VcatoV

edited for spelling I have two bits of advice. The first is-move out. Living with your parents is like living in a nest-most everything you need is given to you, and reality is (for the most part) not staring you in the face. So stretch your wings and try it out. It will suck, speaking bluntly. You will have very little money. Once common items will become treasured treats (I remember when it took me almost a month just before I had enough money to casually afford myself a nice latte from Starbucks. Then again, I am pretty averse to spending anyway). Do not be surprised when the smell of Ramen Noodles makes you sick, but you eat it, because you could not afford the pork roast at the grocery store. This is reality, and this is what you need to face. Your priorities will change. The second is-do not burn the bridge with your parents. I understand that you do not want to be "bothered" because of their emotionalism, and maybe giving it awhile before you tell them where you live will help things "cool down", though I certainly do not think so. Just get into the habit of asking yourself this question ever single day: "Why do my parents feel as they do?". Either way, you'll learn something.

Plus, those Japanese Americans who were interned were done so by another irrational Statist, FDR...not individual Americans.

Just think of the nature of a draft (besides the fact that it is immoral, as Ayn Rand described). It is not even feasible. To win a war, you need to outproduce your enemies. "Money is the sinews of war". A draft takes people out of the productive sector. If you do that, your economy, the "Total War" view, is in essence a battery, with a very small energy (money) input usually coming from the reserves and sum total of the wealth/productivity of a nation prior to the war. In this sense, Germany's early success and advancement during World War Two were only due to the reserves of productivity and energy that they had before the war. In a free society, all wealth is beneficial to the struggle for a nation. The free market, so long as there is enough value in the system, will meet the needs necessary to overcome an obstacle in war with minimal damage to the economy. Study Rome during the Republic, who did not have a draft, but always had the amazing ability to meet every demand needed by war...without any "total war" or government planning of the economy. I only bring up this side point because Ayn Rand herself answered the moral reasons against the draft so perfectly. But it is important, as government's still today advocate a Total War approach, or a government-controlled economy during war time. They justify this as an "emergency", like they do the draft. My point is that any emergency can and will be solved by a free people who sufficiently value the system they have created.

Well-intentioned or not, beneficial or not, right or wrong, all of these were legitimate. I would challenge you to show me one law that did not have a legitimate use within the system in place. Many of the Kosher laws were indeed originally intended to increase the health of the population (that, wouldn't you say, is well intentioned?-but you also know what the road to hell is paved with). If they were not, they were legitimate in strengthening the ethical system in place, whether by meditation or ritual. Rules forbidding alcohol for Muslims are intended to prevent humans from falling into excess, ie. getting too drunk, which indeed is something bad. The extent an ethical system works is the extent to which it corroborates with the facts of reality. Thus many of the original Israelites found the Kosher laws beneficial, and general health was improved. For a time. Yet times change, and man's mind has the ability not only to grasp the concretes of nature (such as: shellfish might make one sick), but to invent ways to change nature. Ethical systems which try to proscribe minute actions for individuals thus fall short of a dynamic world. Meaning that now, for the most part, eating pork is entirely healthy, just as is shellfish. Thus the ethical system does not hold up to reality, and faith must be further reinforced to sustain the ever-widening gap.

Two observations. 1.) Man has volition, and thus that which man values will be nearly limitless. Which values are conducive to a proper life is a different story. 2.) The English language is a poor language when it comes to the term life. Tara Smith correctly identified Aristotle's use of the term eudaimonia to denote where a proper ethics leads you-for the purpose is not merely life, or not merely to live, but to flourish, to increase and grow. Sometimes a plant can be hardy enough to make it through the winter, but it is during the spring that they "flourish", growing, expanding, constantly. This is because life constitutes actions, and as such can never be static. The problem of hedonism is a different story, and stems largely in part due to whim-worship or range-of-the-moment thinking. In essence, a hedonist enjoys the pleasure of the moment with no conception of the future. That donut looks tasty and will surely be a pleasure to eat! I am going to eat it!. The next day: my, that donut looks tasty to eat! Five years and 100 pounds later: my, that donut looks tasty to eat! The essence of ethics, however, remains the same. Actions, actions, actions.

In some senses, like Grames identified-yes. All of ethics, no matter the philosophy of a person, is based upon metaphysics. Epistemology, of course, is the bridge between metaphysics and ethics-the lens by which one frames their perception (or lack of) concerning reality. Ethics, in many ways, is like building a bridge. But ethics also involves something other than ideas: action. Thus ethics are not only dependent upon a person's ideas, but on how they act out those ideas.

Interesting. What then, would you say, is the essential moral reason for your actions to be some sort of agnostic vegetarian?

I said the same thing in my original post . So there is no disagreement. All that I was attempting to say is that since freedom is the natural condition of mankind, the mere tasting of it has a positive effect. Like I said-study China. While the system will never truly advance to a Capitalist system without the proper moral system in place, individuals will indeed act differently and be impacted by the freedoms gained from government corruption. In essence, actions like these create new breeding grounds for ideas about liberty and Capitalism.

You know-I wanted to come back and say, though, that I believe there is a positive. The more you give people freedom, especially those who are not accustomed/"comfortable" with it, the harder it is later to take it away. Look at China. Any attempt to increase controls would meet in fierce resistance/violence. Their only options are to maintain the status quo, or reform.

A black market really is just a market that does not exist legally. This could be anything from burned/ripped DVDs to marijuana. The majority of the black markets around the world, however, are in place precisely because of government regulation/control. In a sense, though I do not consider the truth propaganda. I do not know, and I have not found it. There are think tanks and other intellectual ventures. But there are not, as far as I know, any organizations of action. I could not give you a reason. Because I haven't created it yet .

What is even more sad about this is that I have not seen it in the news. Are people just refusing to report the truth, or do people just not care?

So then you would agree that your vegetarianism is a self-imposed behavior as opposed to a natural behavior?

The principles will always remain the same. Man is by nature a rational being. There are no conflicts of interests between rational beings. The advancement of society only changes the level of force involved if a conflict does indeed arise.

You could take this argument to a simple mathematical level. He is saying that the Government is 1, and that the people are 1, and that both are the same, and thus subtracted equal 0 or nothing. Do you notice the mental game at play? Or have we Americans always accepted society as an individual unit?

Sounds like an interesting book-but I am curious...why is ILL not an option? Every public library has access to ILL. You just have to go to the local library, get a library card, and then go through the specific library's ILL procedures.

These things never impress me. Many times, nations are forced by reality to adopt more free-market policies. But being "forced", as Papandreuo recently said, to choose between "collapse or salvation", and choosing to survive, does not mean that the people/government...the individuals have on the whole accepted the moral reasons for Capitalism. Basically, a nation that adopts political elements of the free market without having the necessary ethical foundation in the population will never work. Neither will any veiled attempt to adopt elements of the free market out of necessity in order to further fund the denial of reality/advocacy for socialism.

Hmm-seems like I had a different experience than most. I was born into a Christian home (Southern Baptist), and actually found the switch from Christianity to an Objectivist ethics quite natural. Before Objectivism, I had been very active in the church, interested in ethics, and deeply explored ways to improve my moral upbringing. The discovery of Objectivsm made me realize that the power of revelation, meaning the ability to truly know what was and was not moral, lay with me, not any god. Furthermore, because I had been interested in improving myself, discarding the altruist ethics of Christianity once again posed as no difficulty to me. It was like upgrading from Windows 3.0 to Windows 7.

A book written after the break? Probably not. But what about The Psychology of Self Esteem? Written while he was with her and endorsed by her.

Wow-well I realize that I am taking a different view of most of the men on here (but to be fair, I am gay-so that might change things a bit). I am constantly thinking about sex throughout the day. Not as an addict, but naturally. I work in a store that services two Universities, and attractive men walk in all the time. I certainly check them out and fantasize about them. My partner of four years does the same exact thing. We have always been honest with each other, and have even had threesomes to see if that would fulfill our natural desires while maintaining the stability of our relationship. What did we find? We had fun. It did not destabilize anything. But we really do not have much of a desire to do it again. And I think that is the key to your question. At least for us, sexual attraction for others is purely physical. The emotional and mental aspects are solely reserved for one another. Even in our threesome, in which we established the rule that full honesty was expected, and any act that felt natural ought to be pursued, neither of us kissed the third person-only one another. That was the natural draw for us. Ultimately, we never have to fight our instincts. Once we were honest and open about them, and explored around a little, we now have hit a balance where we are true to our bodies and our emotions. My partner now realizes that I love him precisely because I think of others in sexual fantasies-that means that I have an open, honest, and healthy sexuality.

Wow-thanks for the detailed response! Maybe we should start that in a new thread? We could create one called "The Nature of Youth Culture" or something like that-just let me know. I really would like to continue the discussion and find it to be quite important. I agree that the positive is always better than the negative. But two things: First, I think that the proper agent of true positive action ought to be organizations like ARI. It is their job to fight the intellectual fight-fiercely, with the most advanced weaponry. But do you expect ARI to have made a presence at the highly-mediacized Education Rally by the Socialist in California? Would they have been there-with signs, with the message, that education ought to be private? These kind of actions are not necessarily negative. Also, think about Capitalism Day. Hosting, organizing, and mobilising Capitalism Day rallies would be positive, would it not? Prodos Capitalism Day Website Second, we have a powerful tool on our side-the truth. Those who know and use the truth do not have to smear. You can be aggressive with the truth, and with ideas. Do you regard political posters as art? I think they may have elements of art on it (drawings, essentially-colors, highly stylized). But they are not in and of themselves art. What kind of art are you talking about? A black market? Sure, or proper alternatives to state-education. Would this be a role for the radical capitalist? I see what you are saying. But I also believe "partying" to be an effect, not a cause. Even if they had the "nice" stuff, they will still consume to excess. Now, if you want to focus on campaigns of moderation-that would be a good idea. I agree-and once again, do you think ARI will be going door to door? But what if we could radicalize student capitalist, forming ARI fundraising drives-even if the people did not donate, pamphlets and information could be mass-spread. With the climate of today, I would bet that a good deal of Americans would be receptive to many of the ideas of Ayn Rand-if they are exposed to them. I like your thinking, and this type of creative brainstorming. I think the biggest difference to keep in mind is that I intend to organize or create a group of agents of action, not agents of the mind. The "arm" of the intellectual side, if you strip away the violence aspect .

Oh-but I think you hit on exactly what I wanted to talk about. Similar methods and errors. Is there some kind of deeper epistemological error at work here that causes different Collectivist to each draw the same incorrect conclusion?

You know though, I always seem to steep my Green Tea for too long-its leaves are tender, delicate, and taste horrible after just a little bit of time.

Sure, Ayn Rand eventually broke with her. But Ayn Rand also studied under her, was her intense pupil, loved her, and had a strong relationship of friendship with her for many years. Read "The Letters of Ayn Rand". edit for grammar fix

Hello guys-so I am new here, and have not had the opportunity to share a few of my ideas with you all. Over a year ago, I wrote an enthusiastic letter to Glenn Beck. At the time, the Tea Parties were at their height, and Beck was using a lot of his money/time/attention to get the 9-12 groups off the ground. I saw some serious shortcomings in these, especially in their predominant absence of youth. I assumed, or hoped, that his professions for the Free Market would entice him to back my projects. That failed. Next, I turned to the Tea Party Youth. They even contacted me, and I am currently discussing with them about creating state-chapters. But, once again, I have disagreements. My desire is to unite and make active Radicals for Capitalism. So-I will share my letter with you guys, and see what you think. The first process to any action is brainstorming. So I hope that we can brainstorm here, amongst like-minded Capitalist, and maybe come up with some killer ideas.

I will admit that I am not too well-versed in physics; really just a layman who has read with interest what other real physicist say. I know that a theory exists in quantum physics which states that a thing can be in two places at the same time. I was reading Isabel Paterson earlier, discussing the nature of a collectivist. What struck me was that they too must believe the same thing. Could this belief by collectivist explain why some physicist are trying to assert the irrational? Are they, in effect, trying to provide a "natural" explanation for collectivism? She stated: Italics original