Alex

Pop-ups, everyone gets them or at least alot of us do. I don't know much about the technicalities of it so correct me if I'm wrong. Programs can be downloaded onto my computer from outside when I go to a site without my consent and these programs can lay inside my hard drive and send 'pop-ups'. Would that be an act violating privacy and property rights?

I wasn't thinking of perfection in terms of 'unbreached morality' which is probably the only sufficient definition. If that is the definition then I agree that it would be possible to reach perfection. I said that it is impossible to demand perfection and then be disapointed when you're unable to reach it. My point is that Ayn Rand's heroes are not just perfection as you've stated, but infallible. I should have expressed myself more explicitly to start with, so please excuse me for that. That is what I see as the impossibility in Ayn Rand's heroes, and the guilt one could feel for never being able to reach it.

How am I pursuing the irrational? If someone is imperfect then that means he's irrational?

I never said that it was impossible to be totally dedicated to reason. Only that it is impossible to demand perfection and then be disapointed when you're unable to reach it.

I did not say mans psyche is contradictory. My point was that it would be a contradiction for the writer if he was trying to make an ideal rational man and then had that character make a completely irrational choice or action. Which can happen in real life but it would tarnish the character of a hero in a novel. Her heroes are certainly an exaggeration from reality because they are always rational. This is not possible in reality, humans are not perfect, and they are not always rational. I cannot pick anyone aspect of in Atlas Shrugged that cannot exist because it is possible to be rational and logical. What cannot exist is a perfect score of rationality in life, or going through life making one error of judgment. Your right that was a contradiction, omniscience was a wrong word, although I would say Francisco and John Galt were not that far away. I did say that people have the ability to achieve the success that these characters gain, and it is evident in reality that it is possible i.e. Bill Gates, Ted Turner etc. I said that holding one's self to the standards held by these characters would be dangerous, because of the guilt someone would feel by never being perfect, which is what Ayn Rand’s heroes embody. The last sentance was thrown in and doesn't belong in this conversation. I am not saying that reading heroes such as Ayn Rands is bad, just the opposite; their wonderfully inspirational. Only that a problem comes when you hold yourself and everyone else up to level of perfection, because of the guilt when you don't reach perfection. It would be fallacious to think that if you don't strive to be perfect then you can never achieve greatness. Did I miss anything?

Not really. You have to understand that Ayn Rand showed the ideal man in her heros. Novels don't cover every part of the human psyche, and it would take away from the story if you had these contradictory attitudes within the story. I think what you would have to remember is that a hero in a book is an exageration of reality. That's not to say that it isn't possible for someone to have the drive or intelligence or the success that her characters had, but humans aren't omniscient which is how Ayn Rand portrayes John Galt, Dagny Taggart, Francisco, etc. So to hold yourself and eveyone else up to those standards would be a mistake and damaging to yourself. How would life be if you shunned everyone that wasn't a John Galt?

You're right. That's more logical.

Why do you name Bosnia and checnya as the poster countries for capitalism? Even though both countries are a mix of capitilism and socialism (far more socialistic then United States though). What about Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, United States. Those countries have the highest standards of living in the world and consequently they are the freest countries in the world, thanks to capitalism.

I love how the democratic presidential candidates are talking about 'free' health care. Theres no such thing, it's just a utopian sounding term. Does it usually take that long to see a doctor?

My moms canadian and she always talks about how great it is in Canada where everyone has free health care, sure, and theres hardly any crime. I honestly don't know much about the country though.

Do you know of any good site that gives a hierarchial list of math starting from just basic arithmetic through algebra and to more advanced? I think I had the crappiest math in highschool where all you needed was algebra and a little bit of geometry, and I want to go back and strengthen my skills.

Is there any objectivist literature about mathematics or physics? I'm really curious about what they have to say about the fields. About what is incorect and what can be left to discover using a truly logical method.

I would say for several reasons: 1. Normal citizens are not trained on how to deal with dangerous situations, and there are so many laws and procedures that police have to deal with that the normal person wouldn't know. 2. The police and the justice department are supposed to be an objective party; more likely to make a rational decision then the average person. 3. With no objective third party there would be no way to protect the innocent from more retaliations from the same person or friends of the person. What if you couldn't properly take care of the person? What would stop him from attacking you again and killing you? 4. What would you do you if you caught the guy and how would you cacth him? In an emotional state what would stop you from killing him and how would you decide the proper punishment for him?

I was wondering if anyone knew of a good book to read about writing essays, or any ways to improve clarity in my writing. Is it something best discovered by myself or would it be something I can learn from others?

Guest, as citizens of America we give our right of the use of force to an objective party; government. In your scenario the robber was the initiator of force but there was no threat to person he was robbing, only his car so he would have no right to retaliate back, that would be the job of the government. If the person who's car was being stolen was also in risk of losing his life or atleast in harm he would have the right to defend himself by retaliating.

If a person is willing to sacrifice there life to a someone else, that would not give the 'master' any right to allow himself to treat the other person as a slave. The 'master' would still be an individual and an individual cannot violate the rights of anyone individual no matter how much a person wanted to be a slave. People have explained it better here on the board but rights are inalienable, that is they cannot be given away.

*movie spoiler* It is anything but reasonable. Basic plot from what I've read is, a government weapon used to create earthquakes has a nasty side effect that stops the core of earth from rotating, and they have X amount of time to start it up again or the earth freezes over.