determinist

I saw many Ron Paul fans in here, so I thought you might love the new creativity of this business owner. For every dragon you slay in this game, the dude donates $5 to Ron Paul for Iowa.

http://www.dungeoneers.com/ronpaul

lol that has got to be one of the best political ideas for a candidate who is popular on the internet.

According to the recent Gallup poll, Ron Paul is polling just about neck-to-neck with Obama.
http://www.gallup.co...hmann-paul.aspx

Ron Paul has very steadily increased his support since his last campaign. RP is an internet favorite and individuals are increasingly influenced by the internet. He can get many votes from independents in a general election.

The primary election is interesting. Ron Paul is in 3rd in national polls, including the Gallup poll.
http://www.gallup.co...l/election.aspx
Here is a screenshot of the image at the time of this post.



Both candidates (Gingrich and Romney) who are above Ron Paul in national polls are substantially higher than Ron in those polls. However, prior to Newt, 3 people (Bachmann, Perry, and Cain) rose and sank. And now, (unsurprisingly) it appears that throughout the past 1+ week(s) Newt Gingrich's "surge" has been a downward trajectory (according to the trend in the Gallup graph above). Ron Paul has a lot more campaign money than Newt (and he is now using quite a bit to air ads challenging Newt):
http://www.opensecre...hp?id=N00005906
http://www.opensecre...hp?id=N00008333

So, to say the very least, the idea of Gingrich staying at the top is seriously questionable.

Romney has been more steady than the candidates who surged and sank. He also has quite a bit more campaign money than Ron Paul. However, Romney is roughly tied with Ron Paul in the first state that will be voting in the primary election: Iowa. I do not know if Ron Paul will win Iowa, but if he does, he just might be the #1 focus on mainstream news and surge. My guess is that Ron will not win the primary election, but I bet his odds are nowhere nearly as low as most people believe.

I'm reading Philosophy: Who Needs It? right now, so understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy is already a work in progress. Since I read "Man's Rights" from The Virtue of Selfishness, I've been absolutely fascinated by Rand.

A general reply to some of the recent posts:

I'm not sure where mentions of the short-term/long-term self-interest dichotomy came from. I have zero doubt that seeking temporary, instant gratification does not equate to acting in self-interest. I understand that people are saying theft is only a quick-fix and is not truly in long-term self-interest. However, from the start of the thread, support for that particular claim has been my only focus. I want to accept it but it leaves me with questions. For example, is it really logical to make the generalization that absolutely anyone attains less happiness because he or she steals? If so, what (specifically) is your basis for that position? Do you think that because you personally feel better by earning things without theft, this is sufficient evidence that everyone else's brain works the same way? If not, then what is your substance backing such a position? Merely stating that it's obvious, a no-brainer, or otherwise communicating/sub-communicating it's axiomatic fails to provide an argument for the position. Also, merely repeating what the position is also fails to support it.

If you (any reader) concede that theft is even rarely in a person's self-interest, and that the basis for behaving morally is doing what's in one's self-interest, then it would logically follow that sometimes stealing is moral. That would obviously be a problem for objectivism. This is why it's so important to have a solid argument to support the claim.

(Side note: My forum reputation has decreased 2 points since I started this thread. Considering I want objectivists to be correct and I posted the thread hoping to refute a moral relativist, it's sad my reputation was attacked. Most scientists I know love when I ask them questions because they're eager to share their logic. I am surprised it's not the same deal with this thread. Interesting.)

You will personally gain more or everyone will? If you just mean yourself, that's subjective. If the rule is generally applicable to people and there are exceptions, that is called intersubjectivity, not objectivity. Are you suggesting that there are no people who benefit more from a combination of work and theft than work alone?


If it's just a general rule and it's only true for some people, that's intersubjective.

I really want you to be right because I am frustrated when people use relativism to try and justify China's government. I'd like for it to be the case that you can derive a morality based on hard evidence/reason. Where am I going wrong here?

There seem to be objectivists who say it's not in a man's self-interest to steal (and therefore immoral, according to the objectivist).

In my subjective experience, it has held true that a sense of accomplishment is a remarkable feeling that cannot be replaced by other fraudulent feelings. I mentioned this idea to someone and he raised an interesting question I could not answer. He said a Christian could say he or she experiences something subjectively and this would not be good enough evidence to support the divinity of Jesus.

Is the belief that stealing makes everyone less happy than earning based on subjective whims? Do you have any objective evidence I can pass along to my friend? Are there fMRI-based studies or anything?

Wow. I simply cannot believe I'm reading these responses on an Ayn Rand forum instead of a Republican Christian forum. After all the talk about how the government should only initiate force against those who initiate force, people are agreeing with initiating physical force. I would have never guessed I'd find this thread. My mind is blown from this.