Patrick N.

I must also recommend Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture. I own the book myself, and found it very fascinating.

Ayn Rand did base the fishwife on herself. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=69477

I agree with this. One's own death should not be a concern. Death isn't a problem for the dead, since they're not around anymore to be concerned about it.

I agree that they are invalid, but aren't they still properly classified as concepts?

I don't understand why you put the word "concepts" in quotes. Do you not consider the concept of "concept" to be valid? Also, if the ideas (concepts) people hold are not what they base their actions on, then what do they base their actions on? For people to cause damage by acting on irrational concepts, don't they first have to hold those concepts? [Edited by me to add last question]

I don't think this qualifies as "porn," as the term has negative connotations, but look at this link: http://www.superbeauty.org/

Why do you partially define this type of government (miniarchy) based on its size? Is the size of a government its essential characteristic? Or is something else, such as the principles it is founded and operated on, the essential characteristic of a government? (This is a rhetorical question). Your definition seems to be a combination of the two—both essential and non-essential characteristics.

Which forum?

A suggestion: I think it would be a good idea to be much more careful in the future when choosing moderators. I realize this is not an easy task, but the results of a bad choice can be disastrous—as this incident has shown.

What a damn shame... I have always enjoyed Mr. Speicher's posts, and now due to the thoughtless actions of NIJamesHughes, he's gone. Terrible.

Amen. I don't understand the purpose of drdriveby's writing style. It makes his posts difficult to read and less clear than they could be otherwise. drdriveby, what's the point of all the unusual terminology?

I had always thought the novelist/fishwife must have been based on Ayn Rand. May I ask where you got this information? Did Ayn Rand herself ever state that the fishwife was based on her?

I fail to see any humor in your post.

I like the title of your blog entry: "The Appeasement Center." That's exactly what they are.

Have you listened to The Art of Thinking by Leonard Peikoff? If not, I highly recommend it. Much of the material could help with your problem, especially the first section entitled, "Volition as a Means to Clarity." I just finished the course recently and loved it.

Again, how do you know that everything which exists has mass? Are you claiming that mass is an attribute of being qua being?

How could one know, short of omniscience, that everything which exists has mass (or any other specific attribute)? The only thing we can say of everything which exists is that it exists and has identity.

It saddens me that Bryan Larsen’s work wasn’t chosen, as I enjoy his art immensely. Does anyone know why it was rejected?

I would learn everything there is to learn about everything worth learning about. I would become a master in every discipline. I would spend a lifetime on each worthy science, art, or skill in existence. However, since I am mortal, I cannot do all of the above. The good new is that I can choose one discipline and a few hobbies which to spend my lifetime pursuing and enjoying!

The use of contract enforcement fees alone would bring in tons of money.

I have noticed you using the term "subjective" in many of your posts. What specifically do you mean by this term? Further, how is my approach to measuring freedom "subjective?”

I agree. One thing that struck me was the optimistically futuristic setting. People dressed in style and were quite civilized. Not only did Gattaca portray a world with improved technology, it portrayed an improved culture as well.

Great results!

I think his point is that once one realizes death is nothing, one's anxiety over it ought to melt away. Future, personal non-existence is not an issue once it occurs. Thus the only issue which matters is how to best live one's life while it still exists, and not to worry about one's own death.

I did some introspection to better understand my own thinking on this subject. I measure a nation's freedom by first comparing it to a standard: an ideal government which protects individual rights and does not violate them. I then evaluate a nation's government by measuring how close or far it is from this standard. Using this method, I think it is possible to relate in an ordinal more/than less/than way which nation's governments are freer than others. Ayn Rand said that love can be measured in a more/than less/than way (this is paraphrased from memory and not an exact quote). For example, one love's one's wife more than one's dog. There are no numbered, cardinal measurements here, only more/than less/than ordinal measurements. One does not say, "my love for my wife is 10.2 units, but I only feel 2.8 units of love for my dog," one simply says, "I love my wife much more than my dog." I think freedom can be measured in the same way. One does not measure freedom on a numbered, cardinal scale. One measures it on an ordinal scale in the same way one measures love. This is a tentative theory and I am open to criticism.