if the Communists tell them that their country is in danger from Japan and USA and that they have a right to Taiwan, they will fight very readily. Russia: Kremlin's recent actions speak for themselves. The Russians too like the Chinese can be beaten up to go to war. Muslim world: The Muslims are barbarians. Venezuela: Hugo Chavez. He seems to enjoy a lot of populist support too. African countries: Barbaric to the root. I am not sure about India, France, Germany, Canada and the like. As for the chances of WWIII Factors which I think indicate it will happen a. Russia and China's strengthening military alliance and intensive military exercises in which they even tested ICBMs. They said it was to test them for defense against the terrorists. Now why would two countries want to fire ICBMs at terrorists. Even the Russian media didn't by this. b. Putin's power grab using Beslan as an excuse. c. The ongoing popularity of Communist leaders in Russia. d. Mad Mullahs are becoming increasingly vitriolic in their rhetoric and some are acquiring positions of importance.Link. It's pretty scary that such people are advising the PM of Britain. e. Hugo Chavez has said a number of anti-american statements. Yesterday, in the UN he launched into a 20 minute anti-American rant and according to news networks got a rousing applause.Link. f. West's weak moral defense for itself