Toolboxnj

I think this also serves for some interesting talk in our circles of what kind of justices we should individually support for the SCOTUS in the future (assuming there will be a vacancy one day ). I was very supportive of Justice Janice Rogers Brown who defended propety rights even though she was a "woman of faith" and a conservative. It's no consequence that the conservative bloc was in the dissent on this case. Does it all come down to priorites? Is the striking down of a Texas sodomy (which has no effect on me personally) really a more important issue than this eniment domain case? My reasoning says it's not, as the so-called "social" issues the court will decide on will have little bearing on my life since I peronally lead one of self-interest where I wouldn't be on death row, transporting drugs, growing medical pot or getting an abortion (nor would be associated with anyone that did/does). I will/do, though, earn a steady paycheck, own a house, own a gun.. etc and decisions like yesterday's case may have a profound effect on my life. Anyone else have these questions, or perhaps am I being short-sighted or too pragmatic?

I found an excellent article in my plodding around the Interent this morning on the subject of Libertarianism and Morality. You can read it here: http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/46/46rowlands.php

Well, good thing the plan to build The Jets' a stadium on the West-side of Manhattan was killed as it would have cost the taxpayers nearly $3 billion dollars in a feeble attempt to get the Olympics in 2012. If you want an example of the abuse of government power, corporate welfare and lobbying efforts one only had to point to that fiasco. The Giants, a team in the same market as the Jets, will be self-financing their own stadium in New Jersey which is expected to cost about $750 million. It will all be privately financed with perhaps $100 million from the state for transportation improvements. Why did the Jets need a $3 billion stadium on the most expensive real-estate in New York City? It was scary that the Jets were "this close" to getting it, as if it weren't for the lobbying efforts of Cablevision (who wanted to maintain their "monopoly" on conventions) and a couple Democrats who were scared off of the idea the taxpayers of NYC would have been royally screwed. The Mets and Yankees are also getting new stadiums without much taxpaper support. The city will only spend money to improve parks and transportation in the area, not on the stadiums themselves. And although an O'ist would not even be happy about the government spending in this area, it's a far cry from spending $3 billion on the west-side of Manhattan.

I'll check that book out. For some reason those at GS tend to be big proponents of socialism, more than other investment firms on The Street.

I found this book The Hijacking of a Philosophy : Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand's Objectivism on Amazon.com and I'm wondering if anyone gave it a read. There are no customer comments on the page, but it seems the author is of the Sciabarra-type.

I was talking about this again with some friends and said I'd probably vote for the Democratic candidate if it isn't Hillary Clinton-type. I think a strong-on-defense Democrat would take care of the WoT at least as well as Bush (who has failed miserably) and the Republican Congress would finally revolt against the massive spending and revert to being Republicans again. Dr. Brook said that the best empirical combination against growing government is a Democrat president and a Republican Congress. What do I owe to the Republicans? Nothing. The Republicans will hold the Congress for the time being because of gerrymanding and redistricting. But, as I've said again. Local and state politics has an influence on your life as well. We are having a gubernatorial race here in NJ between Senator Corzine and Businessman Doug Forrester. Not that I'm in love with Forrester, I'm certainly not. But, Corzine is one of the biggest liberals in the Senate and I'd hate to see what he'd do to my state which is already hemorrhaging because of high taxes (notably property taxes, the highest in the country) and insurance rates.

Perhaps not anything with Objectivist principles, but she seems to make a good deal of sence for someone considered to be a "conservative". Look at the opposition from the Democrats! There's something they are deeply afraid of - Senator Harry Reid even cited the quotes about how Brown called the New Deal America's Socialist Revolution. Honestly, I'm suprised she has support from the Republicans although perhaps race has something to do with it (attempting to look "Black-friendly", although I don't know.. I wouldn't make the charge). The thing that's killing me is the Republicans aren't steping up and saying "SHE'S RIGHT!" because some of the quotes I've found go against what they believe as well. Senator Frist, for example, didn't defend Justice Brown but rather gave us a history lesson on filibusters and judges. Here's a link to a liberal site People for the American Way: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12751 There's a bunch of quotes you can read. Although she may not be an Objectivist and is a conservative, I think there is a time where you have to support those that defend property rights, speak out against socialism and defend natural law. Again, there's a reason why the pro-socialist Democrats oppose her so much. Some quotes that O'ists would like: You can read others at the link above (interestingly, liberals are using those quotes against Justice Brown).

Since Fox News and the talk-media are talking about the confirmation of Brown and Owens non-stop, I thought I'd investigate the issue a bit. I found these quotes after a quick search, notably on Factcheck.org and Discourse.net. Brown: My grandparents’generation thought being on the government dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family’s honor. Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much “free” stuff as the political system will permit them to extract. She's right. The Baby Boomers will be collecting social security soon, which is nothing but a transfer program where wealth is transfered from people that work, to people that don't work. This generation of Baby Boomers can solve the social security problem once and for all: by leveraging their political power to destroy the system for the welfare of their children and grandchildren. But, because they are short-sighted and do not see the immorality and impracticality of the system, they will drive the younger workers of this country into slavery. Brown: Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is “The Road to Serfdom.” He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. -- It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people. Never have I heard from someone outside the O'ist/classical liberal circle linking altruism with socialism and collectivism. She understands that it's selflessness, "other-ism" and the annihilation of the individual that enables collectivism to exist. Not only that, but she labels big government as a drug to which the people demand more and more of it. We don't care whom we enslave, as long as we get our social security, prescription drugs, subsides, etc. Justice Janice Rogers Brown has my support, even if she is a conservative. We need more like her on the bench to ensure freedom. Even without looking into the cases she has ruled on, if she applies these principles consistantly from the bench I can find no reason to oppose her. The Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to prevent her confirmation because she links socialism to big government and big government to enslavement.

Problem is, Bush is trying to save the system. This is what Bush said about social security at his latest press conference: It doesn't sound like he wants to abolish, or even eventually abolish the system. He is an altruist, a paternal figure who believes we have a duty to help those in need - whether fellow Americans or Iraqis. The "privatization" scheme is worse than what we have today. The government will establish control over your property by giving you a "choice" in government directed investments. That's not a choice - it's like the choice between drinking poison or eating glass (hat-tip to Bloc Party for the lyrics). These securities would net about a 4% rate of return overtime. This is in comparison to corporate bonds which net about the same rate. The S&P 500? About a 10.5% rate of return (averaged over the last 50-60 years). Furthermore, with means testing it will become a welfare program which is more than a simple transfer payment. But, with the means testing they aren't raising the taxes on the wealthy (if $90k/year is wealthy in America today.. it's middle class here in Central New Jersey), but rather cutting their benefits. It's smart politically because it would actually resemble a welfare program and people might be up in arms. My opinion is that younger people (including us O'ists or students of) should pretend that the money will be gone. Worst case scenario? Every dime taken from us in payroll taxes just evaporates, and we cannot rely on the scheme to continue. By investing in property, stocks, etc you can easily achieve 10% compounded returns over the period of 25-40 years which gives you a good amount of money to retire on - social security or not. The CATO institute's mini-book on social security "Common Sense, Common Dreams" should be required reading for all. It's a wealth of info on the subject of social security, the Ponzi scheme and what the impact of privatization would be. Bush's "reform" would keep the system going. I like the analysis that if you just let the system run its course it would fall apart anyways (just like Communism would). Sure, the brunt of the impact would be felt by those of my generation, the generation which will be getting ready to retire in 2040, but that's the price I'm willing to pay for more freedom for my children and grandchildren. Also, it's funny that the conservatives are acting more 'progressive' by seeking reforms that the liberals are more traditional by seeking to keep the system. It shows there is not a drop of principle in Washington today.

What would torture give you? How would this advance your life? Only a sick, demented individual would promote the "torture" of an animal, especially if he/she recieved "pleasure" from it. Although animals do not have "rights" (as we have them), we are still guardians to some extent. Beyond which what we need for our existance (and florishment) for food, work, etc. we should respect animal life since it is part of nature.

I don't quite understand the question. An Objectivist wouldn't be against the purchase, usage or manufacture of contraceptives. Would you be referring to a Catholic that refuses to dispense such drugs? I couldn't speak for them, but if you go to a pharmacist that will not dispence a drug that you need for your well-being with a doctors' prescription you'd better find another to do business with.

An Objectivist, though, would take all the necessary steps that would promote his or her life - like keeping a couple bucks aside just in case you are laidoff or disabiled or cultivating personal relationships in which you exchange value for value . Government welfare, in my reasoning, is only something for last support. How can one oppose the welfare state, yet not make preparations in case of an emergency and then rely on the government for money? I'm going into my 6th year of working (started at 15) and have paid perhaps thousands of dollars into social security, unemployment, yadda yadda. I've also taken perhaps thousands in subsides for state university for student loans and just the lower cost of education ($25k at private uni. versus about $2k at Rutgers). So, it sorta evens out. The whole point to the essay on scholarships is that you can take the government money as a last resort since you've paid into the system (and your parents) and as long as you oppose the welfare state overall. I guess it would work for the disabiled (truely disabled, not alcoholics and druggies) and older generation as well for social security. But, as Objectivits or students of O'ism we must make every safeguard to prevent such reliance on the government for welfare because that's pro-life.

Is the government a reason for the legal shortage of medicine? Certainly, stealing the medicine through the black market - as long as it would save the people - would be moral. You are working toward life. After the theft, though, one would have to make every effort to correct the wrong; perhaps by working against the government by bringing the story to light. Just think of the people that would be on your side to help you in the effort.

I'd rather go on the current course and continue to teach and introduce younger Americans to Objectivist ideals. Nothing can be done from the top down. It all has to happen from the bottom up.

Phew, I read the quote when you mentioned "someone I debate with" and thankfully it wasn't me

Capitalism Magazine posts many articles of great value, including their sub-sections on issues like the UN, the draft and others. You're correct.. at the end of some articles there will be a disclaimer. I find that it's a wealth of useful information even not from the Objectivist point of view. Dr. Williams essays, for example, are excellent and so are Thomas Sowells even though they aren't Objectivists.

For those who are interested, I found a great resource dealing with photography and privacy. This is the link: http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/ Published there: -> Generally, what can be seen from public view can be photographed without legal repercussions. Photographs taken in private places require consent. -> Even if people are photographed in public, beware of the context in which the picture is placed (such as an innocuous photo of recognizable teen-agers in a story about the rise of teen violence). Use caution when utilizing file footage or photographs to illustrate negative stories. Special effects can be used to render the subjects unidentifiable.

I've made myself happier.. Objectivism was the tool that helped me.

I read a good piece on Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich in Liberty Magazine (I know, I know.. an anarchist rag.. but I still read it) that sounds fairly encouraging. He's not perfect (who is?), but seems to grasp personal freedoms a bit better than most others. I'd tend to gravitate toward the "blue-state Republicans" who are governors to look for 2008 candidates. Objectivists have been picking on Hillary for a while now (ever since Hillarycare). I remember a tape lecture with Andrew Bernstein where he said Hillary was "an unfortunate name" Looking at it, Rudy v. Hillary is probably worse than Kerry v. Bush. Hopefully Rudy will stay out of things (I used to like him, but I don't anymore). From what I've read, Condi Rice is more of a social "moderate" and probably wouldn't kiss the ring of the religious/Christian right.

NB, is there a specific thing that interests you more? Ethics, politics, art? The books are nicely setup to suit particular interests. There's also the non-AR O'ist non-fiction. I 100% suggest Loving Life by Craig Biddle for an expansion on the Objectivist Ethics.

Thanks for the quick response. First, the photos wouldn't be sold for profit. Second, to my knowledge there are no laws concerning the photographing of buildings at Rutgers. I studyed some 1st amendment cases concerning libel, slander and other freedom of press issues in a Mass Media Law class. There was something called a "limited-purpose public figure" in WFAA-TV v. McLemore in which someone can elevate their status from a private to public figure if they partake in a controversy voluntarily and have a prominent role in it. I don't know if it would apply to photographs like it would to libel. Well, yea. I wouldn't put it past the group. The conservatives were not allowed to have their own set-up on public university property even though they wanted to address the rising costs of education (mostly by exposing the fraud and rampant corruption in New Jersey, which is entirely correct). I questioned the organizer why they would excude the mild mannered conservatives while allowing the anarchists with their black doo-rag masks and intimidating attitudes... he had no answer. They aren't concerned with starting dialogue, but rather preaching the wonders of socialism, the "public good" and acting like smelly hippies for 4 days. (I actually walked through the tent area and it smelled like urine, old/spoiled food and trash)

Interesting: INTJ Introverted 89; Intuitive 50; Thinking 88; Judging 50 I would say that the commentary found on the score page fits me rather well. I'd be interested to see if female Objectivists also score INTJ. I think they would more than the general female population. Not to sound like a mysogynist, but I've read that women's personalities are generally more inclined to follow emotions and feelings more than men. Objectivist women, though, would most likely score INTJ at the same rate than men - the Dagny type

I am looking for someone to point me in the right direction in looking for cases dealing with photography and first amendment issues. I'm not looking for someone to give me the answer... I am more than happy to research myself. I was at a public event today at my college (Rutgers University) called "Tent State University" which is a 4-day long protest against war (in general) and for more state funding for public education. Generally, it's a week where anarchists, socialists and the like congregate in the large quad and live in tents for a week in order to raise "social awareness". Since I am interested in the covering the event for my blog I took about 100 pictures on Monday of people, signs, the tents and whatnot in order to give others an illustration of what happened on campus. There are no problem and no one caused a fuss. I asked everyone who I wanted to take a picture of (at least in front) for permission. Today, an anarchist (of all people) said that I wasn't allowed to take pictures of people even though I wasn't doing so. It says in their literature that it is against the law to take pictures of people without their consent. I found this odd, since this was a public forum where people were outside (I never took pictures inside the tents) and appeared not to be hiding from anyone. I could understand if they were in their house and had an expection of privacy, but this was outdoors. Simply taking a picture of someone, in my judgement, isn't quite a violation of privacy when it's in a public forum. I cannot imagine that sports and news photographers get their consent for every picture they take and eventually publish. So, does anyone know where to start in Constitutional Law to investigate these cases? Also, what would the Objectivist viewpoint be? Does taking a picture of someone in a public forum constitute force? I would think not, unless there is an expectation of privacy like if you were going to a public restroom or in a dressing room.

As Peter Schwartz succinctly noted at the CSPAN2 lecture (on VoS, O'ist ethics) that once you get a government that performs it's essential functions (police, military, courts) that the easy part is funding it.

First off, I'm not John Galt. I am John DeMarco. Second off, John Galt had his sites of Dagny by working in the tunnels for the railroad all those years. He knew she existed, knew where she lived and most everything about her. So, I don't think your argument has much standing. He saw the ideal; I am discovering it. And, I don't just date any "chick" that I come across; there are rigid standards I hold for the relationship to even go beyond the first date - religion isn't one of the major issues, since the nature of religion in ones life evolves and changes (as mine when I discovered Ayn Rand). My girlfriend and I share many values: we value intellect, attraction, family, our education and we both have aspriations for the future. Our familes (even extended) have been welcoming. I'll relook that section. Perhaps I took a fatalistic view on the issue, and I'll admit that. But, accepting the possibilty of failure in the relationship is wrong? I have real issues with that. We live in reality, not novels or fantasy. My mother married my father in 1980 - he was her first boyfriend, since my grandparents restricted her dating habits. She didn't know what she valued in a man, even at the age of 28 because she never dated, never discovered what she wanted. The marriage ended eight years later with a bitter divorce that has unresolved issues to this day. We "date" because we need to discover what we want in another person and when we find that ideal we are to marry, have children and live the rest of our lifes in selfish happiness. My current g/f can be that person, but I'm lying to myself if I tell myself on the eve of our one month anniversary that she's the woman I want to live with for the rest of my life. She could be and she may not be. How can I estimate what our chances of getting married are after being together for one month? I find that absurd. I can rationally look at say, until our graduation in Spring 2006; and yes, I see what we will be together until then for at least the next 15 months. But, she has aspiriations of teaching in the South at a particular military base while I plan to remain here in New Jersey for at least the rest of my working life. Maybe in the interim this will change as we grow closer. In addition, it's tacky and perhaps unrealistic to tell a woman who you've been with for a month, "Honey, I think we have a 36% chance of getting married someday". While I may have my own calculus, it changes over time. Our hour together over brunch (I remember fondly) was very tense because we're both very shy individuals. If you asked me "what is your percentage for getting married to this woman?" I'd probably say "very minimal".. but over the course of the date we opened up and realized that we have X, Y, and Z interests. By the end of the date we were so enthralled with eachother that she invited me to a family function the next weekend and I accepted. Yes, and I admit that flaw. Non-sexual platonic love (pardon the usage) is different than romantic love. I still have an issue over your objection to my limitation of potential partners because of geographic limitations.