IAMNAPIV

No, it certainly does not gnargtharst. I’ve highlighted the problems with the Free State Project. Should I go over the problems of our state legislators, or have you picked up a newspaper in the last ten years? MOST are theists, MOST are environmentalists, MOST are opposed to intellectual property rights. Some free-staters have awful philosophies. MOST state legislators do (including the republicans). Free State Project is the lesser of two evils, if you prefer to put it that way. Do explain clearly why the group that advocates limited government is worse than the one that violates more and more rights every day.

Why exactly, Betsy, do the participants of the Free State Project deserve the title ‘kook’? I take the matter rather personally because I never would have been introduced to Objectivism at my university if it weren’t for one of those ‘kooks.’ I have been watching the forums over there and I am cognizant of the fact that it’s not an entirely intellectual (or rational) environment. Some are environmentalists, some are theists, some are quasi-anarchists, and some are opposed to intellectual property rights, just to name a few (the last segment infuriates me the most since I am an aspiring scientist). Some are joining because they have a profound desire for freedom and others just want a place to smoke their pot without being harassed. This is by no means a philosophically sound organization. And supposing they were successful, their government certainly would have some serious flaws. Nevertheless these individuals are working towards a society that is pro-Man’s Rights and opposed to statism, and I believe it would be better than that of any other state. Do not get the idea that I am crying you should be more ‘tolerant’ or ‘open-minded.’ I simply do not understand your antagonism towards them. Which leads me to my second (and last) question: Supposing you would not have to move, would you rather live under a government fashioned by this group, or under your present state government, which is probably succumbing to statism? If you choose the latter, then I accept your remarks (though I would be curious as to what sort of government you would expect this project to lead to). If you choose the former, then they do not deserve your derision, and you ought to apologize.

Rhode Island

Interesting, I never thought about it like that.

The worst movie I have ever seen is undoubtedly Pay It Forward, which advocates a bizarre and thoroughly stupid form of altruism.

Not me. I wish a republican like him would run in my state so people would at least get to thinking about the abolition of welfare. Where I live the welfare state is unquestioned and I'd be hard-pressed to find any 'conservative' in my state who openly denounces entitlement programs. That is not to say I would vote for him, I would just appreciate his opening some minds on that front.

I am surprised no one here has mentioned Clausewitz. Patton, Rommel, and a slew of other military theorists are students of On War.

I can't resist adding a joke I just heard-- Mathematician’s ultimate pickup line: I wish you were x^3 and I was (1/4)(x^4), so I would be the area under your curves.

Moral_Free, out of curiosity, did you pose the question because you're studying for the GREs? I just had to write an essay debating that question.

I noticed during the movie that Euclid seems to be doing most of the work for him. Do Number Theorists spend most of their time writing computer programs and entering data?

I agree with both your arguments. And even though the philosophy of the movie was poor, I thought it was a very well done (and I love the black and white). During the movie, I was so pleased with the idea that man had the ability to discover and manipulate such an aspect of nature that Max’s downfall didn’t ruin it for me. Though, to be frank, his discovery seems rather unreasonable. I don't know anything about chaos theory, so I'll steer of that. I am not sure what it is, but it seems that I am finding more and more independent films (even the really far out ones) to be better than the usual drivel Hollywood now churns out. They don't leave an unpleasent taste in your mouth.

Has anybody here seen the movie Pi, which came out about six years ago? I am not sure it is related to this "Life of Pi" book, but I am very intrested in hearing what objectivists thought of the philosophy behind the movie.

In that case I have to agree with you 100 percent. Rand certainly proved most eloquently that a man whose property rights are being violated is a slave. And violence certainly is an ineffective means of swaying public opinion. Why, following the Oklahoma City bombing, it seemed as though anyone who even advocated a very limited government was branded as a nutcase militia member.

I did not say that that they were religiously radical or overly religious (though any inclination towards religion is overly religious!). What I said was that religion was one of their two predominant beliefs. Which, by the way, is going to make it rather difficult for objectivists to infiltrate the GOP.

We have a Republican president. We have a Republican majority in the Senate. We have a Republican majority in the Congress. Hmmm, and the last time I checked, statism is more prevalent than ever. The two things the Republican Party believes in are religion and holding on to power at any cost. This is no longer the party of Mr. Goldwater, and the possibility of converting it back is dubious at best. I feel it is best to pick a party that is not afraid to call themselves capitalists.

It seems that all objectivists are picking their candidates based on whom they view to be the lesser of the evils. In that case, isn’t the Libertarian Party the best choice? Is some of the Libertarian platform appalling? Yes. Will the party win the ticket? Not a chance. But, relative to the other parties, the Libertarian Party has the best overall record. Therefore, they are the lesser of the evils, and should be picked. Shouldn’t one be voting strictly on principle? If one party conforms most to what you believe in, then shouldn’t you automatically pick that one, regardless of its chances of success?

Stephen, could you elaborate for me on what you mean by "act now."

Apparently Moore is even stupider than once thought. In Farenheight 9/11, the front page of the Dec. 19 Pantagraph newspaper is shown, with the prominent headline "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election." However, there never was any such headline in that day’s paper. In fact, that title was used, but in a letter to the editors section weeks earlier. The paper is now seeking an apology from the filmmaker and compensatory damages of one dollar for misleading use of their paper, copyright infringement and the whatnot. Here’s the story in case you are interested: http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/n...040730034.shtml Can’t wait to throw this in the faces of all those who adore that film! Next time, Moore, leave the scissors and paste to the first graders.

Argive99, thank you very much for taking the time to settle my mind on that score. And thank you, Tom Rexton, for elucidating the limitations the founders meant with that “general welfare” clause. Several semesters ago my econ professor struck down a portion of a paper of mine opposing statism, going on about how that clause gave the left license to push forward their social programs.

Hello everyone! I would first like to say how pleased I am to have stumbled on this forum. The erudite explanations on so many matters that have bogged me have been invaluable. And it is also comforting to witness such astuteness when it seems that everyone I meet is an environmentalist, multicultralist, socialist, etc. etc. The question I have to pose (which has been confounding me for some time) is this: Why hasn’t the Supreme Court put a stop to the escalating statism in our county? Or rather, has anyone attempted an appeal to this agency lately to protect the free market? I know that after FDR’s court-packing scheme, the Supreme Court sanctioned many statist statutes, such as minimum wage laws. But now with a conservative majority, some of whom openly oppose the welfare state, wouldn’t it be worth a shot to bring about legal action versus the federal government? Why haven’t billion dollar corporations thrown any of their money at suits to protect their rights (or if they have, why the lack of success)? Is there an ACLU of sorts to protect the free market? I know that my knowledge of the workings of our government is rather inadequate, but it astonishes me that this acclaimed system of checks and balances is failing its people so awfully.