Capitalism Forever

Well, driving your SUV is doing something.

If you lived within the radius where the explosion could cause irreversible damage to you or your property. (And it should be noted that you wouldn't get to choose the specific procedures for him to follow; if he can demonstrate that the way he is running his business is safe, he has a right to continue doing so.)

Advertisements sometimes do a little humorous exaggeration. I would say the message is simply that "Axe has a really, really attractive scent."

Definitely shouldn't be illegal, but the owners of surrounding properties may demand that the guy running the lab follow reasonable safety procedures.

Could you expand a little on what you mean by "harassed" here?

Report received. Yes, Jake was not exactly polite, but threesixty was simply being irrational, so what kind of a response can you give to that? Also, since he was about to leave the forum anyway, I don't think Jake's response can be called alienating.

The author is obviously a hardcore liberal, but I guess some facts are so glaring even they have to acknowledge them!

Just ask them to pay back the extra money they got. And of course, as themadkat said: no handouts, no issue.

I flew out of LAS Terminal 1 this Saturday and I was through security in less than 5 minutes.

This Nelson guy is a total dope. He could have asked for $300 million into his bank account and a Presidential pardon for accepting the bribe and he would have gotten it.

Probably all of them.

You make it sound like human rights are something different from individual rights. This is not the case according to Objectivism; all humans are individuals, and the only fundamental rights that exist are individual rights. The term "human rights" is mostly used by UN types and other socialists as an attempt to introduce new "rights" (such as "a right to a home"), and perhaps as a way to evade the fact that rights pertain to individuals.

Where in the definition does it say that?

"If it feels good, play it" ?

In Leftist lingo, "extreme Right" is a synonym for "just like Hitler," which--according to the New Left's way of thinking--is a synonym for "anyone who believes in any absolutes."

I would agree with the previous posters that the sentence is meaningless, but I suppose its author thought it did have a certain meaning, and that it might induce some people to believe in God. But I can't figure out what this message is supposed to be. My best guess would be: "When things coincide in an unlikely way, it is in fact God that causes them to coincide, he just doesn't let us know he did it." If that's all it says, I don't see how this could make me believe in God if I don't already believe in him.

If the word "man" were not in the definition, it could also apply to the perceptual apparatus of animals. Is that the problem you see with the definition? If yes, my answer is: The word "man" IS in there, so the definition makes clear that what we mean is the kind of identification and integration specific to man. Objectivist epistemology provides a very clear explanation of what the difference between the perceptual-level consciousness of brutes and the conceptual consciousness of man is; if you have understood that difference, there is no way you can read the definition in any other way than as referring to the sum of the perceptual and conceptual faculties. I'm curious about what alternative definition you would propose, though, if you think Miss Rand's one is incorrect.

ANSWER: Put down that bottle, NOW!

Whether state employees are given the day off is an internal matter of the government agencies in question (provided it does not affect national security or the protection of individual rights). Designating a day as the recommended day to celebrate, say, the founding of the nation, is fine--but of course the government of a free country may not require anyone to celebrate anything, nor force businesses to give a day off to their employees, nor prohibit trading on any day, etc.

Because he had none. His textbook was pretty much just a mishmash of various economic theories originated by other thinkers--unfortunately, with 50% or more being from Keynes.

Roark definitely had red hair. But it is true that many of Miss Rand's heroines were blondes, including Joan/Frances in Red Pawn, Kay Gonda in Ideal, Dominique in The Fountainhead, and of course The Golden One in Anthem.

Kant relates to self-interest as a slave owner relates to the feeding of his slaves. They need to eat something from time to time so they can do their duty.

Have you read this: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/ar...nd_hazards.html ?

Well, I should add that in addition to perceptual concretes, I think "entity" can also refer to conceptual-level integrations such as corporations, baseball teams, forum threads, etc. But there always has to be some objective basis for the integration; you cannot just point to any random collection of things and declare them to be an entity. You cannot say: "Society is the collection of all men" and then go on to talk about society as if it had attributes and actions like a perceptual concrete. I think the same applies to the Universe as well.

Philosophy is certainly meant to be applied to all areas of life. But this does not change the fact that the verbs "is" and "equals" have different meanings.