BRG253

Peter Schiff is predicting that the US economy is in the early stages of a degression that will turn out to be far worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s. He says that we are likely have a massive contraction of GDP in conjunction with a collapse of the dollar, resulting in mass unemployment, homelessness, riots, rolling blackouts, martial law, etc. He's predicting that the dollar collapse will occur within the next few years and that it will be a cataclysmic event. Meanwhile, he says, emerging markets in foreign countries, especially those of east Asia, will have explosive growth and prosperity as they ae freed from the burden of supporting America's debt-fuled consumption and use their savings to consume the goods that they once shipped to the US. Not only that, but their stronger currencies will allow them to outbid Americans for goods produced in the US, resulting in little or nothing being left for Americans to buy. He reccommends that American investors protect their wealth by investing in precious metals and foreign stocks, or even moving out of the US altogether. His argument seems to rest on the following premises: -the imending collapse of the US dollar -the ability of foreign currencies to withstand the dollar collapse -America's dependence on foreign production -the ability of other countries to consume what they currently export to America I am admittedly not knowledgable enough to evalueate his claims, but his argument seems convicing. His track record of making accurate predictions based on Austrian economic theory indicates to me that he is very smart and knows what he's talking about, although that in itself is not evidence of his correctness. What say the Objectivists?

crap, I didn't see the date on that sorry

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44291

There are a lot of pro-liberty or "tea party" candidates emerging and I'm not sure who I should support. A lot of them are "Ron Paul Republicans" who believe in Austrian economics, but also hold mistaken views of foreign policy, immigration, abortion, etc., and some are religious. I unreservedly supported Peter Schiff in his senate campaign, but I didn't support Rand Paul. I havent' supported any of the "Ron Paul Republicans" in local congressional races because I'm confused about the requriements for moral voting. I'm weary about voting for candidates who may harm capitalism by mixing it with other irrational philosophies. What criteria should I use to determine whether a candidate is worthy of my support? Also, do I have to take into account who a candidate's opponent is? For example, would it be right to vote for a pro-life candidate if the democratic leadership becomes so destructive that it threatens our continued existence if we don't get them voted out? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

That would be a great metaphor actually. A worhtless president for a (soon-to-be) worthless currency.

Sorry can you clarify this statement? I think there were some typos.

This is totally hypothetical. Suppose you are sick and there is a chance that you might die, but also a chance that you will survive. You know that you might not live to pay back the money, but the credit union does not use health as a criterion for determining eligibility. Do you take the loan and consider it the bank's fault for not screening applicants more carefully? Or is this immoral?

I think if something is done in Rand's name, it ought to be good. Which the nerd-core rap videos aren't. I would be more interested to see a talented Objectivist rapper emerge. Someone with Eminem's lyrical ability, but with a more rational worldview.

The reason for the suspension was repeated moving violations, one of which was a reckless driving conviction (the conviction itself did not cause the license suspesion, the conviction in conjunction with several tickets did). I sincerely regret the reckless driving act.

it wasn't so much an option as an ultimatum

No, I'm seriously chewing it and considering the likelihood that I was wrong. I didn't agree with the specific statement in your post that I responded to, but I shouldn't have focused solely on that point while avoiding the more important ones pertaining to having done something wrong. Anyway, I now believe that you and others are correct. I did somethng wrong to get my license suspended. Government does have to impose rules of the road such as issuing driver's licenses as long as it is responsible for controlling the transportation system, and I feel foolish for having failed to understand this. Accordingly, I should not have lied to the voluteer guy, who was providing me with a chance to avoid jail in exchange for my work. I was wrong to lie to him. Thank you all for the well-deserved scolding and I shall try to try to emerge from this mess with a lesson well learned. To correct you on one point, however, if the roads were privately owned I would not have been apt to break the rules in the first place due to my respect for private property. My disregard for the current rules has been largely based on my contempt for government ownership (even if I was in error about that).

The question is not whether I have to deal with the consequences, but whether the consequences are right.

I viewed the situation as one in which no debt was owed and therefore did not consider it a breach of honesty and integrity to act as I did. I'm willing to re-consider that premise, but this is not how I would handle MOST situations in life. These actions reflect my attitude only toward this specific scenario.

Choosing to break a law you disagree with carries a risk, but openly defying the law in court is suicidal and guarantees the worst possible outcome. It seems moral to lie to the court to escape a more severe punishment than is necessary when the punishment is unjust.

Really? Is this for the reasons given above by Jake Ellison? If I am wrong, I want to realize it.

OK so I recently got busted for driving with a suspended license and was sentenced to 100 hours of community service. Since governemnt doesn't have the right to issue driver's licences in the first place, I felt that I had done nothing wrong and that the most moral course of action was to get it over with as painlessly as possible. I did the community service with a one-man environmentalist organization picking up trash and removing invasive plants at city parks. The "president" of the organization is a guy who lost his job as an airplane mechanic (before the recession) and cannot now find another line of work, so spends his days as a professional "volunteer" running his one-man nonprofit agency. He is very ideological about volunteerism and the first day I met him, he went on a fucking rant about how evil employers are and how he couldn't get a job now because he was "overqualified." Really f'd up shit. Anyway, most of the work was unsupervised, so there were plenty of opportunities to cheat and embellished my hours, i.e. report work when I really wasn't working. I spent about 50% of my reported time not working. He eventually caught me taking a break offsite while I was "on the clock" and read me the riot act. I later sent him an email apologizing for lying to him and explained my side: I didn't mean to rip him off, but I was operating under coersion and had no incentive to work any harder than absolutely necessary. Here is his response: "Attitude is everything. You wasted my time and cheated the community of a valuable service. Volunteering can be fun, rewording and educational. I suggest you find something you like to do and try it some time." This seems ridiculous to me beacause the hours I lied about required no time investment on his part. He only benefitted from the time I spent working, and lost nothing during the time that I wasn’t. Regardless of how many hours I reported, he was always the beneficiary of my misfortune. Of course, we all understand the silliness of "cheating the community." My question is: did I owe this guy my honesty since it wasn't his fault that I was in trouble with the law? The contract is that I give him a certain number of hours and he pays me in the form of a letter to the judge verifying my completion of those hours. However, since I'm operating under coersion, and he is in collusion with the courts, I think this renders the contract morally invalid. But I would like to hear your thoughts. Did I "cheat" this man out of something that was rightfully his?

I came to Objectivism from the ranks of the Ron Paul drones. I had not previously had any interest in or knowledge of politics, but as soon as I heard Dr. Paul talk about lessaiz-faire capitalism, I instantly knew that this school of thought is correct. I was able to grasp this because I had a basically good orientation with reality even though I lacked a complete philosophical framework. And when I was finally exposed to Rand, I instantly knew that her philosophy is correct. Many "tea partiers" are people just like me who are able to think rationally even though they are not philosophically literate. They are prime candidates to be turned on to Objectivsm.

I'm thinking that since the freedom movement is one of my highest values, one of the most noble things I could do would be to become a professor of economics, political science or philosophy. But what is the likelihood of being able to pull this off? With the economy decending rapidly into the toilet, universities will be slashing their budgets, eliminating faculty and making it damn near impossible to get a job in an already competitive job market. Do you think I could seriosly consider this, or is it a lost cause?

*** Mod's note: Merged topics - sN *** I realize that, ideally, one would choose his career based solely on what he wants to do. But suppose you're in a compromised situation, such as miserable long-term economic outlook like the one we are currently facing, and your ideal career choice is a risky or bad bet in terms of the job outlook. Should you go with your first choice, or pick something else which offers a better chance of getting a job? EDIT: Just to connect this scenario to the actual situation, suppose that your first choice isn't necessarily the love of your life, but is just the best thing you've found so far.

I tried a search but couldn't find anything. There seem to be a lot of people in the "libertarian" or freedom movement crowd who believe that DUI should not be illegal, and that one should only be liable if he actually harms someone while driving. What is the Objectivist stance on this?

Appearing on Beck's show isn't a "compromise."

I had a most important value, but it was permanently destroyed and cannot be restored. I nearly ended my life over it. I feel like I'm living the epilogue of my life without my highest value. I wish I had time to discover a new highest value, but it's a matter of urgent necessity to find a way to make money while enjoying life as much as possible in the wake of an utter life-altering catastrophe.

I'm in the midst of some intensive career research. I've been in school for a year and a half but have struggled badly with indecision and have not made progress toward a specific degree due to having changed course several times. I wish I could take a long period off from school to figure it out, but due to the rapidly failing economy, I feel a sense of urgency to get establisihed in a suitable field as soon as possible. So I have to make a decision based on limited exposure. Basically, I want to major in a practical field that will give me a strong chance of finding a good job after graduation. Of course, it should be interesting also. So far I've identified the following as serious candidates: Accounting: I feel fairly confident that I can do this well, and it seems like a soild, respectable career. Since it is offered at the satelite campus near my parents' house, I can save $7000 a year in living expenses by staying with them while I finish. Some say it's on the dull side, but it seems attractive because it's at the core of any business operation and an accountant can work in any industry. My major reservation is that I have no idea how this field is going to do in a bad economy. I think the accountants employed in the stronger industries will have jobs, but those employed in the weaker service economy and the accounting firms will be laid off in large numbers and flood the market. Computer science: I'm sure this will always be a very strong field and that software engineering will always be one of the best jobs out there, but I don't know whether it's a fit for me. I love using computers but have never done anything on the technical side. Seems that it would take a certain type of personality to be really good at it - a type who would never have to wonder if he was cut out for it. I guess the only way to find out whether it's right is to get in there and try it. Agricultural science: the job prospects in this field are excellent and I love science, especially chemistry and biology, so it seems a good fit, but then again it's a field that I simply don't know much about. There is supposedly a huge demand for agronomists, but I wonder, if there are so many jobs in this field, why are they unoccupied? Is this line of work unattactive for some reason? Would also require me to transfer to a different school. Engineering/construction: I know I wouldbe proud to be an engineer and their work seems very interesting. I don't know which area of engineering I would go into, but I could take a bunch of math and sciences prerequisites while figuring it out. The time frame is heart breakingly long (3-4 years). Any thoughts on these or the decision making process in general?

Is ther an objective definition of "sound?" I think of a "sound" as a percept, distinct from a "sound wave."

So would it be accurate to say that "object" is the cause and "form" is the effect?