Black Wolf

That sounds like Marxism. Socialism has many definitions. Ie: Dictionary.reference.com says An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. This doesn't seem contradictory to socialism at all, really. In fact, everything you mentioned in this quote is an example of mixed capitalism, which is what you mentioned before. Mixed capitalism is defined as a combination of capitalism and socialism. And Stalin? Slapping Hugo Chavez? For what? Why would Stalin be mad at Hugo Chavez, for any reason other than perhaps rivalry of dictatorship?

This country is a prime example of socialism's failure. Our country is not so bad, because conservatives are protecting it from getting worse

When you say that health care is not a right, it means you do not believe the government should provide you with health care. When you say that health care is a right, you are saying that I have a right to a doctor if I stuff my face with fat, and continue to do so complication after complication When you say that health care is a right only if there is an emergency that was out of your control completely, you are saying that health care is a right some of the time, not all of the time. That is unacceptable. Either it's a right, or it's not. So which is it?

Why do people accuse Rand of starting a cult, anyway? Do they think they're funny and clever? Or is this seriously a concern of theirs? - People would describe a cult as a society in which the leader brainwashes their people. - Ayn Rand, however, did not encourage brainwashing. She encourages us to use our brains and think for ourselves. She encourages you not to start with fantasies of political systems, but to start from metaphysics, and come to your own conclusions about politics. - People would describe a cult as a movement in which people are to commit suicide for a God. - Ayn Rand was against suicide ethically, and she does not believe in a God. - People would describe a cult in which the leader uses fear to retain it's people - Ayn Rand did not care if you turn away from her writings. It's your loss, not hers. - People would describe a cult in which the leader encourages nothing but absolute agreement with them - Ayn Rand actually disagrees with modern objectivists about subtle things, due to lack of full understanding of objective reality. Homosexuality is a notable example. You do, however, have to agree on the five branches of philosophy: realism, rationalism, egoism, laissez-faire capitalism, and romantic realism.

I really stopped caring about all of the rumors made about Ayn Rand. That she doesn't like black people (the only black characters in her story were mooches and theives) , that she told a member of her organization to divorce someone if they couldn't convince them to become atheist, It's a shame, because I really do want to know the truth. But it seems like nobody can really attack Ayn Rand's arguments, so they attack her instead. And it does not even have to be true. I really can't see how anyone would think she's a "Wicked Witch". I saw her interview with Phil Donahue, and she seemed very intelligent and respectful of people who disagreed with her. But when she feels insulted, everyone is quick to accuse her of "not being able to disagree with others". Like when one member of the audience said "I used to be a fan of your writing, but after being educated a little more...", how could that woman not possibly realize what a personal attack that was? It seems like the same thing is happening to HTWW as well (Lee Doren). Nobody can respond to his arguments, so they instead accuse him of making sock accounts, of being meean to people, of "Deleting his comments because he can't handle criticism", etc.

Or that Glover has one.

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/A...ry/1422589.html What exactly has Obama done to deserve a musical? Seriously? I mean, the Nobel Peace Prize, I could forgive. They gave it to Arafat and Kissinger. But.. a musical? Really? And in a country that should have learned it's lessons about worshipping statists?

Can the Interstate Highway System be considered a national defense need? Can it be argued that it's necessary to move troops around in an efficient matter?

Just to point out that you quoted me as saying something that I believe threesixty said in the second quote.

And how did they do that?

I'm against minimum wage laws, becausei it's pointless it is. I can either volunteer, or get paid a "living wage" whether I need it or not. I'm a 20 year old who's still living with his parents, what if I want to work $2/hr? I can't. But yeah, there is a legal way for employers not to pay you a single dime! Here's a hint: if you're not an employer, you're doing it right now! One argument I've encounterd is that it helps the economy to have a government defined living wage, because if everyone can pay for food, it will put money back into the economy. This makes the assumption that everyone will get hired, it makes the assumption that the cost of food won't rise, it makes a lot of assumptions. How much were people being paid before FDR decided what the pay should be? (25 cents). Also, notice how much the minimum wage inflated since then.

Well, if they burnt your house down while you were in it, then it probably wouldn't matter it this point. They killed you. The property of yours they destroyed would result in a longer sentence, maybe, but.. yeah. The house wouldn't be counted as a life that was ended. If they killed the fetus and the woman was still alive, then she could sue the other person perhaps for something more than property. Like, touching her body in any way without authorization, for one.

I was always unsure as to why Ayn Rand wanted War with Iraq over oil, and why many objectivists say so. Accoridng to Ayn, Iraq stole the oil from us. When did they do that?

Fetuses are delicious. But I'm curious, certainly if the woman did not consent to the baby being taken out of her, she should be charged for.. um.. property damage? Or would it just not even matter at this point, since the woman is dead.

Then perhaps I should say that left and right are adjacent to both individual liberties and statism

I think he is saying that those on the rights are mostly campaigning for the most statist aspects of right-wing philosophy. I don't think he's saying that being radical is a bad thing, except in this case, the left and the right are middle-of-the-road philosophies in their own right.

I do remember my Western Civilization professor talking about how the Five Year Plan was a marvelous success, if you ignore all of the people that died as a result of it. But since I don't know what point Chomsky is trying to make, I can't say what the fallacy is.

http://www.westonaprice.org/The-Ethics-of-...dical-View.html Here the article argues that what it takes to feed a vegetarian, it takes several times as much to feed an animal, to feed a human. The problem with this argument is: What will the animals eat? The author of this article makes a case for the killing of animals, for if you want animals to continue to exist, they will still have to eat.

That's not what I said. Challenging the deterrence in the death penalty =/= Implying lack of deterrence means that death penalty should be removed.

I haven't been able to fully understand Nietzsche's philosophy, but it was certainly a new take on morality. Only problem is, instead of challenging the notion that altruism is good and that looking out for yourself is bad, he attacked the notion that morality even exists. His philosophy is that there is no good or bad, and that's a dangerous philosophy in itself. If what I gathered from his philosophy is true, anyway. Particularly, it seems as though he would be indifferent to either the master or the slave morality

Hahahaha, or the various "white collar crime CEO's" that liberals keep complaining about. Their needs of food and housing were met, and they had the money to bring their kids to college, and they still committed "crimes". Of course, in all fairness, half of those crimes were "Avoiding heavy regulations on industry".

Perhaps I hoped that if someone was advocating a system that even most brainwashed people who "thought it was good in theory" realized how horrible it was in practice, that they would at least bother to look presentable. Part of that means not being way off about objective reality that a public high school should have taught you. I guess not.

Well, he was implying that throughout the 5 million years that humanity existed, 25,000 of the most recent had classes. I doubt they're referring to the trophic levels. I guess this person just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

I'd still like to know how the person who made this post found out that "classes" existed 25,000 years ago, which predates the earliest known part of the neolithic revolution

I've had wondered about the self-interest regarding dying to acquire true laissez-faire capitalism. No state rights, and a constitutional amendment of separation of economy and state. I know there will be a lot of reference to politics in this thread, but the main issue is ethics. Let's assume, somehow, that as a result of your life ending, for whatever reason, an amendment gets passed stating that the government shall not establish or disestablish the economy in what you hope to be at least two years. On the other hand, if you choose not to end your life*, you still have the same amount of regulations placed on you, economically and politically, and it's unclear when you'll ever see the day without end your life* = not through suicide, but perhaps you have known about a planned assassination attempt, and you attend anyway. But let's not assume that you don't survive the assassination attempt. Let's assume there are only two choices in this situation. You die, and laissez faire capitalism that you'll never get to enjoy becomes constitutionally protected. Or, you don't die, and laissez faire capitalism is not achieved, and you continue to live in an unfree society. Which decision would be the most ethical?