A.West

Maybe the Atlas Shrugged potential movie has spurred some of the actors to read it, deciding whether they wanted to do a part? This sounds also like a good sign for the movie geting done in my lifetime. I could accept a movie with Jolie as Dagny, Selleck as Rearden, and Rob Lowe as Francisco. You could do a lot worse than that for actors, and enthusiasm helps, perhaps the acting and the budget. I googled Rob Lowe and Atlas Shrugged, and sure enough, he says it's his favorite along with "East of Eden" (which I recently read may have had some Ayn Rand influences to go along with the Biblical ones.) Maybe seemingly dissolute actors like Jolie and Lowe reach a mid-life crisis and decide they're ready for real values.

SHOW: Topic A with Tina Brown 8:00 AM EST CNBC October 3, 2004 Sunday "Ms. ANGELINA JOLIE: What am I reading? I've been very into Ayn Rand, so I've read "The Fountainhead" and then "Atlas Shrugged." I just think she has a very interesting philosophy. You re-evaluate your own life and what's important to you." I'm not sure that having Ms. Jolie like Ayn Rand's novels is an entirely good thing, given her past erratic behavior. I hope this is a new beginning for her.

Thanks to NPR (a horrible institution) for bringing the microphone into a prayer group talking politics. Listening to something like this makes me want to be far far away from these kinds of people. If these sorts dominated any party, we'd be in deep trouble. I hope this is rare. While it's terribly evil, I also find it extremely funny to hear people speaking in tongues, and finding that God evidently speaks some kind of Esperanto. Sometimes people are so deluded, no additional parody is needed. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4060577 then click on "All Things Considered Audio" at the top. Things get especially exiting at the 6:50 point.

Your top quote appears to be Neo-Tech related. That part about laws objective through the Universe negating Earth bound lawyer-like dishonesties strikes me as very, very, strange. I've already long suspected we will never agree on this movie, or its underlying principles. And I am one of those people who always pick up on the underlying philosophical themes of movies. Things would have been clearer had you written only "objective law" rather than "Objective law" in regards to Legalism. On this board, there's a big implied difference. However, leaving that aside, I believe that by the nature of what Legalism was attempting, it could never be "objective" either, despite its promises. Absolute political power without concern for individual rights must always soon become a tool facilitating the arbitrary exercise of power. I'd argue that the history of China is full of wars, stagnation, and the exercise of arbitrary statist power parlty because of, not despite, Legalism. Indeed, because this movie addresses the widest posible ethical and political questions, the proper judgement of it demands the best possible understanding of ethics and politics. I gather from your quote of Pericles that you're favorably disposed to people sacrificing their lives to the state, as such. I can see why this would predispose you to like the movie Hero, and the Legalist philosophy. What I can't see is why you're discussing it at an Objectivst forum. Based on my understanding, Objectivism is opposed to the sacrifice of individuals to the state, to self-sacrifice, and to totalitarianism (ancient or modern), whether it is applied systematically or arbitrarily. I do think the movie "Hero" does provide a lot of insight into the history and the present state of China's culture. While not historically accurate, I think it does suggest the sort of cultural values that have helped retard its progress. To me, it is a movie that celebrates a philosophical disaster in history.

There are perils in collaborating with the "meat is murder" crowd. You could be exposed to the music of The Smiths, or experience this scenario: http://www.southparkstudios.com/down/downl...THEHELPLESS.wav

Charlotte, I think you should continue practicing your ability to spot rationalizations. It appears that you don't like people to work for NASA. Should educators also only be willing to work for private schools? Should ARI speakers refuse to speak on the campuses of State Universities? I recall seeing you write that you refused to sell something to the Park Service, but you have no qualms about dealing with "private" Chinese merchants. Are you aware that virtually every Chinese businessman must pay off Communist Party members with bribes, is the recipient of numerous government-subsidized inputs (e.g. steel, electricity, coal, financing, and much more, in some cases). I'm sure you know that imports/exports get approved by Communist Party officials, and that such positions are great sources of corrupt money. Being a person who is so finicky in her dealings with governments, I'm sure that you do know all about this, and have done all sorts of background checks and hired private investigators to make sure that whatever business you do with China has not provided one RMB nor one bottle of Cognac to Communist Party representatives, and has not benefited one iota from government subsidies, but a lesser person would probably just rationalize all of this away, and ignore the problem.

I agree that the U.S. government shouldn't be insuring the risk of expropriation, as it does directly through the Export/Import Bank and indirectly via the IMF and World Bank. But on the other hand, I thought that I remember Ayn Rand and/or L. Peikoff speaking of Middle Eastern as being the rightful property of Western oil companies, and suggesting that force should be used to recover that property. (This may be my faulty perception, I don't recall where I saw this). How to square these views, in principle?

Try some introspection.

felipe, Out of that group, I think the Malkiel book would be best as a first read, because it addresses big questions first, and will provide lots of cautions that are useful to a novice investor - things that prevent you from losing lots of money or wasting money. My main caveat on Malkiel is that he promotes the Capital Asset Pricing Model, which is flawed in my opinion. However, lots of beginning investors would be better off if they behaved as if it were true, focusing on diversification and risk management. Malkiel can also help you decide what kind of investor you should be. After you decide what kind of investor you plan to be, then you can better decide what else to read. If you plan to mostly invest in mutual funds, then you may want to read books that relate to that. If you plan to make short term trades or invest long term, then different books are called for. I work in equity research and hold the CFA (Chartered Financial Analysis) charter, but the things I read and like the best are probably of little use to most non-pro investors. For those looking to analyse stocks, I think one needs to understand the entire business environment, understanding business management, theory of competitive advantage, marketing, accounting, economics, corporate finance, and valuation theory, as well as portfolio and capital market theory. That's pretty much the whole course for the CFA program. see www.cfainstitute.org They have a small section for individual investors. I think some investors waste their time by spending too much time on investments. It's important, but sometimes its better to spend a few hours per year with a passive investing strategy, adjusted over time, and invest your time and resources not on stocks or bonds, but the best investments for you, like your own business or profession, or your real estate, or a hobby you may enjoy more (though investing can be an interesting and rewarding hobby too). Good luck!

I think that "global test" phrase was a subconcious slip-up. I think that's how he views foreign policy, but didn't plan to say it, knowing that it would be unpopular with the undecided voter he's trying to win. Something about the way he said it suggested to me that he knew he made a mistake. (Not in thought but in his performance.)

Yes. The solution is to stop doing it. This will probably come naturally with time and experience. It's good to not be pessimistic about people, but not good to form unrealistic expectations about them, or give them credit for things they haven't actually accomplished. Perhaps the best approach is to expect people to be capable of growing, if they show evidence that they've grown in the past, but not to be so disappointed with them if they don't. It's not just to treat someone as more or less than they really are. Is this mistake always in relation to the opposite sex, or everybody? I think in the first case that's a quite common mistake, especially for the young. As on Objectivist looking for romantic partners, when self-developed partners seem rare, it's natural to want to "develop" one who shows aptitude. In my experiences, it's a mistake to push too hard or expect too much. A fire ready to burn needs only one match, while some wet weeds can resist gasoline and blowtorches. A copy of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead and a bit of time should be enough. Keep your standards high, work on your own life, treat people as they deserve while offering them the benefit of your own wisdom when they are receptive. With time, you'll meet many fine people, and many wretched ones.

I wish Lehrer had asked each what they would do if China were to invade Taiwan. It's a subject that's already out there, and Chinese leaders have explicitly promised the "reunification" of Taiwan is a "solemn duty" that will be done by force if need be. The Chinese Communist Party has even helped promote a movie that makes the moral case for Taiwan's invasion, "Hero." It's winning rave reviews in the U.S., and is even admired by some on this board. http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-9-4/23100.html http://www.offoffoff.com/film/2004/hero.php?spoil=1#spoil The world would really be in crisis if China invaded Taiwan. I doubt either candidate has a real plan for that situation other than to hope it doesn't happen.

Kuhn and Popper have sent their poison far and wide. A couple of years ago I was arguing with my rationalistic MBA Finance professor about why the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) was rationalistic and floating, and that the epistimological approach taken to arrive at the model was flawed by not trying to first observe what it was claiming to explain. (That is, one should use induction and make observations of what you're trying to analyze, the CAPM, on the other hand, begins by making admittedly false assumptions and then using deduction from that starting point). The punch line is that the professor, without really answering, told me to go read Kuhn and Popper! According to them, it's okay for this rationalistic professor to debate other rationalistic professors and attempt to "falsify" each other's deductive systems, but it would be ridiculous to try to go out and observe actual investors, investment managers, and institutions to try to arrive at principles of investing, because that's not real knowledge.

Here's what Ayn Rand said about Objective law: "Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection." see: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag..._rights_and_law So no anti-individual rights regime qualifies as "instituting Objective law," regardless of how many written copies of "prison rules" are distributed to the populace. I just happened to find some interesting other reviews of "Hero" by googling "hero movie review tyranny". http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2004/...f-collectivism/ Looks like others also sensed that Hero finds most heroic the sacrifice of individuals to collective unity. This ties into Chinese culture and propaganda very deeply: that self-sacrifice to the collective and to national unity is true heroism, that the source of China's weakness has been lack of unity, rather than lack of individual rights., and that progress demands more individual sacrifice, more national unification, and the end of resistance. Truly sickening.

I think you're being to kind to Kerry, to say that he starts with the facts of reality, and that he can be reasoned with. There's a good bit of evidence out there that through his life he's attempted to construct facts to fit his desires, and his political philosophy strikes me of being full of floating abstactions typical of leftists. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about that bit about it being possible to be certain and wrong, as it was almost surely a canned attack planned by his team to spring in the debate, rather than something he discovered while pondering epistemology. I haven't seen an example of Kerry changing his mind after hearing a reasoned argument, but I've seen many examples of him changing his mind without explanation or even the admission that he has changed his mind, based on a poll. That's called being a second-hander. On Bush, I think he did qualify that his certainty related to fundamental principles. Because he's an intrinsicist, he's probably combining all sorts of arbitrary principles such as "Jesus is Our Savior" with better ones like "America has the right to defend itself regardless of whether it passes the 'global test.' " My guess is that Bush swings between rationalism and then looks at a bunch of concretes and tries to form a principle and integrate it, but fails because it's impossible to do if many of your high level abstractions are disconnected from reality. I really do not want to see Kerry begging the UN and the rest of the world for forgiveness for our sins with the tin cup of diplomacy. From what Kerry promised, the U.S. will send nuclear materials to Iran, send Kim Jong Il the sort of diplomats he wants, will sign the Kyoto Treaty. I think that that sort of backing down in the face of world opinion and pressure would encourage the worst kinds of elements in the rest of the world, much in the same way negotiating with terrorist-kidnappers just encourages more kidnapping. I wouldn't count on either Kerry or Bush to improve or correct past mistakes.

I thought Bush was surprisingly ill-prepared on questions that he must have known would come up. He continues to be a poor speaker at debates, almost painful to watch for me, like when he pauses for 5 seconds to think of a word for "threat", which I can relate to myself, but my job doesn't require constant public speaking. Worst of all, the main word that Bush connected to the Iraq War was "Duty". Bush did not put together a tight argument that Iraq was in America's self-interest with a positive payoff of our increased security. Whether that is true or not is not what I'm arguing, I'm arguing that Bush did not really even try to make that simple case. I can't support $100bn and 1000 lived for the idea of our duty to make the world a better place, only to make my world a better place. I think this bit of Bush's altruism will hurt him politically - I think American's are still healthy enough to look at this with a "what's in it for me" approach. Bush's answer was "duty". Because he didn't tie his words on "freedom" in the middle east as related to America's interest very well. He said freedom was what they wanted and it was good for them. He didn't directly say freedom there was good for us - which again, implied that we were trying to build freedom in Iraq out of duty rather than self-interest. He'll probably do the same thing debating tax cuts. When attacked about "tax cuts for the rich" he'll say something like : it was for the good of the economy, and nation; not that it's their money and they have a moral right to it (which was close to what was his best thought in 2000).

Oh my. If Greenspan was capable of dating Babs Streisand, then he really must be a monster. I can almost understand and excuse the journalists, but not her, not her.

I've noticed that many Libertarians seem to have no problem dealing with China, despite the fact that its goverment has no respect for individual rights and massively abuses its monopoly on force. This makes sense to me, as they probably see the various CCP factions competing in corruption and interpret this as some sort of "competing governments" utopia. Yet they get very upset if the U.S. government makes one percent as much of an error in government. Very odd and telling.

I don't understand how you can call mass slavery and totalitarian control "Objective law" (with a capital O no less!) simply because it was allegedly applied equally to all, (an impossibility, I'd say) and because it happened a long time ago when people in other locations also did it. We are supposed to understand the use and misuse of the term Objective here, right? I would have thought the quotes you yourself provided would have been adequate to diminish your taste for this insane Qin Emperor, but I guess the movie "Hero" has worked its magic pretty well. I'm amazed.

Well, I don't plan on teaching you or others much about the first Emperor, or providing a cross-cultural comparison of ancient tyrranies. Your education is your own responsibility. However, as a goodwill gesture I will direct you to the attachment in my post in the "China" thread (Sept. 28), which is a paper I wrote on Chinese culture, business, and economy, which does briefly discuss the first emperor and the philosophy of Legalism, and how it continues to direct Chinese history. Even better, my paper contains numerous footnotes to some good resources for those looking for more information on the subject. Also, while neither movie claims to offer a historically accurate of the period, I reiterate my recommendation of the movie "The Emperor and The Assassin" as an alternative artistic view on the subject of "Hero".

This is an open and shut case, Taoism is harmful to one's rational faculty. Compare these two passages, written at approximately the same time in history: “He who examines the most general features of existence, must investigate also the principles of reasoning. For he who gets the best gasp of his respective subject will be most able to discuss its basic principles. So that he who gets the best grasp of existing things qua existing must be able to discuss the basic principles of all existence; and he is the philosopher. And the most certain principle of all is that about which it is impossible to be mistaken... It is clear, then, that such a principle is the most certain of all and we can state it thus: "It is impossible for the same thing at the same time to belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." -Aristotle, Metaphysics, now look at this: The sage never has a mind of his own; He considers the minds of the common people to be his mind. To pursue learning, learn more day by day; To pursue the Way, unlearn it day by day: Unlearn and then unlearn again Until there is nothing to pursue; No end pursued, no end ungained. It is by sheathing intellect's bright light that the sage remains at one with his own self, ceasing to be aware of it, by placing it behind. -Lao Tzu “Tao Te Ching”

Ok, I was trying to provide you some knowledge so that you would no longer "know practically nothing about Chinese history", and I even provided some leads for you to search for. Instead, you hypothesise without any basis in fact, that my thoughts about the philosophy and government of the first Emperor must be wrong, despite evidence that suggests I might have exerted some effort to know something about Chinese history and culture, which you admittedly have not, perhaps becuase it would clash with your desire to like a movie. Apparently totalitarian dictatorships can be celebrated, if they're old enough, even if they set the pattern for another few thousand years of tyrrany and cultural stagnation. Looks like you really like Hero. Keep your eye out for the sequel, "Hero 2, the People's Liberation Army takes Taiwan". After all, Taiwan has a lot of corruption, and perhaps the Chinese Communist party can increase the moral status of the new conglomerate. At least, that's one of the lines the Chinese propaganda department provides.

Elle wrote: "My business is in Mutual Fund investment consulting and SRI (socially responsible investing) has become en vogue following the recent, so-called, corporate scandals. The fundamentals of this investment strategy irk me at the highest possible level, and I've been working on developing of definite standpoint as to why. I was wondering if anyone here was familiar with this area of business or had an insight into this new fad which I believe to be in-line with collectivism and "the good of society as a whole" to a sickening extent. " Hi Elle and others, I've worked in investment analysis and portfolio management fpr over a decade. I think SRI is vicious, because "socially responsible" is a massive package deal. Ethical investing would be a valid concept I believe, though. The key point is that the moral is the practical, at least in the long term, in investing. Ethical investing means directing capital towards its highest long term uses, and correcting allocation mistakes others may have made. I believe that in the mutual fund industry, "SRI" is mainly a marketing and advertising tool, enabling a fund manager to attract the attention of a niche audience and build investor loyalty, by conforming to a certain code of values in investing. Were it not for the faulty values underlying all existing SRI funds, that in itself would not be wrong. I once considered starting a "SRI" hedge fund based upon rewarding economic freedom globally, creating strategies that punished or rewarded and profited from country's moves toward and away from economic and political liberty. But I never found the sort of partners and capital required for such an effort. My business plan for such a fund was one of my entrance essays for the NYU Stern MBA program. Here's the text of an article I wrote on a related topic at NYU's Stern School of Business MBA newspaper, a couple years ago: A Stern Opinion: Like Leaves In Fall By Andrew H. West As the air turns cool, leaves begin to turn color and fall from their trees. Similarly, as the economy turns to recession, weaker companies begin to fall apart. This is the means by which trees and the economy change to strengthen themselves and prepare for new growth when conditions become more favorable. There are some companies I do not mind seeing fall by the wayside. I have a strong dislike for companies that I think squander investors' capital, or that waste economic resources better utilized by other companies. They are what I call value-destroyers, and to them I say good riddance. One kind of inefficient business bothers me the most - a company that squanders shareholders' money while going on a world crusade to promote "socially responsible" or "stakeholder-oriented" business. Let me give full disclosure. I reject the whole concept of "socially responsible" business, because the very phrase implies that business is "irresponsible" without some special intervention by government or "do-gooders." I think that as long as a company doesn't violate individual rights through force or fraud, it should pursue its maximum business and economic advantage -because that is a company's primary responsibility to its owners. When a company's activities enrage me, I engage in and encourage boycotts against their products. I boycott Ben & Jerry's Ice cream, for example, because I don't want my purchases to help fund anti-capitalist environmental organizations, or possibly provide money for some old hippies to smoke weed. Perhaps the highest-profile example of a loud, crusading, "socially responsible" company that seems irresponsible to its shareholders is Body Shop International. Earlier this year, a Stern club I won't name invited Anita Roddick, founder of Body Shop International, to give a speech about how she combines business "success" with promoting social and environmental issues, animal-rights, and "fair" trade. Mrs. Roddick is much more famous for lecturing the world on her outspoken left-wing views than for making money for shareholders. For example, Roddick has said "Sometimes, you just have to say "up your bum" to those institutions that say to maximize profits." Since 12/91, her company's stock has declined 81%, a negative 13% annual return. I hope Roddick sells environmentally friendly, non-animal-tested, lubricating jelly to ease the pain in her shareholders' "upped bums." I'd short her stock with pleasure, but it's become too shriveled, small, and illiquid for that anymore. (For an interesting bar bet, challenge a friend to quickly yell "Anita Roddick" three times - she has more fans than you might think.) Over the last few years, there's been one "socially responsible" company that I really grew to despise the most, and have shorted on occasion. AES Corp. It's a global power company headquartered near Washington D.C. It was founded in 1981 by two ex-bureaucrats with a specific philosophy: businesses don't exist to make money, they exist to serve. AES lives by the creed that "social responsibility" should come ahead of profits, a mission the Securities & Exchange Commission required the company to state clearly in its risk statement when it went public in 1991. When I first read AES' annual report in 1997, I concluded that AES was philosophically unfit for business. AES Chairman and CEO refused to write a "letter to shareholders," insisting that their letter instead be addressed to "Customers, AES People, Governments/Communities, Suppliers, Partners and Shareholders." In the letter they explained that "We try not to give a higher priority or a "most important" label to any one or set of these groups." I noticed that shareholders were at the bottom of their list of "stakeholders." Later the founders wrote in Marxist terms "The people in AES are not principally economic resources. We are not tools of the corporation." Then they stated their bizarre new theory of leadership and employment: "Probably the biggest single problem in both new and existing AES enterprises is overcoming the natural desire of our leaders to make decisions and control others. For some of us this is a day-to-day struggle between what most organizational leaders think is central to their role - making decisions - and what we believe is crucial to having the most fun adult workplace possible - voluntarily giving up the power to decide." Later the CEO said, "I tend to limit myself to one decision a year. It's hard." So then I wondered what management does all day, eat Ben&Jerry's, make tie-died shirts and hemp baskets, while listening to the Grateful Dead? AES later wrote: "Some of us were surprised to learn this year that about the same amount of AES money goes to governments and communities (through taxes, social responsibility projects, and charitable donations) as to shareholders (through profits). We think this is fair. Governments give us the license to exist in the first place." I guess AES' founders disapprove of the Boston Tea Party, perhaps believing that people do not live, work, pursue happiness, and create profits by Right, but rather by the whim or permission of government. In ensuing years I've watched AES sacrifice shareholders' interests on the bonfire of its corporate philosophy. The company has tended to see itself as a global missionary, bringing electricity to the world's poor. It has grown by acquiring or building electricity companies in places like Kazakhstan, Pakistan, China, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Venezuela, and claims to be motivated not by a desire for profits but a spirit of service to those in need. To quote Jesse Jackson, "need not greed" motivates their expansion. Unfortunately for AES, electric plants are not free. To fund acquisitions the company has required multiple cash calls from shareholders totaling about $2.8 billion since 1997. AES has also gone on a debt-issuance binge, with about $6 billion of bonds outstanding, (dragging the company's debt rating well down into junk bond territory). The company is an investment bankers dream however, constantly doing deals in need of financing. So it's no surprise that for years it's been a top recommendation among most sell-side analysts. When I analyzed AES, I reached conclusions contrary to most analysts views. They saw reported EPS growing. I saw quality of earnings declining, and a "comprehensive earnings" footnote showing weakness. Analysts saw emerging markets acquisitions as "earnings enhancing." I saw a company purchasing minority stakes in declining emerging market stocks, financed with leverage by issuing junk bonds. Other analysts focused on reported EPS growing 250% from 1996 to 2000, while I focused on interest expense rising 800%. I noticed that heavy currency devaluations in emerging market investments were not reflected in reported earnings but were being swept into an ever-growing "comprehensive loss" account under owners' equity - an account larger than the cumulative profits of the past five years. My conclusion was that AES consumed capital - it's inputs from shareholders and bondholders were larger than its profit outputs would ever justify. It's a negative EVA company- its cost of capital is higher than its return on capital - making it an economic value destroyer running amok. Investment bankers attracted investors' capital to it like sirens calling sailors to a rocky shore. As an investment analyst, that's the kind of company I like to short - especially when Wall Street loves it and touts it. The fact that the company's philosophy is diametrically opposed to mine made shorting it that much more satisfying. The climax of the AES story came on 9/26/01, when its stock fell to a five year low (over 80% off its peak) after management released an earnings warning caused by problems related to foreign acquisitions. It was apparently difficult to integrate and manage hundreds of operations around the world while telling managers not to make decisions, and placing a higher priority on "fun" than profit. Who would have guessed it? AES shareholders shouldn't complain - they implicitly accepted this company's self-destructive philosophy, and this is their reward. These companies who care so little about profit remind me of a scene in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" "I'm perfectly innocent…since I lost all of my own money for a good cause. My motives were pure. I wanted nothing for myself… I can proudly say that in all of my life I have never made a profit!" "I think I should let you know that of all the statements a man can make, that is the one I consider most despicable." P.S. This essay should not be construed as investment advice.

I think casual, values-free sex is a bad idea. Actually, spending much time with people you don't care about or respect very much is a bad idea generally, whether in or out of bed. There should at least be a solid basis of mutual admiration before getting intimate, I think, but one need not know everything either. I've got a story in my own life that might help. I was dateless through high school, and spent most of my free time rationalistically learning Objectivism. My desire for dating was high, but really, I didn't deserve the time of day from most healthy girls, and fortunately, I didn't have a real opportunity to make mistakes with the opposite sex. In college, I continued to build my knowledge of the world, philosophy, and profession. There were perhaps a couple of almost-dates, but I still wasn't that happy with myself, and naturally was not a match for any women who would have been appealing to me. Perhaps I could have lowered my standards by looking through pool-halls for drunks, etc., but that is just repulsive to me. When I started working, I progressed quickly through the ranks of a small, entrepreneurial company, and achieved some measure of professional success and finally began to build greater self-confidence based upon tangible achievements. There were a couple of crushes I went through, but much of this was due to the psychological error of projection - assigning values to people based on their looks, or one's hopes, not on reality. Not that they were bad, just not as great as I thought at the time. Perhaps that clash between my perception and their reality, and my own ineptness with women, ensured that no romance ensued. A few years later, I met a very nice lady at an Objectivist conference. I was in love, but I don't think I was ever quite right for her. We had mutually enjoyable conversations, exchanges, and meetings but were geographically distant, and though romance seemed tantilizingly close, it never clicked for her. After a heartbreaking end to my thoughts of a romantic future with this girl, I went home and decided I'd probably be single all my life, that I'd never meet a woman who philosophically and physicallly would inspire me. And I wasn't interested in having relationships with women who didn't provide that spark. Within weeks after this I met a woman, who, while not an Objectivist, was rational, ambitious, egoistic, and pretty. Though I was a bit dulled emotionally, perhaps that helped me. After a couple of meetings, I gave her a copy of Atlas Shrugged. And she actually read it, despite the fact that it was a terrible time for her to be reading an 1100 page book, and she loved it, and it clarified the conflicts she had been struggling with all her life, and inspired her to do great things in America as Ayn Rand did. Things turned romantic after about a month of dating, before we knew everything about another, but after we knew each other's basic view of life and personality. A year later we married. At some point between we learned of each others' past romantic histories, and she learned of how I'd always been waiting for an ideal woman. From her perspective, that was VERY important, as she could not bear a man who had casually screwed women, or serial-sex-dated. She herself in college had enjoyed being the focus of many mens' attentions, but had kept sex out of the picture, always keeping in mind that some day there would be a more important man in her life that would be deserving of that level of commitment. We've been married 8 years now, and our lives are focused on the practical implimentation of Objectivist values in our lives, and the life of our 3 year old daughter.