Inspector

That's pretty simple: the line is drawn at the initiation of force. The reason we despise libertarians is because we know, both from philosophic proof and from experience, that they will not hold to their principles and they WILL betray, undermine, and destroy capialism. If somehow, magically, they could be trusted to uphold capitalism, then we would be fine. But there is no magic: A is A. Knowledge is heirarchical, as are values. If they do not hold the values required for Capitalism, then sooner or later they WILL betray it. (That's the short answer)

For the record, while I would say that Capitalism Forever is totally mixed up on the specific issue that this has turned to (income), I would also say that the proper attitude has been presented here by RationalCop, Argive99, and Stephen. Godless Capitalist, you've drunk a bit too much of the feminist kool-aid.

I'm surprised you didn't mention a certain clumsy Frenchman...

We got that all the time over on a board I administrate. There are ways of finding people out...

I may not be an expert in the field, but I am pretty sure that our thoughts, while being electrical signals, aren't RANDOM. Was I wrong about that?

I'm halfway considering having Stephen call me to do a phone troubleshoot, since I did those for a living before my employers ran out of money. As a start, in I.E, under tools-internet options, and under the privacy tab, could you have Stephen click "edit" under Web Sites at the bottom and then click "remove all" in the box that pops up, then "okay" out?

It's good to see that there are other "real men" out there. I will throw my sanction to the statements above this post that were given by RationalCop, argive99, and CapitalismForever. I've spoken extensively on the subject over at CapMag forums, using basically the same viewpoint and ideas as above. Interestingly enough, that discussion also came from an off-topic tangent from a thread entitled "homosexuality." Unfortunately, since it was off-topic it was deleted or else I would repeat it. But, for now, good show gentlemen!

For the reasons above, I don't think the best approach is to simply ban Communists based on their political philosophy. The key is to ban people at the philosophic level in which argument is not possible: the Metaphysical. Just use Rand's Razor. Think about it: is there anything to be gained from people who believe A is not A, that existence does not exist, or that consciousness is not conscious? Again, I have done it this way: if they make a statement in violation of those axioms, they are given a warning and told not to post anything else until the error is resolved. Every further post that does not resolve it is given another warning and on three warnings they are banned.

I read some of Obama's speech and it's inducing my gag reflex. Seriously, I do not see anything to be happy about. "We are our brothers' keepers."

Well done!

Did Stephen change his cookie settings or tell his computer to "refuse all cookies" from any given domain? This might prevent him from posting... Try changing the cookie settings. I can elaborate if you need.

Again, referencing that damn diagram. How many times do I have to tell you that that thing is NOT properly labeled? What do you mean by "get inside his loop?" By context I think you mean "have a faster loop than him," but that's a strange way of putting it. And I know what you mean re:martial artists, etc. Re: Giving up command: this is of course, reliant on the ability to GIVE the soldiers good intel. If the marines are given full autonomy, and they see no tanks and advance then that seems fine on the surface. But what if there ARE tanks and the general knows this because of air recon? This is why commanders exists and should not be "cut out of the loop," so to speak. And that's a cute metaphor with capitalism, but it hardly carries over into military examples. I could use your example and apply it to business: suddenly Joe from accounting is making decisions on which steel formula to use because a command structure "is inefficient." Yet another example of how the brains need to do the thinking and the soldiers need to defer to their judgment. I'm not coming out against giving small units some autonomy: I'm showing how it can be taken too far and how it is necessary to use new communications technologies and intelligence techniques if you want it to work. And finally, you don't need to talk down to me: the problem with your examples isn't that they're overly complex; it's that they DON'T INCLUDE FULL EXPLANATIONS of all the terms and theories involved. Almost like you want me to take it on faith or something...

Post #314 in this thread has a link to the full post. Here it is again: (http://objectivistsr.us/index.php?showtopic=1400) I edited to provide a name on the quote, which is only obvious if you had read my post before it.

Are you referring to me or the other guy? If me, which part of the quote (which is by Ursus) is rationalist?

You're reading the wrong part of that post. Here, this is what I meant (emphasis mine: Now, to answer your next question You made the claim that clothing differences between men and women were cultural and not objective. I disagree.

I don't think that proper clothing is subjective, as you suggest. Post #3 in this thread sums it up nicely: http://objectivistsr.us/index.php?showtopic=1400 Unisex clothing is not proper fashion by the standard outlined there, which is IMO the proper objective standard.

No, the presentations are definitely not enough. My summary, that a faster decision loop will produce a more adaptive force that is better suited to maneuver warfare, is pretty much all I got out of the presentations. Please, if there is more to it, I would like to hear about it. For instance, the general ways I have seen to increase the speed of the decision loop have significant drawbacks: 1) You can increase the speed of the loop by removing calculations and levels and simplifying the decision structure. Problem: A simplified decision structure is not capable of handling complex situations. Your organization will react quickly by reacting foolishly. 2) You can increase the speed of the loop by making the structure less management-heavy and leaving command decisions to the low-level commanders. Problem: This is heavily reliant on not only having HIGHLY competant men in the lower ranks, but also on making sure that they have access to intelligence. But the very nature of their jobs demands that they CANNOT stop and see the strategic situation. The squad leader may know better than the general about the exact positions of the enemy soldiers in front of him, but the general will better know about the enemy that the squad leader cannot immediately see. There is a limit to how much you can put on a field man. I think that having a faster loop is essential to maneuver warfare, but there are limits to how far the above strategies can be used without incurring the problems I listed. An overall increase in technology and competance is the better solution, rather than further structural changes. Now, Boyd goes on at several points about "getting inside the enemy's loop" and such. But there is NO explanation as to how he does this. In certain "tactical exercises" I have personally done this, but I would like to know how HE proposes to pull it off. You've never heard a military man use jargon to intimidate a civilian into thinking that the military man has superior intelligence?

This fellow must have read a series of quotes and not Rand proper. Between those two statements, this fellow is omitting the fact that Rand offers a proof that man's sole means of survival is reason, so in order for something to be proper to man's life it must be proper to his life as a rational being. This guy obviously did not actually READ Rand. The use of the term "proper" only implies that A system of moral values is required for man's survival: an assertion that Rand does not make without having proven it logically follows from previous proofs. Again, this fellow has NOT read Rand. Agreed, that would be a textbook example of begging the question. Unfortunately, this fellow is engaging in a textbook example of the straw man argument, since RAND NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT. And his further classification of Rand as an intellectual lightweight is only further revealing the fact that he has never read her works, becuase she is ANYTHING BUT. Good luck to you at school, Darrin. I hope you won't have to deal with too many people like that.

My personal opinion is that the greatest threat to America is the encroaching Socialism of the Left and the transformation of the welfare state into the totalitarian state. I find that more threatening right now than terrorists or domestic religious fudamentalists. Then again, I live in Illinois...

I'm going to quote my favorite show of all time: "Scorpious: John Crichton. Commander John Crichton. Generations will know that name, because of you very soon the Scarrens will destroy us. John: One evil at a time. That's the best I can do." John, the hero, was being criticized for defeating an evil power, when a rival evil power (the Scarrens) was looming. My point? I have to deal with the more immediate threat to my life and freedoms: the Leftists. Will the religious fundies get more power by filling the vaccuum? Yes. Will I then have to turn my efforts to them? Yes. The question of who to attack first is the question of who is more intent on open and total destruction. Right now, that is Kerry and the Leftists.

"It's the suede denim secret police... they have come for your un-cool niece." Bonus points if someone knows what that's from! (No googling!)

So seeing as to how I live in Illinois, who should I vote for? Anyone have any thoughts on this one? Clearly this is not the same question as Kerry/Bush as both of these men are far more consistant representatives of their respective sides of the dichotomy.

In short, the loop is a decision-making structure. A "fast" loop will adapt quickly to new or changing situations. Al Kufr, it is not polite or realistic of you to post links to 300 pages worth of raw data and expect people to be on the same page as you. If you want us to evaluate this, you need to summarize it YOURSELF and post that summary. In other words, you need to do some WORK to make it comprehensible. We are not, for the most part, career military or chinese speakers, so we need it in ENGLISH and not in jargon. Furthermore, your links provide general ideas, such as "confuse the enemy" or "attack a weak point," without ANY practical examples of HOW to do it. Those powerpoint presentaions are entirely incomplete, as they are not designed to stand alone, but presumably have a speaker talking with them. Since we can't hear the speaker, we literally have NO IDEA what you are talking about. To expect us to is highly unrealistic and irrational. It is you, not us, who is acting like a first grader. You can't just point a link and make wild hand gestures and consider that an adequite explanation. And no, pointing to the incomprehenible link a second time and making ever more frantic gestures won't help either. I don't know if the wording is fanciful and unclear by accident (like, it would be clear in its full context), or whether it is unclear in a deliberate attempt to intimidate your opponent into agreement by overwhelming him with jargon. Given my experiance with ex-military men, I suspect the latter. You're a fool if you think that WE are going to fall for that garbage here. Obfuscation is not a weapon and your failure to make yourself clear is YOUR failure; not OURS. Sit down and translate this into PLAIN ENGLISH. Until then, kindly leave us alone.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. I meant that they could not claim it and remain noncontradictory. Yes, that is a clearer way of saying what I was getting at, thank you. Basically science is dependant upon philosophy and the two are connected. You can't say that science could exist without philosophy, for example. But science handles questions that philosophy does not and vice versa. My main point is that you shouldn't say "well, I'm a scientist and I don't need philosophy," because scientists DESPARATELY need philosophy.

Shoo, irrationalist. Go away. Your inability to read what I type is utterly astounding.