ToyoHabu

This looks great! http://vimeo.com/101896187

The first man I thought of was Elon Musk, the first woman Miki Agrawal, I have just read her book.

Zeus did not represent an idea like Chavez does.

The question you ask makes some interesting assumptions. What is it about any product that onces it exists, makes people think that they are entitled to it? The evil is not in being the only source of a product, but believing you are entitled to the product of another. What you want is to make theft legal. As an aside, you have ignored an important fact, there are always alternatives. 1st alternative transport like rail or roads. 2nd alternative products like wood, propane, electricity, coal, solar, geothermal. In a very fundamental sense monopolies do not exist, they are entirely a fictional concept.

I think that Ayn Rand believed and I rightly so, that a political movements divorced from a philosophical tradition is less than impotent but destructive to the erstwhile goals of that political movement, because they cannot in any coherent way articulate the why. From the Lexicon Because libertarianism basis itself on floating concepts, it chases itself into absurd ideas like anarchro capitalism, Green libertarianism and Libertarian socialism. The libertarians of her time liked what she said about capitalism but rejected the need for an integrated philosphy. This is the basic reason Ayn Rand was against libertarianism

The Von Braun Astronomical Society in Huntsville has one of the StarFire telescopes, a very impressive instrument. Even if they where the only maker of premium telescopes, I find nothing objectionable in this practice. I think these instruments are more like great works of art in engineering. Do you find the practice of breaking the mold to be objectionable?

A barter economy is many orders of magnitude less efficient in than an economy facilitated by money. Barter cannot reliably do any of the functions of money namely being a medium of exchange, as a store of value, and as a unit of account. Without prices we do not know what products are in demand thus were to invest extra capital. The benefits of money are substantial and preferring barter completely irrational.

What do you mean by forgive in this context? What actions will you take if you do or do not forgive? Why do you think your knowledge of politics entitles you to How is his support of Obama a transgression against you?

Not true at all, there is a lot of work done that does not fit this definition. From Google, noun /wərk/  works, plural Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result. The primary mistake made, I think is to derive your self worth from the nature of the work you do. From the janitor to the CEO office and all the jobs in between, your work will be a revelation of your opinion of your self worth. Work is the activity we do in order to be self sufficient and independent and it is in the achievement of these that we gain a positive self regard. All of those who talk about meaningful work, and the self esteem programs in schools, have gotten the effect and its affect backwards.

The question as posed seems to have the implicit assumption that we have a right to whatever product we would like to have. No matter how awesome the product is, that someone has invented, we have no right to it. They have no duty nor responsibility to sell it to us and have the right to charge any price they want, that awesome product the make is theirs to do with as they please(insert normal cant kill me with it clause here). There has never been a monopoly not based on government force that has ever acted in the manner you describe that has not resulted in its own destruction. We have nothing to fear from monopolies in a laissez faire economy

The Space Shuttle program seems to fit the bill. Space shuttle program cost was around 200 billion dollars. I dont know what the return on investment is though.

In my experience building codes have led to less safe buildings than they otherwise could be for the simple reason that minimum standards will mean almost everyone will build to the minimum. Even if building codes serve some purpose, that is only a pragmatic defense. Also by definition they cannot be a part of any laissez-faire system.

The problems seem to be that they don't like the only non forceful remedy they have, not to stay in a building that they deem unsafe. Who decides what is safe or even safe enough? I think It should really be up to the building owner, the insurer and you the potential customer to make that determination. In the United States there exist a couple examples of private safety standards organizations, namely the UL for electrical appliances and SNELL for motorcycle helmets. One of the ways Movie Theaters competed in the early days was to advertise that they had Air-conditioning. I could see an organization like SNELL or UL making fire safety standards and certifying that a building meets them. You want my business you better have the Fire Safety Corp plaque on your front door. No need for force.

He defeats his own argument with that quote, as he acknowledges that they are in fact in competition with other entities in the marketplace. Why is this a problem? I would say that electric wires run to your house is just one method of delivering energy, there are many alternatives that would be in competition with that method of delivering energy, alternatives technologies like solar power and wind. Even natural gas combined with fuel cell technology could compete. People could also explore alternatives like purchasing less power by building more energy efficient homes and business. Large user like manufacturing could go back to producing there own like they used to.

The Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet After Boeing lost the bid to build the C-5 they turned there attention back to the civilian market and convinced Pan-Am to go in with them to develop what would become the 747. The 747 design was not the same that Boeing pitched to the USAF that design had a highwing configuration. Passengers 452 MTOW 735,000 lb Range 7,900 SM I flew in One of these as a kid that was operated by the Flying Tigers Airlines, we flew from LA to Okinawa, I thought it was the most amazing thing I had ever seen. During the flight I was allowed in the cockpit and the copilot let me sit in the seat, spectacular.

The Great Northern Railway The only privately funded transcontinental railroad over 8000 miles of track at its height. According wikipedia was the inspiration for Taggart Transcontinental railroad in Atlas shrugged

It appears the basic premise at work here is, that without force, advances in science and technology would not happen. This is an absurdity. I only need to point to major advances in technology that did not have government sponsorship to prove that. The Wright brothers in the beginning did not use government money in their research. It is true that a lot of research would not happen without government intervention, but this does not prove the desirability of this state of affairs. What the state of basic research would like under a free market is hard to imagine, but I do believe that the research and development done would be a lot more relevant to most peoples lives than is done now.

I believe it is naive to discount the threat posed by the religious right in this country. Like the communist they are dedicated and believe in the righteousnous of their cause. This is part of recent letter to a school involved in a lawsuit concerning prayers sponsored by public schools from a tea party candidate. “America is in the middle of a conflict about moral values, God and religion. Many Americans, including me, understand the value of prayer and how much prayer has influenced so many of America’s leaders (George Washington at Valley Forge, Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and Franklin Roosevelt during World War II are good examples.) On the other hand, agnostics, atheists and their sympathizers seek to use the power of the federal government to suppress the religious views of American citizens. They are our foes.” Mo Brooks Alabama's 5th congressional district

http://www.loeser.us/flags/american_note_2.html

I found this video on spanking is relevant to the judges statement "In my mind, I haven't done anything wrong other than discipline my child after she was caught stealing," Adams said. "And I did lose my temper, but I've since apologized."http://youtu.be/ONNRfflggBg

I think most people when presented with the idea of a voluntary funded government object because they rightfully conclude that no one would voluntarily pay for the monstrosity that we call the government today. As you engage in the imagining of voluntary financing government you must take away all of the things that it wont be doing like the FHA, FDA, EPA, USPS, DEA, FAA, FCC and so on. A government that is doing what it should, with enough resources to do it, would easily be financed by a nation as rich as the US. In 1900 the percent of GDP used by the US government was under 5 percent and it was still doing things it shouldn't I can easily imagine people voluntarily contributing 5 % of their income, heck many people send 10% every month to their church.

Viable has several meanings according to context, Based on your description I think this one "Able to be done, possible" fits. Using this definition, its is certainly possible to steal $50000. I would think it is not as possible as finding a doctor and a hospital and some benefactors who would be willing to work things out.

The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it. George Washington Ayn Rand did address this in her book "The Art of Fiction" her take was in essence that a person use of words reflected their value judgments on the related subject of the curse word. So calling someone a bastard implies that being born of parents not married was evil and the product of this by association was tainted. She believed this to be anti body and mind and that an objective person would not seek to use such language. I myself do not curse much and have been told that when I do people feel shocked when I do. I dislike hearing cursing and do not admire those who do. I however do enjoy Penn and Teller, but not nearly as much as I could.

I would define critical thinking as a thinking skill, used in the independent analysis and integration of an concept.

I really enjoyed Tara Smiths book "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist" She starts with rationality as the principle virtue and then builds from there with honesty, independence, justice, integrity, productiveness and pride. Tara Smith then addresses some of the other commonly held virtues like charity and in most cases undermines them as actual virtues. I recommend this book to anyone who would like a concise and well written discourse on ethics.