Capitalism Forever

The American economy is nowhere near collapsing, despite the unrelenting efforts of politicians: the obstacles created by the government continue to be outweighed by the gains in productivity. But a Kerry presidency may indeed weaken America very much, as it would mean a probable nuclear attack by Iran on New York City. (Iran is close to getting nukes; Kerry wants to "cooperate" with Iran. Ergo, when Iran gets the nukes, there will be nothing to stop them from using them.) The loss of the New York Stock Exchange, much of the financial sector, and a great amount of other talent would have a debilitating effect on the rest of America. While it is true that such a disaster might eventually wake up the more rational half of America, I had much rather if it could be avoided. What is going on in Iraq now is bad enough, but at least it is happening in Iraq and not in New York.

The essence of femininity is hero-worship; the essence of masculinity is heroism. To be a hero is to be successful in life as a man: to create wealth, to overcome evil, and to have a beautiful and lovely woman as a partner in life. Thus, the things that a man looks for in a woman is beauty (including sexual attractiveness), loveliness, and partnership in his efforts to create wealth and overcome evil. The better a woman is at these things, the greater her chances of winning the heart of a heroic man. A woman who excels at these qualities is a heroine, and her man will, perhaps not worship, but certainly adore and admire her for it.

Certainly. Gambling is perfectly fine as a form of entertainment or social event, suited mainly for wealthy people who do not mind the risk of losing larger sums of money. It is an expression of your pride in being able to afford such a risk, an exercise in staying cool while substantial amounts are at stake, and a way of learning to accept losses and to celebrate gains. On the other hand, poor people who effectively build their carreers on gambling in the irrational hope that "Lady Luck will smile on them someday" are an example of the pathetic small-mindedness of those who have no confidence in their abilities. To hope to obtain wealth by luck is to declare that you are incapable of creating wealth by using your mind.

Don't forget about computer games! RadCap, with your philosophical insight and artistic skills ... the possibilities are truly unlimited!

LOL Been expecting old Uncle Cap Forever to show up on the thread and rap you on yer skirt-chasing fingertips, eh? Well, you sound like an honest and happy man, so I'll just congratulate you and wish you further good luck with the opposite sex. Personally, I couldn't imagine getting intimate with anyone but the sexiest, loveliest, and most beautiful of all Objectivist gals, and I see absolutely no reason why I should waste any of my time or energy on other women. But I don't mind it if you approach things differently--that way I won't have to compete with you for her! ;)

That's exactly the kind of name I was hoping to get you to call me. It's quite an exhilarating feeling to be called a malefic rube by a malefic rube! Precisely. And nowhere is just the place I want your ilk to be--that's why I'm not arguing with you.

I did--and my judgment is that he's positively contributing to turning the world into an Islamic theocracy. 'Nuff said.

Ah, Auto, you need to improve your skill of decoding liberal propaganda: Translation: "I will negotiate and compromise with terrorists instead of attacking them. I will ask the UN for permission before I do anything. I believe in appealing to the majority to justify tyranny. I am afraid of guns and want to take them away from everyone. I think we should 'help the poor' and give African dictators more money for 'AIDS research' so they won't get angry and hurt us."

Hey isaac, finally there is something I'm in complete agreement with you about! I have learned English as a second language, so I don't have your bias, and I do agree that it is the greatest language ever. I find it much easier to speak English than German, or even--no kidding--my mother tongue, Hungarian. And yes, English is innately inventive and efficiency-oriented. Most of the new concepts formed these days are named in English, and other languages have difficulty catching up--partly because their structures are not so conducive to innovation, and partly because, although linguistically the innovation would be possible, their speakers are simply unwilling to take advantage of the possibility. (For example, the word "e-mail" could be very easily translated into Hungarian as "e-levél," where "levél" means "letter." For some reason though, people do not do this but either simply say "e-mail" or resort to all kinds of convoluted linguistic contraptions.)

You might think of them as having a size of 1.

Khm. Please read my post. I wrote: "Your goal should not be to minimize your immorality; you should strive to be moral." (Emphasis added)

LOL John "Frenchie" Kerry wouldn't hurt a fly if his life depended on it. He's a g*d d@mn liberal! I agree with you that Bush is being way too weak. But you have to face it: his challenger is a "man" determined to be twice as weak as Bush, no matter how weak Bush gets.

That is correct. There can be various degrees of evasion, and thus there is a quantitative distinction between immoral people: "She is a bit immoral, he is quite immoral, his brother is very immoral," etc. But a more important and relevant distinction is the qualitative one between moral and immoral people. "He is immoral. She is moral." Your goal should not be to minimize your immorality; you should strive to be moral. As Ayn Rand put it: "In the field of morality, only perfection will do."

BINGO! The mistake the "libertarian textbook" folks make is that they fail to distinguish between the rightful and the moral. All that is unrightful is immoral, but not all that is rightful is moral. You can rightfully do anything you want to as long as you don't violate the rights of another individual. But you can morally do only that which benefits your life the most. If, at any one time, you can choose among a thousand things to do, but 200 of them go against somebody's rights, then you have 800 legal options. But that doesn't mean you have 800 moral options; you have only one moral option: that which is the best for your life. If you have a choice between any two things and you knowingly choose the worse of them, you are being immoral.

I find that too many people on this forum have taken their views on sex right out of the libertarian textbook. "What's wrong with...?" "...consenting adults..." "...no rights violated..." Imagine extending the same logic to nutrition. What would you think of a guy who eats excrement and drinks urine? Would you react by saying, "I wouldn't even go as far as to call it bizarre. Some people like the taste of s**t, what's wrong with that" ? "If it feels good, do it" is not the standard to use if you are to live qua man.

The initiation of force should be banned worldwide--but it won't be. Since there will always be evil people, there will always be evil countries. Now, what the evil countries do to themselves is their own business. They may kill each other to their heart's pleasure. But we should let them know that the moment they dare to threaten us, we will bomb them to smithereens. By "we," I mean the freedom-loving nations of the world. It is a good thing to have a sort of "global" alliance for the protection of individual rights, but it should be completely voluntary, based on trading value for value, and only include countries that are indeed committed to the protection of individual rights.

There are some people who would like to see churches forced to perform marriages that they condemn. This is one of the main motivations behind this whole "gay marriage" business, IMO. Homosexual couples are perfectly capable of being a homosexual couple without being married, and I reckon most of them wouldn't bother getting married if they were straight. It's all about being "in your face."

One of the most important things you need to understand about rights is that valid rights can never conflict with one another. If a supposed "right" goes against another individual's right, it is not a right. Thus, you can never rightfully imprison a person, not even if you have bought up all the land around him. Your right to property ends where his right to liberty begins.

AutoJC, I do not object to your posting about your voting preference (although I disagree with it) but keep it to one thread please. I wouldn't like this forum to become a part of the Kerry campaign, and I suppose GC wouldn't like that either. So, Discussing the relative merits of the candidates in a dedicated thread: OK Campaign-like posting of several threads advertising a candidate: NO

It isn't possible to truly love more than one person at a time. (I mean romantically, of course.) Romantic love means that you value your chosen one above everyone else. If you don't--if you cannot tell without hesitation whether you would have her in preference to [insert name of other girl]--then you are not truly in love with her. Romance is about finding the winner of your heart. If you have people tied for places 1-2 (or 1-N), you do not have a winner.

Since you're asking this question, I presume you have some motivation for asking it; in other words, your question serves some purpose. You want to know the answer because the answer will help you achieve some end. If you think about what exactly that end is--what it was that prompted you to ask this question--you'll likely find the answer to the question itself.

First, a little correction: The atom consits of a nucleus and electrons. The nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons. It is true that the particles involved are very small compared to the space occupied by the atom, but the since the space is truly occupied by the atom, making it impossible for any other atom to be there, in effect you have solid matter. As an analogy, you might think of a number of guards positioned along a property line. Each of the guards is responsible for stopping any intruders within a 50-yard radius of his assigned position. So, if you place the guards 100 yards apart, you will have an impenetrable border, even though each of the guards is only a couple of feet wide at most. Oh, and one more correction: The remaining 99.X% of the atom's volume is EMPTY. There is a difference between "empty space" and "nothing" ; see the discussion in this thread.

I agree. There is no point in reading fast (or reading at all) unless you understand what you read--or worse, if you misunderstand it. The purpose of reading is to grasp the information the author is conveying, to evaluate it, and to integrate it with the rest of your knowledge. The final step--integration--is what consumes the greatest amount of time, especially for philosophical texts. Far from ripping through the paragraphs at a thousand words per minute, a good reader will frequently stop to think about what he just read, to memorize relevant information, to find ways of applying it to his life, and so on. Thus, the mere identification of the meaning of the text will hardly be a bottleneck for him. So, I would say that one ought to worry about learning to think fast rather than learning to read fast, and that one ought to worry about thinking well before one ever worries about thinking fast.

Perfect response, RadCap!

Since to know anything requires a volitional consciousness, even bats don't know what it's like to be a bat.