CWEarl

Objectivism doesn't believe anything. People have beliefs. Put simply, a race to the top is worthy of admiration, while a race to the bottom is not. A good reality show celebrates accomplishment, while a bad one celebrates mediocrity.

I can't tell you what the Objectivist position is but I will say that it is immoral to execute the innocent. As the innocent are sometimes convicted, I cannot condone the death penalty.

This rings of leftist thinking, wherein something is so important that people must be forced to pay for it because they wouldn't do so voluntarily. Of course, this makes no sense at all, but it is the basis for even Conservative politics in Canada. As a result, we have compulsory tax funding for public broadcasting, the "arts", and healthcare. It's amusing to watch politicians accuse one another of not caring about these values if they are unwilling to force the populace to pay for them. The obvious question is: if it's so damn important, why can't it make a profit?

I would

And, here's why Capitalism is so misunderstood: the notion that it involves using the government's coercive power to accomplish goals. Meanwhile, I am training to be a developer and, later, an architect with Fountainhead as my greatest inspiration. Wish me luck.

Ego. Beautiful, shimmering ego.

Frankly, I find questions like this somewhat troubling. While Objectivism provides a philosophical framework for man's relationship with reality, it's not a belief system dictating what its followers ought to like or dislike. I do guess that Ayn Rand would dislike a great many reality TV shows whose subject is the degradation of human beings (Shot at Love, Flavor of Love, etc.). But she would probably like the ones that celebrate human achievement like The Amazing Race. I'm not sure how to make such an evaluation. I think Big Brother is awful. I'm not interested in what happens when a bunch of trashy people are forced to live together.

You're probably just in the Matrix

It's become clear to me that the debate over global warming has become so politicized as to make it nonsensical. It's not a debate over findings in climatology, but rather a debate over what political fringe will do more harm.

There's a great socialist doctrine at work here: preserve freedoms by limiting freedoms.

Well then, let's have it. Show us this argument.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side.” Han Solo "The truth seldom lies, but when it does it lies somewhere in between" Christopher Hitchins

This web site, http://www.conservativeforum.org/authquot.asp?ID=74, claims that the quote is Heinlein, taken from Omni magazine in 1079. Edit: Er, make that 1979.

I'm in Ostlandet.

Of course, it was the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas they clipped. That's why it was funny.

Maybe they should sue car makers for not producing a car the blind can drive. Now, there's a goldmine! Imagine! Starting a lawsuit because a company doesn't cater to your demographic. Disgusting.

Giddy-up. If it's mine, I should be allowed to sell it.

Except that the question isn't whether or not it's moral to sell someone else's organs.

I kill the other hostage. If I am freed, I find a way to destroy the kidnapper - preferably via legal means.

Wait, isn't Capitalism the sacrifice of all values for money?

Indeed. I grant you that. But I was offended by his opening reference to dogma and the notion that freedom is a matter of consumer options. When I think of freedom, I don't think about how many cell phones I can choose from. I think of property rights. He belittles the concept of freedom. I don't see the need to waste my time on it.

It took me 1:19 to decide that this guy is an idiot. By three minutes in, I got angry.

Bingo. Just about every day I am annoyed by someone on the television claiming something happened for a reason, or something is a miracle (think of the "Miracle on the Hudson"). This is the main (but not only) thing that makes Oprah unwatchable, for instance.

Right. And automobile manufacturers make profits off a lack of transportation. Food producers make profits off hunger. Producers of clothing make profits off of nudity. Home builders make money off homelessness.

"Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done." That's truly puzzling. As usual, someone who challenges Rand resorts to misrepresentation.