Hairnet

1) I play a lot of Horror rollplaying games, but I think a lot of people play those games out of a "Challenged Accepted!" kind of notion, rather than wanting to surrender to the tropes of the setting. Almost everyone roles their eyes at the "You go crazy and die" kind of play style now. Phyrric Victories and Fatalistic Heroes are the norm now. When the investigator punches a daemon prince to death, its kind of cool, because the book/storyteller told you weren't supposed to do that, but you did. 2) Horror is a very complicated Genre. I often question the morals and personality of people who watch movies like Cannibal Hollacaust (popular during my highschool year, one of my friends vomited while watching it apparently). Where as Ghost stories are usually mysteries that explore the emotion of guilt, and the concepts of revenge and injustice. Vampire stories on the other hands involve the fear of intrigue, violence, and sex. I wouldn't pass some blanket judgement on the genre as a whole.

Yes herman, standard of living and knowledge are really good indicators of improvement, as those are values of Objectivism. Respect for property rights is also a good indicator. While the federal government may have invented a lot of rules for how one should use one's property, and even has a system for taking your property, it is still yours. In addtion to this, a lot more people are now allowed to have property than ever before. The level of personal freedom that has been expanded to huge ammounts of people has come at the cost (<----Figurative) of the economic freedoms of those who already had them. I would argue then that "taking what your neighbor has" is on the decline as well. Addendum: I actually agree though we need better options than philisophical discourse. My fears: The leaders of this country (corporate and military) are philosophically bankrupt, and thus are probably divided and cowardly. They don't have the organization or the desire to actually protect this country from the very real threat of terrorism. Multiculturalists and other douchebags will convince people not to resist religion, leavingthe Muslim and "Hindu" world unchecked. The Christian Right and the Christian (Catholics, American Slave Culture) Left will get over their racism soon (probably the next generation after mine) and unite with one another.

I don't think that man can be driven by the ideas of another "arbitrary" person. Its much more complicated that majority rule. Because people often do not sit around thinking about technical subjects that don't involve their career, intellectuals and philosophers are just another part of the division of labor in a society. This is how philosophers can be seen as driving forces of history, they were given the responsibility of explaining the world by their social groups. I don't think that history has moved in a literal straight line towards freedom. Obviously there are set backs, and sometimes great leaps forward. However when I look at point A and point B I see improvement. What is the socialistic tendency other than collectivism? Socialism as an ideology is pretty new, so what are you afriad of in people? The inability to change for the better?

Objectivists believe men are driven by their ideas, and thus so are societies and history. I also do not think that mankind is inclined towards collectivism. Given that the trend has been in the opposite direction for the last 10,000 years, I am not sure why you think this at all.

Are you trolling? Also, there are two threads on this topic right now.

1) In what way are we marching towards a socialist future? Do you have any evidence of this? 2) So in otherwords you think that philosophy has no role to play in history. No wonder you are so pessimistic about socialism you are basically following Marx's theory of history. IN ADDITION, EDIT. I originally your post as being just pessmism, but after reading yours and Eiuol's exchange, I am not sure. If you are advocating some alternative policy in the face that there will always be some base instinct towards collectivism, I think you share that idea. I have suggested a military junta before, and that didn't go over well, and terrorism is immoral.

1) Obama's form of progressivism is restrained to moderation by our national culture, and thus is much better than the insanity of the Wilson administration or FDR. Compared to the rest of the world the USA is still very right wing. Only as an Objectivist can I view the USA as left. 2) Feudalism wasn't just some bad idea that a president had, it was epochal system that spread across the world after the development of the world relgions. The fact that feudalism was overcome in Europe was monumental and led to all of the great things we have today. 3) I found a purse in a parking lot last night actually, and took it into the store and gave it to the lost and found.

Are there any better documentaries? The one on netflix is worse than this one.

Someone could have argued the same thing about fedualism. That ended, and that system was far better at maintaining itself than the variety of nation states that we have now. If mankind can escape feudalism then we can escape anything.

You may have missed my above post, but I did raise the issue with adult hood that goes beyond productivity/independence. There is also the issue of consent. I am not just talking about sexual consent, but the ability of a child to understand what can be done to his or her body. For instance a reasonable doctor consults parents when talking to a child about medical issues, because a child probably doesn't have the abiilty to understand them. The purpose of the government is to protect individual rights. A child is an individual who needs special protection, because unlike an adult, he or she is incapable of understanding certain kinds of agreements. When the child is born, the mother agrees to be that child's guardian. Beyond providing education and goods, she needs to be able to make those sorts of decisions for her. If a legistlative body wanted to create an "age of consent and independence", they should probably consult psychiatrists and doctors. Those people would have the most rigorous definitions. The definiton would not fit everyone, but if an exception needs to be made a judge can do so. Past this you are going to end up sounding like one of those people who thinks forests don't exist because we can't find the exact number of trees that make a forest. Could you stop the socratic method stuff? Its condescending and waists time.

I think that there needs to be more flexibility legally when considering what exactly constitutes and education for a child. The absurditity today is that the vast majority of children have most of their time waisted being sent to highschools that teach them very little that couldn't be learned on the internet, instead of doing things that actually enhance their ability to sustain their own life. They could be developing technical skills or working during this time in order to afford a superior education later. I see the vast majoirty of kids wanting to educate their children. Just because their might not be a law against it in an Objectivist society doesn't mean that children will be running around on the streets without supervision. This education can take many forms however. Homeschooling and apprenticeships can be just as valuable experiences as secondary education. I also expect that parents who planned on having their kids work with them would use their early childhood as an oppurtunity to prepare for that by sending them to primary schools. I think you are worried about what the ghetto trash does with their kids. I don't think those kinds of people should ever be considered when structuring a society, they can't even make it with all the help they are getting. I don't think we can just say "The child could afford to live on his own, and theirfore is now considered an adult". There are a lot of aspects to adulthood which revolve around more than productivity. One needs to consider sexual maturity, the child's ability to make decisions about his or her own body, and the ability ot the child to defend itself against other people's stupidity (Car accidents, law suits, beuracracy) .

Partially or poorly implimented capitalism doesn't lead to results contrary to those intended. Its just leads to a less free society. If everything were unregulated except the meat packing indusry, it woldn't cause the market to go haywire, the meat packing industry would just be less productive. Poorly implimented capitalism is better than no capitalism. Ayn Rand agrees with this. For instance she calls fort the defense of Israel against the various Arab nations opposing it. This was on the grounds that while Israel had poorly implimented capitalism (well the poorly implimented socialism also), they were still better than the medievalists surrounding them. Vaguely free societies can get along, However collectivists tend to kill one another over their differenes in ideology. They are so bent on controlling everything people who don't conform their opinion are a threat to them. This leads them to dissavow one another all the time. The soviet union wasn't socialist (or failed) because - - There was a state, and that is still a class. (Anarchism). - My traditions and culture were disrespected (Tribalism). - No one wants to bow down to Moscow (naitonalism). - Only people of similar hertiage and race can really care for on another, attempting to encourage altruism between racis is a Christian myth (Nazism). - The Soviet Union wasn't socialist, it was state capitalism. The state owned the means of production , not the people, who were never given proper representation, and were forced to compete for the favor of the state. (Democratic Socialists) - It threw away institutions that could have strengthended the state and thus the nation. It destroyed the church, scared away industrialists, and left the working class as an unorganized mess. All of these pieces could have been brought under the state. (Fascism) Under all of this though is the fact that collectivists can only say that a certain itteration of collectivism didn't work because it wasn't their specific form of collectivism. Individualists on the other hand can see the merits of societies with mediocre levels of freedom and can point out how to improve them.

Typically I have a filter that prevents me from saying about 99% of the stuff I want to say. I am pretty introverted, even around my friends. However when I smoke I get really relaxed (muscles, mood, everything) and I don't really have that filter anymore. The major dangers come from waisting tons of time watching tv or playing board games. If you use habitually, you may lose your motivation to do anything and just become a lump.

. My response would be to warn her that her behavior isn't acceptable at all, and if I had the suspicion that she was attempting to test me, I would tell her that she needed to find a new way to communicate. If a man is being moody, making arbitrary accusations, and starting fights over nothing, the woman needs to do the same thing. I don't see how masculinity comes into this.

From my conversations with Anarchists and reading their works, I understand that socialism is a system by which workers own the means of production collectively. This can be through a state apparatus, or without it (depending on whether or not you are an Anarchist). The issue of Communism vs Socialism is now defined (in modern times) as the conflict between those who believe in wage labor and those who don't. Anarcho-Syndicalists do not mind the idea of maintaining currency and paying wages to their members. They take inspiration from trade unions and medieval guilds, so their form of socialism incorporates wages. Anarcho-Communists are more extreme in that they wish to abolish currency and wages altogether. Depending on their attitude towards technology this means either a reversion to a more primitive state of man or a reliance on computer systems for economic calculation. No real socialist would ever claim that Norway was socialist. The only people who call Norway socialist are ignorant American Progressives who don't know anything about the world outside of The United States. (Anarchism does not mean "Anarcho"-"Capitalism", which ironically is neither Anarchist, or Capitalist)

Are there not any cool women your age around you? I would try interacting with them instead. You need to stop thinking about this person and try to find a real person with some of those qualities you like.

Sorry for blowing up on you. Look can you just explain what an anti-entity is? I really can't find anything on his website. If you know what he is saying all I want is a quick little explanation of how Obama is different from some of the other bad presidents we have had. My least favorite presidents in all of history are Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. If Obama is some how worse than those guys I can see why peikoff thinks the way he does, but honestly LBJ and Wilson were really really evil.

Yeah you said it in a different way. Don't feel plagerized please.

Are you an asshole in real life too? Honestly this forum has real people in it, and isn't a dumping ground for your emotional problems. If you want to discuss things with people here you should be more respectful of them and not approach them in such a sarcastic, obtuse, and disrespectful way. If you refuse to interperet people's words in a sensible way, then you should go to RevLeft or Mises. Those people would suit your personality better.

I just don't like the idea that the whole peace was based on a lie. That is not a sound foundation for peace.

Not really a good argument. For instance, lets say someone is in need, so much need that they require someone to care for them for all their life. You don't want to do this, and you know it won't be good for you, but according to altruism, you should. How does this benefit you in the long run? Why does society matter in this situation? Why do your genes matter at this point?

Short articles can have citations and evidence too. I just wanted an example of why Obama is an "anti-entity". Maybe a comparison between FDR and Obama could show why Obama is so bad, rather than just another tool in the whitehouse.

Mises is so gross. It is sad that the Stirnerite of all people came to the best solution Stirnerite hatred of abstractions and rules though isn't really helpful for solving problems though.

It would have been great if Peikoff could back up his assertions with some evidence. The rest of you may know about Obama intimately enought to understand what peikoff is saying, but I don't. For instance, why is Obama any worse than LBJ or FDR? Why do we think he is anything but a pragmatist with some black-christian/post-marxist background?

I think they are trying to hold on to the irrational idea that the government can be this all powerful protector. If the government didn't protect someone, it was the incompetence of a few individuals that was the problem, that a systemic one. The conviction is based on an attempt to scapegoat the failures of a system on a few men. So I guess Italy sucks.