iflyboats

I don't consider him the victor in the sense of having proved his point with facts and logic. Instead he created the appearance of winning the argument (in the minds of impressionable, philosophically uninformed viewers) by constantly interrupting his opponent and garnering applause from the audience. It was a very public browbeating of individual rights.

*** Mod's note: Merged thopic. - sN *** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB00uJMGIDk I know Rand Paul isn't necessarily considered a hero to many Objectivists, but this video certainly betrays the real character of David Letterman. He brought Rand out just to ridicule him and discredit his ideas. Throughout the segment he brags about his personal wealth while at the same time pretending to care about poor people, education and government workers. Unfortunately, Rand allowed himself to be put on the defensive, creating the appearance that he was losing he argument, rather than coming back aggressively with a strong moral stance. So Letterman ends up riding away from the battlefield on his moral high horse as the victor, having successfully pulled America ever further down into the shitter intellectually.

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. - sN *** Do you believe that we are headed toward economic collapse and hyperinflation as proposed by many of the prominant free market economists such as Shiff, Faber, etc.? If so, how is the prospect affecting your course of action? Are you doing anything to prepare? Is anyone buying a lot of gold and silver?

How would feudalism be defined from an Objectivist perspective? During my battles for capitalism across the internet, I often encounter the objection that capitalism will produce feudal-like results consisting of "lords" (corporate CEOs) and "serfs" (everyone else). What is the proper response to this? How do I draw conceptual distinction between feudalism and capitalism? What is feudalism exactly and how did it result int the reduction of the common man to serfdom?

If you're not raising your kids in Objectivism you're raising them in something else.

I think both Greenspan and Bernanke know that the Fed's actions are potentiating rampant inflation and are lying about it to protect the institution's interests. There is no way that Greenspan is dumb enough to believe the things he says - like that he "found a flaw" in his "free market" ideology after the collapse of the housing bubble.

I find it impossible to believe that he doesn't know what he's doing. He is a fucking liar.

I recently read Ayn Rand's essay criticizing JFK, in which she stated that FDR was responsible for delivering 1/3 of the world's population into slavery at the hands of Soviet Russia and plunging the US into WW2. My question is: how? Can anyone provide a brief explanation, or recommend something to read? And did Ms. Rand elaborate on these thoughts elsewhere? I suspect that I wouldn't find an answer in a standard history textbook.

It seems to me that it must be immoral to do so since the government does not reimburse hospitals who are forced to treat the uninsured. So it's not like social security or a student loan where you're entitled to receive the benefits you paid for. Therefore, if you show up at the hospital uninsured and take advantage of the EMTALA, you're committing an act of extortion against the hospital. Do you agree with my reasoning, or am I failing to consider something?

Animals and children certainly have moral standing. I don't know about liberals.

That's what I think too. Worst in terms of his intent.

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. -sN *** If you find a lost wallet and you can identify the owner and return it, but you instead keep the contents of the wallet for yourself, is that an act of theft? I have not found a lost wallet; instead, I lost my own wallet, and I not only know that someone found it, but I know who found it, and the person does not return my calls or emails. Is this person stealing my wallet, or does the fact that I lost it make it fair game?

Do you consider Obama the worst President in history? I don't know that he's done as much damage as FDR yet, but he's certainly just as bad in spirit.

If the country goes to war without a declaration by congress, which is illegal, should the soldiers who participate in the illegal war face trial? I say absolutely and utterly not, and that criminalizing US soldiers for acts of government is disgustingly wrong. Do you agree?

OK, but in case the government is reading, I'm only posing a philosophical question, not actually planning to kill a politician.

Thank you.

Good point, but that was only a misuse of language on my part. I understand the distinction.

Mods, are you sure this needs to be its own thread? Its a little more conspicuous than I wanted it to be out here.

Is am engaged in a debate with a friend who is a strict constitutionalist. It seems to me that the utlimate authority for human action is a rational code of morality, not a written document. Is it moral, therefore, to disregard the constitution where it contains flaws? Or is the Constitution morally binding even when it is wrong? Does it matter that politicians have been shitting on the Constitution for over a century now, and that it is sometimes practically necessary to violate the constitution in order to approximate the best course of action? Would it be moral, for example, for the President to orden the bombing of Iran without a declation of war by Congress?

From what I saw of his youtube account, his "thoughts" were thoroughly disoriented and schizophrenic. Not distincly right or left.

Is it moral to kill a polician who works to violate peoples' rights?

*** Mod's note: moved post to different relevant topic. sN *** Should you tell your kids that Santa Clause exists?

There are definitely situations in which one may rationally prefer to die; the destruction of one's ultimate values may be a fate worse than death. Galt himself said that he would kill himself if the antagonists tried to get at him by harming Dagny. In such scenarios, suicide is both selfish and rational.

I've seen Rand use the phrase "me-tooism" and wonder what exactly she means by that. Can anyone explain?

I can't watch past 55 seconds.