Just checked out GeekPorn.com, and have to admit that I found it quite a misrepresenation of the geek community (at least the computer geek community). I didn't see one overweight person, one woman with more facial hair than the guy she was with, not a single person who was more interested in their computer than sex.
Hrmmm... I wish I had gone to school with the "geeks" portrayed at GeekPorn instead of the more representational ones... Sigh.
Extinction weeds out those species that can't adapt to the current environment. Why should we worry about saving unfit species? Where the hell are we gonna keep them? Preserves? Zoos? Scientific labs? Folks, their species are dying for a reason, because they can't adapt to the changing environment (most likely the encroachment of man). In any case, let the fit live, and let the unfit die. It's seemed to work just fine that way for hundreds of millions of years before man was around...
Bascially [CmdrTaco] can do whatever the fuck he wants
Before Andover.net bought them out, I'd agree with you, but now CmdrTaco's words are representing that of a company's. While CmdrTaco may not think so, imagine if he started posting blatantly racist or sexist articles on slashdot, offending many. How do you think those advertisers that pay to be on/. would feel? I don't know the specifics of CmdrTaco's contract with Andover.net, but I assume he is an employee, and could be fired in such a case.
Are you using Win9x or Win NT or Win2k? I am using Win2k and it crawls. Hell, it sits at that opening screen and chews up 99% of system resources. I'll have to give it a go on 98 and see how it does...
The reason you are finding so many MS internships available is simple:
There are more companies that utilize Microsoft technology over UNIX-based technology. No matter what you say about MS, you have to agree that a lot of companies have sprouted up because of MS (of course you could argue that said companies would still spring up without MS).
In any case, I can empathize with you. I graduated in May, but prior to that, there were about three companies looking for UNIX interns as compared to over 100 looking for those who knew VB/VC/MS-SQL/ASP/etc.
In a way I suppose the trend towards interactive online games that describe an entire world for players to interact in is kind of scary - it's taking the need for real world social interactions out of the loop
Ah yes, like the real-world social interaction of Mother Theressa kissing some guy she meets on the street in order to destroy Brittney's popularity.
the difference between the real world and the world of the Sims is a lot more hazy
Agreed. Just the other day I thought to myself, "Boy, I've sure made a lot of friends from building that roller coaster and comedy club. Then I remembered that I had only done that virtually. Egad, real life so mimics the tasks encountered in the Sims Online game.
No matter how good the programs get, nothing can ever quite match the real world, and people get bored of things quickly when the novelty wears off
don't have the necessary tools to make a rational decision for themselves, so it is ok to force them to do something. So you are not repelled or appalled by forcing anyone to do something
First off, I think you need to work on your quantitative nouns. I think you meant to say: "So you are not repelled or appalled by forcing some people..." If I am against forcing Bob Smith from doing something, but think everyone else can be forced, then the statement, "I am not appalled by forcing anyone to do something," is false, since I am appalled to force Bob to do something. (You had a similar mixup with these terms earlier, saying anyone when you meant everyone.)
Second, the entire children thing is a gray area for me. When does a child become an adult? 18? Puberty? Loss of virginity? At the start of his/her first job? Before children become adults they are a unique combination of individual and property - an individual who has rights to life and a piece of property, owned by their parents.
Regardless, where do you get off saying parasites are bad
Axiom 1: Life is good. Parasites harm life. (Well, I guess the technical definition of a parasite is one that sustains life off another being with giving nothing in return... that's not so bad, but if they harm the individual they are leeching off of (like that little Alien baby in the movie Alien that popped out of that guy's stomach), then that is bad.)
Therefore, parasites shorten/detriment life. Parasites == bad.
Now, hard word is good, yes it is. I guess I should more clearily define hard work... I don't mean it by its extreme literal sense. A hard worker is not someone who busts his balls sweeping floors and then comes home and beats his wife. Hard work refers to not just occupation but life in general; hard work is not necessarily back-breaking work, not a synonym for manual labor, but it describes a sense of ambition, of constant effort, of desire. A hard worker is one who enjoys life, who puts a lot of energy into living life, doing a good job, putting pride into his occupation.
Are we to say that violence is a virtue since violence sometimes leads to good
How does initiating violence lead to good?
If I own a block of land, do I have a right to decide what happens below or above it. That is to say, do I get to make the rules for airplanes that fly over my land? Can someone dig a tunnel underneath my property without my permission? Can I buy all the land surrounding a city and then make it expensive to leave/enter the city? Can I make it impossible for certain people to enter/leave the city?
As far as owning the land above/below, beats me. Should you be able to refuse the gov't the ability to acquire your land? Hell yes. Right now the gov't could decide it wants to build a highway through your backyard and you must sell or have it taken.
Of course if the gov't can't do this, then things like buying a ring around a city and making it uber-expensive to enter/leave could occur. Of course such actions are going to make your ring around the city worthless quickly. Who wants to live in a town that has a high-prices entery/exit fee? Who wants to build new industry in a town that is virtually held hostage by one? Look at East Berlin, no industrialists flocked there, people risked (and lost) lives attempting to leave.
Which means your beliefs are different than Objectivism, meaning you can reach different conclusions than Objectivism. If you don't agree with their beliefs, you can't blindly share their conclusions. Maybe forcing people to pay taxes IS right in your system
Two points: first, I don't blindly follow Objectivism. It's quite impossible to blindly follow it, since it would be a contradiction of terms (to blindly follow Objectivism would to subscribe to its conclusions on faith; one of Objectivism's conclusions is to have individuals think rationally for themselves and not to believe in things on faith - to have reason to believe what you believe, not just because someone told you it was so... hence the contradiction, the paradox, the irony). Second, forcing people to pay taxes isn't right in my system. I've thought about it, and am repalled by forcing anyone to do anything. I understand what taxes give us, some of it needed, some of it good, some of it bad. I am not against people pooling their money to accomplish larger tasks. I am against people forcing you to give them your money to do what they please with it (or even if they are going to do exactly what you want them to do, it should be given voluntarily).
welfare extends life, and you don't believe it is good
By sucking life from others. Life is good - parasites are bad. Animals like fleas have no choice in the matter, humans do.
I hope you agree with me, that all three things are a necessary evil to make driving a safer venture
I agree with you, if there are the lives of others who you are risking, then such laws are in order - again, it can be argued that having such laws is in my self-interest. If these are widely accepted laws, then my chances of not being in an auto accident increase. What I am against (and think most Objectivists are) are things like mandatory seat-belt wearing laws. As a rational adult, I can weigh the consequences of wearing and seat belt or not, and should be able to make my own decision.
Is obeying the rules of the road that different from paying your taxes
Oh yes. As I said earlier, such laws make it safe for me. Second, the roads are owned by the gov't (which they shouldn't be, but whatcha gonnna do?). So, they have a right to make their own laws on those roads - if you don't want to obey them, don't drive on the roads. If I buy a couple of acres, create a road on my property, I should be (and am able to) drive as fast as I like. I'd have a problem if the gov't came to my land and said, "You have to drive slower on your own stretch of road or you will go to jail."
How have I misquoted her by using her ethics system? I have brought up a few examples where it is in your best interest to initiate violence, or something similar, but, you say, it is wrong because Rand says initiating violence is wrong. If I am misusing her ethics system, please point out the wrong assumption I've made, or the wrong step I took. Don't tell me my conclusion is wrong because Ayn Rand is for/against something
Axiom: it is wrong to initiate violence. Axiom: make decisions that are benefitial to yourself. Conclusion: Kill someone for money.
A contradiction, so obviously one axiom must take presedense over the other, no? I tend to think the former supercedes the latter, but I guess that is a decision for each of us to make.
Besides assuming them, how do you know intelligence, hard work, and effort are good
Life is good, an axiom in my personal system. Hence, continutation of life is good. Hence, traits that increase the chances of continuation of life (and make it more enjoyable) are good traits. I live much longer today with science and medicine; I have a more comfortable life if I work hard and put forward good effort in sustaining my means for life. Granted, sharing has its benefits in a base level of survival (if there is limited food resources, it is imperative that sharing exist for all to survive), but when you are beyond the basic necessities of life, placing sharing first is detremental.
If it doesn't work in the real world, why use it
Has it not worked in the real world, though? I assume it would not, but have no concrete proof that it wouldn't. (Of course we have plenty of hard, concrete proof to show that communism doesn't work.)
Have you ever seen that Simpsons episode, "A Streetcar Named Marge?" In it, Maggie (the baby) attends the Ayn Rand School for Tots. Funny stuff...
So why constantly bring up the fact that Rand was against initiating violence
Because you've continually misquoted her (or taken her words out of context).
On what grounds do you say believing Objectivism is a better belief than communism, when both of them don't work in reality?
One encourages man to do his best; the other encourages man to do his worst. Objectivism rewards intelligence, hard work, and effort; Communism punishes those same virtues. With Objectivism, you will have a harder life being mentally retarded, physically disabled, riddled with more kids than you can support; in Communism, such a person would have the same standing as one who worked hard and made wise decisions (you know, we could have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy, but it would be wise not to, since we can't afford another child right now).
I... don't put too much stock in your conclusion if you know your knowledge is lacking in that field
As you shouldn't. I have never claimed to be a philosophy person, an expert on the subject. However, who knows my life, my morals, my ethics, better than me? Aristotle? Hume? Calvin? Hobbes? Calvin & Hobbes? Rand? No. None of them know me as well as I do.
People have been thinking about these problems for thousands of years, to disregard their work is irrational
Ah! You're putting words into my mouth again. I never said I disregarded the works of others. I've read more Rand than other people, granted, but that does not mean I disregard all other thoughts. To stop thinking, to stop questioning, that's what I'm against.
There isn't much I can dispute with that, besides the fact that egoism doesn't coincide with those beliefs
How so? Explain yourself.
If every belief reduces to faith, how can you decide which beliefs are more rational
As I said last post, those views that I perceive are the most rational. What is more rational, to think that I can fly or not? Observation has taught me that I cannot fly, hence it is more rational to know that I cannot fly than assume that I might be able to. You must go with your perception and observations, or you will be able to justify hate and violence. "Well, I shot him in the head, but that is just one way to perceive reality, he is still alive, I have done nothing wrong."
If Rand was for the breaking of the fingers of children, would that make it ok? An Objectivist cannot fall back on Ayn Rand's actions/beliefs when Objectivism leads him/her to a bad conclusion. If Ayn Rand ever did anything wrong, according to the precepts of Objectivism, Objectivists could rightly repeat that action since Rand did it
Hardly. If one were to follow your assumption to the T, following Rand's word blindly, they would soon read Rand's words on rationality, that each Man must think for himself, and must make his own rational decisions rooted in his own self-interest. Hence, ironically, one who followed Rand's words blindly would follow no one's thoughts but his own.
A quote from Rand: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." I find that "philosophy" to be a wise one, one that I've found fitting.
> It comes down to the simple fact that Objectivism is an ideal philosophy that would only work in a utopia.
They say the same thing about communism. Why should we abandon communism and not Objectivism?
If your idea of a utopia is to have man's progress frozen in time, then go for communism. What achievements would a communist state produce? No one has any incentive to invent, to create, to think... in fact, folks are encouraged not to do those things, or they, being "more able" will be forced to toil harder for less. Russia had both community farms and a few farms where the folks who worked the land owned the farm and could profit from their sales. I don't recall the exact numbers, but it was something like 90% of the farms in Russia were community farms and 10% were privately owned, but something like 75% of the total food sources for the country came from the private farms. (These numbers were from a social psychology text box which I don't own anymore, so I can't back them up, sorry.)
I think you mean late nineteenth century
Indeed I did, typo.
Just as aside... Most people agree, the Spanish-American War was the work of William Randolph Hearst
How many men did he command to fight? How many rounds did he fire at the Spanish? While he may have gotten America psyched for war via his yellow journalism, is he then to blame for our gov'ts decision to fight? Hearst screamed, "Remember the Maine," alluding that the Spanish attacked it diliberately, but the gov't knew that it was an onboard explosion.
In any case, my philosophy is fairly simple (like I said, I'm no philosophy stud):
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property
Man, if he chooses, can make rational decisions rooted in reason
Each man should be able to make his own decisions and should not wish to make decisions for other men.
No man should violate another's basic rights (see first point)
Like I said, it's pretty straightforward - let me do my thing, you do your thing. I won't tell you what to think/do, you don't tell me what to think/do. Regarding decisions that affect me, I am the best judge of myself, hence I should make those decisions. Now, how can you be against that?
It is important for the day to day lives of Americans to have a steady flow of oil coming from the middle-east. In the early 90's, with the cold-war over, economics in the middle-east changed and America was losing its grip...
It may be in my self-interest to shoot my neighbor and take his belongings, but if you'll recall, Rand decries initiating physical violence. Clearly, our gov't is to blame for a lot of the suffering over there. The Objectivist thing to do would be to trade in an open market with those who have oil.
It comes down to the simple fact that Objectivism is an ideal philosophy that would only work in a utopia. I know that, you know that, I think everyone knows that. It would require that all people in the society behave rationally, do not initiate physical violence, etc. Perhaps a small nation could be Objectivists, but who knows. Even when the US was its most Objectivist (early ninteenth century, I'd wager, when gov't was much smaller and the US was much closer to laissez-faire capitalism), our gov't still went out and initiated force: Spanish-American War, for example.
Objectivists argue a very simple logic, as you've pointed out: to each his own. Don't tell me what to do, I won't tell you what to do. As long as the gov't takes a minimalist approach, doesn't go fucking over foreign nations for gas, then all is well.
I know, and you should know, that this is not true. Within any sufficiently complicated logical system, you cannot prove that that logical system is consistent (me paraphrasing Goedel, I won't bore you with the proof).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Goedel only prove a finite set of axioms could be proven inconsistent? Hehe, so simply create a philosophy with an infinite number of axioms...:-)
No matter how hard you try, you will always depend on faith
How do you figure? Does nature depend on faith? Does the likelihood of the gravitational constant remaining constant hinge on faith? Does the speed of light have something to do with faith? Since we are beings that are, quite literally, part of nature, how could our observation of nature require any dependence on faith?
What I meant was, you have two possible conclusions, either your "gut feeling" is wrong, or Rand's ethics are wrong
Then my "gut feeling" is wrong. Rand's ethics are quite simple: make rational decisions based on reality. Following a "feeling" with no rational ties is silly. Believing that abortion is wrong because you feel ill when thinking of an aborted fetus is not a rational reason, nor a valid argument against abortion. Those feelings were not there at birth - rather, society has trained me (and you and everyone else) to have certain reactions to certain stimuli. Have you ever heard of that pscyhological experiment where they showed one group of kids a video of an adult beating up an inflatible clown and the other group of kids just saw the adult playing with toys. The kids that saw the adult act violently, when put in a room with the toys (and clown), beat the clown - the other kids simply played with the toys like normal kids. Another experiment showed that when a young child's mother acts scared of an object, the child will fear that object as well. It's advantageous to our survival, to observe what to fear, what to avoid, etc., and, since we are social creatures, to see what others are doing and immitate it. It is built into us biologically, refined via evolution, but just because our "training" has us "sure" of "gut feelings" that hardly makes them right.
"The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time."
Having read the entire quote now, I think have a better grasp of what she meant, but I still think she would be against CEO's earning more than the inventors
Actually, it is still a little out of context. If you read the paragraph after that quote, it will make even more sense what she is saying. The quote was from Atlas Shrugged, John Galt Speech (pg. 980 in the copy I have).
Of course, I think your beliefs don't really coincide with that of the movie. It just might be torture for you
Did the main character sacrifice himself for the sake of others due to being forced by threat of jail or violence? If so, then, you're right, it would violate my moral stance.
Either I have not heard anyone say that, or people have said it and I have subconciously filtered that out. That doesn't make sense. It _can't_ make sense
You'll see quotes just like that (and similar ones like: "BillG shouldn't complain, he can afford any settlement the gov't throws at him") here on/.
Firstly, you won't ever encounter this person again, so there is no chance that he will have an opportunity to return the favor. Secondly, your action will in no way shape the way other people will treat you, you saving his life won't make it any more likely that someone else will save you. Your action does not benefit you. If you believe it does, I think you are deluding yourself
I think it does in a way. Most members of society agree to the tenet, "Hey, if I see you, I'll save your life." Why? So that others will save MY life if I am the one dying. Hence, me agreeing to than tenet increases the chances that someone will attempt to save my life, hence it is in my self-interest.
Are you willing to disregard this thing you "know"? You have a gut feeling as to what is right, which is what I meant by "know"
When I was younger, I had a gut feeling that masturbation was wrong, that it was a sin. I felt guilty for doing it. My parents never told me not to touch myself, never heard about it in church, I can't remember any specific event that would lead me to feel that way. Regardless, I felt guilty, like it was something to be ashamed of. However, after maturing a bit and giving it rational thought, I realized that it was nothing to be embarassed or ashamed about. So... that "gut feeling" of guilt, does that mean masturbation is "evil?" Hardly. It was an irrational thought, and shows the mental stress such irrational thinking can have on a person.
Rand said, basically
Again, it was out of context. You can read the whole quote at: http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/Q3.ht ml. You can read the whole essay by going to your library and checking out a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
The one thing that I do strongly dislike that MS did was strongarm Intel to give up some of their technological advances. That appals me, and I think it bugs BillG too (he is a uber-geek and geeks don't like holding back technology). What I don't like is the view people have of Microsoft that they are a bunch of rich whining babies who deserve to get sued because they are so rich. If I had a nickel for everytime I've read, "Why should BillG not be sued, he's got so much money as it is..." (or something along those lines...) That infuriates me, those who say that are no better than the hordes of looters and moochers in Atlas Shrugged.
Why? Why would you save [the bum's] life. Rational people have to have reasons for their actions
Because I value my life and assume he values his. Because if I were to be choking one day and that bum was to be crossing my path, I'd want him to assist me as I would assist him.
As far as I can tell, you are going to save the bums life because you "know" its right. Why do you know its right, because society says so
It is quite irrational to just "know" something is one thing or the other. Mystics claim this power, I do not. Spiritual mystics "know" that God created the heavens and the Earth... how? I dunno, but they "know" it. I do not profess to "know" anything. My rational knowledge is based upon the sum of my observations. Of course, years of living in a "we" society have instilled certain irrational beliefs in me, ones that I am trying to shake or replace with rational reasons.
If you can provide me with a good reason as to why you would save the bums life, we can move on from this
To requote myself: "Because I value my life and assume he values his. Because if I were to be choking one day and that bum was to be crossing my path, I'd want him to assist me as I would assist him."
If you are forced to go to church, or whatever, since day 1, you are not going to be able to CHOOSE what to believe in
Ha! I was forced to go to church every Sunday for a loooong time. When I was about 11 I started questioning it all, putting my stock in science. I told my parents that I didn't believe in Christianity. They still made me go to Church. They made me be confirmed. I went, but protested in my own ways: I wouldn't take communion; I wouldn't read a Bible passage in front of the congregation like the others getting confirmed had to. When I went to those confirmation classes, I questioned everything to the angst of the poor teacher there. By the time I was 13 my parents stopped making me go to church, but even if they continued, it would not have affected my beliefs.
You ever wonder why religous people tend to beget more religous people
Because a lot of people accept what they are told without rationally questioning it.
The ability to choose what you believe in has all but been removed at birth
Hardly, as I think my personal anecdote displayed quite well.
Ever hear of opportunity cost? If clean floors aren't worth the amount of money to clean them, don't clean them. If people think janitors are too expensive, they won't pay for them. Simple as that. Minimum wage very well be wrong, (I've been stradling the issue for a few months now.) but if you don't think clean floors are worth 800$ a month, deal with dirty floors
Exactly, but what if I think clean floors are worth $400 a month and I find a good cleaner who agrees and will do the work for $400 a month? I have to pay this person as a contractor or under the table, otherwise I am violating minimum wage laws.
Microsoft DID do these things, and they are wrong
Wrong by whose standards? By the law of the land? Yes, perhaps, but is that law just? Microsoft knew of the laws, though, and made a rational decision to break them and take the consequences that might come along with them... but still, are the laws right?
I applaud your contribution to society. Would you still volunteer if it entailed a 2 hour drive? If the ceiling dripped on you where you volunteered? What if parking cost 20$? What I'm trying to get at is, how much satisfaction do you really get out of volunteering, and why you do it but once a week and for only 3 hours?
I don't know if I'd volunteer if those conditions existed. In any case, it should be my decision if I wished to put up with those inconveniences to volunteer. It is my decision to donate 3 hours a week, no more no less. Those are all my decisions that I made. No one made them for me. How would you feel if the government required that you donate 3 hours a week to help the less fortunate? I would hate it? I donate 3 hours per week on my own accord, because I want to. What I don't want is to be commanded what to do. Answer me this: do you enjoy being told what to do? Do you enjoy having someone threaten you with jail time if you do not comply to their wishes?
Outline why it is in your self-interest to save this homeless guy, and maybe I will believe egoism is a sound ethical system
It is for a rational man to decide if it is worth his effort. Would I save the person's life? Yes. Would you? That is your decision, not mine.
Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, except for those that I deem irrational
You really, really, really need to read Atlas Shrugged. So far I have been quoting Rand out of context (since the 1200+ pages would take too long to type in here). Rand argues those who are irrational hold life, libery, and happiness as vices, they seek to take those three things from others. Those who wish to rob you of your rights do not deserve to have you uphold their own rights. If a murderer is attempting to kill you, do not hesitate to retaliate in self defense - do not worry about his right to life when he is obviously not concerned about your right to life.
Now, are these people subhuman because they chose to be irrational, or because they are irrational
Because they choose to be irrational. Humans are born with perception, the ability to perceive reality in rational terms. It is a choice they make to ignore reality, to follow their feelings as opposed to their perceptions.
I know they did not choose to be irrational
I had chosen to think irrationally, to follow all of that silly "serve the people" rhetoric taught these days. I then decided to think for myself and have since become a rational being, IMHO. I thought irrationally before (welfare == good) and chose to stop thinking in such a way. If I can do it, why can't others?
If you look at the Rand quote you provided, you'll notice she is angry that people that don't get paid in relationship to the amount of mental energy they expend. The government has nothing to do with this
Uh, it's called minimum wage. The government forces businesses to pay a minimal amount. That's not capitalism. The CEO is using many more brain cells than the janitor.
I'm finding it difficult to enjoy it as either a philosophical text, or as story. The characters, thus far, have all been painted with one of two colors, good or bad
I'll agree that this is one weakness of it from a story point, the characters are quite one-dimensional. Those that are good remain good throughout - those that are bad remain bad throughout.
If she wants people to act in accordance to their best interests, why should a big railroad company vote against securing a solid revenue stream? Yeah, we know they shouldn't, but nowhere is a reason given as to why it serves my best interest to have a competitor?
Just keep reading, you'll see why...
Glad to hear you decided to read it, I think you'll find it interesting. Rand lays it on heavy at times, but I think it is both a good story and a good philosophical text. Compare it to today... should Microsoft's fate be controlled by the gov't? What if Microsoft ends up going down five years down the road from the government fucking with them? You may think that would only cost the jobs of 30,000 greedy software engineers at MS, but there are millions of others who make a living based on MS. I have written two books on Microsoft technologies and run a Web site covering ASP (an MS technology) that makes money via advertising. The last thing I want to see is Microsoft go down, or my livelihood is hampered as well.
Buying a DMX CD for my brother. At the time of the sale the clerk asked, "How old are you?" Not expecting such a question, I stammerred, "Uh, 21." The asked to see my ID. I let them see it all right. Fascist pigs! B'wa ha ha ha...
You must first understand and realize that "self-interest" doesn't mean a "fuck everyone else" attitude. I really think you are grasping at straws here, and that you know this to be the case. I get pleasure out of spending time with my friends, and enjoy their company. Hence it is in my self-interest to listen to them, be nice to them, etc. I enjoy working with computers and helping people and volunteer every Thursday for three hours to build low-grade computers with Internet access that are given (for free) to home-bound, low-income disabled people. It is in my self-interest to do this because I enjoy helping others and I enjoy mucking around with computer hardware. In fact, I'll go as far to say that anything a rational man consciously chooses to do is in his self-interest. The problem arises when a man is told what to do and threatened with violence to make him comply. I'd hope you'd agree with that, and that is exactly what welfare is. I am made to support others or I will go to jail, plain and simple.
Today's justice system is very good in the eyes of an objectivist. A madman would be prosecuted for ending the lives of others, companies that commit fraud would be sued in a court of law by consumers. Criminals would be punished for their crimes... Objectivists aren't cowards, ducking action, they just don't believe in using force to get someone to do something. Rather than sticking a gun in someone's face, offer a trade of some sort. Companies do this, the government doesn't. Companies don't say, "Hey, give us money or we'll arrest you," they say, "You can purchase our goods or services for money." It is up to you to decide if what the seller is selling his goods for is a fair price and if you even want what the seller is offerring. You can easily refuse the sale and not be threatened with jail time. The government, on the other hand, forces you to pay taxes for programs you have not approved. That is robbery in its purest form.
And I do think irrational people do qualify as being in the "mental lower class."
People are born rational, they make a conscious choice to think irrationally.
If there are so few rational people, how is it that society works
Please read Atlas Shrugged and you will see how this works. Those who are rational carry the burden. In today's society, most people are hard workers and are rational beings. However, there are a number of people who expect to cruise through life, who have no ambition, and how expect others to pay for their lack of work ethic. We have been brought up to think that everyone deserves the basics: food, clothing, shelter. I use to feel the same way, that welfare was a good thing, that the rich needed to watch out for the poor. However, after actually thinking about what I had been taught, I've come to realize that those moochers, those who expect the basics for FREE, they are criminals. Those who do not feel like working to feed their family should have their family starve.
Right now, this class of moochers is fairly small, I think. However, if it keeps growing we will soon be immersed in the world set in Atlas Shrugged, where the few remaining industrialists toil to feed those who would rather not work. John Galt's speech brings up a good point when he asks why the moochers, who know nothing about industry, who know nothing about science, who know nothing about progress or efficiency, are allowed to elect the leaders who determine the rules of industry, the rules of science, and the rules of production.
If [Rand] is really fighting for the rights of people, why must she be so condescending towards them
Because she views irrational people as subhuman. Rand loves life, values to her include freedom, joy, happiness. Those who doubt reality, those who give their faith to mystics of the soul (religion) or mystics of muscle (those people who say man must sacrifice for "The People") give up their rationality. They turn those values into vices. Again, you really need to - at minimum - read John Galt's speech in Altas Shrugged.
God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason
I see why this might have been a little baffling, I took it out of context. Rand was quoting what mystics of the soul say. It's the mysic of the soul who says, "God is non-man, sould is non-body, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory..." Perception is non-sensory... to quote John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged (which you need to read, BTW): "Those who tell you that man is unable to perceive a reality undistorted by his senses, mean that they are unwilling to perceive a reality undistorted by their feelings. 'Things as they are' are things as perceived by your mind; divorce them from reason and they become 'things as perceived by your wishes.'"
What about CEO's who don't invent anything, but make millions of dollars a year
Capitalism is great, it is a system where seller and buyer can freely negotiate a price amicable to both. There is nothing wrong with this, since the company agreed to pay the CEO $X and the CEO accepted $X. What would be wrong is for the government to step in and say, "Everone must be paid at least $Y (minimum wage)" or "Noone can be paid more than $Z." What right does the government have in setting terms in a free market?
Objectivism boils down to a very simple point, one that I agree with wholeheartedly: "Man should be able to make his own decisions." Should an individual be able to do heroine? It's his decision, let him weigh the consequences and decide if it's right for him, no one should be able to forcibly prevent him from doing such a drug. Should man give money to the needy? If he wants to, it's his call, but under no circumstances should someone force him to. I hope you agree with Man's right to make his own decisions and not be forced into making a particular one.
Slashdot Mirror
Hrmmm... I wish I had gone to school with the "geeks" portrayed at GeekPorn instead of the more representational ones... Sigh.
Agreed... I've had that particular email sent to me by some bright friends who weren't so bright when it came to computers...
But doesn't that count as a chnage in the environment that they were unable to adapt to?
Extinction weeds out those species that can't adapt to the current environment. Why should we worry about saving unfit species? Where the hell are we gonna keep them? Preserves? Zoos? Scientific labs? Folks, their species are dying for a reason, because they can't adapt to the changing environment (most likely the encroachment of man). In any case, let the fit live, and let the unfit die. It's seemed to work just fine that way for hundreds of millions of years before man was around...
Before Andover.net bought them out, I'd agree with you, but now CmdrTaco's words are representing that of a company's. While CmdrTaco may not think so, imagine if he started posting blatantly racist or sexist articles on slashdot, offending many. How do you think those advertisers that pay to be on /. would feel? I don't know the specifics of CmdrTaco's contract with Andover.net, but I assume he is an employee, and could be fired in such a case.
Are you using Win9x or Win NT or Win2k? I am using Win2k and it crawls. Hell, it sits at that opening screen and chews up 99% of system resources. I'll have to give it a go on 98 and see how it does...
In any case, I can empathize with you. I graduated in May, but prior to that, there were about three companies looking for UNIX interns as compared to over 100 looking for those who knew VB/VC/MS-SQL/ASP/etc.
What will you give me for my nick?
aboot: switching to OSF/1 PALcode version 1.75
aboot: booting from device 'SCSI 3 6 0 1 100 0 0'
This joke was aboot as funny as Canada's military presence, eh?
Or his $86 million dollars...
Ah yes, like the real-world social interaction of Mother Theressa kissing some guy she meets on the street in order to destroy Brittney's popularity.
the difference between the real world and the world of the Sims is a lot more hazy
Agreed. Just the other day I thought to myself, "Boy, I've sure made a lot of friends from building that roller coaster and comedy club. Then I remembered that I had only done that virtually. Egad, real life so mimics the tasks encountered in the Sims Online game.
No matter how good the programs get, nothing can ever quite match the real world, and people get bored of things quickly when the novelty wears off
Not until a computer can hug you.
First off, I think you need to work on your quantitative nouns. I think you meant to say: "So you are not repelled or appalled by forcing some people ..." If I am against forcing Bob Smith from doing something, but think everyone else can be forced, then the statement, "I am not appalled by forcing anyone to do something," is false, since I am appalled to force Bob to do something. (You had a similar mixup with these terms earlier, saying anyone when you meant everyone.)
Second, the entire children thing is a gray area for me. When does a child become an adult? 18? Puberty? Loss of virginity? At the start of his/her first job? Before children become adults they are a unique combination of individual and property - an individual who has rights to life and a piece of property, owned by their parents.
Regardless, where do you get off saying parasites are bad
Axiom 1: Life is good.
Parasites harm life. (Well, I guess the technical definition of a parasite is one that sustains life off another being with giving nothing in return... that's not so bad, but if they harm the individual they are leeching off of (like that little Alien baby in the movie Alien that popped out of that guy's stomach), then that is bad.)
Therefore, parasites shorten/detriment life. Parasites == bad.
Now, hard word is good, yes it is. I guess I should more clearily define hard work... I don't mean it by its extreme literal sense. A hard worker is not someone who busts his balls sweeping floors and then comes home and beats his wife. Hard work refers to not just occupation but life in general; hard work is not necessarily back-breaking work, not a synonym for manual labor, but it describes a sense of ambition, of constant effort, of desire. A hard worker is one who enjoys life, who puts a lot of energy into living life, doing a good job, putting pride into his occupation.
Are we to say that violence is a virtue since violence sometimes leads to good
How does initiating violence lead to good?
If I own a block of land, do I have a right to decide what happens below or above it. That is to say, do I get to make the rules for airplanes that fly over my land? Can someone dig a tunnel underneath my property without my permission? Can I buy all the land surrounding a city and then make it expensive to leave/enter the city? Can I make it impossible for certain people to enter/leave the city?
As far as owning the land above/below, beats me. Should you be able to refuse the gov't the ability to acquire your land? Hell yes. Right now the gov't could decide it wants to build a highway through your backyard and you must sell or have it taken.
Of course if the gov't can't do this, then things like buying a ring around a city and making it uber-expensive to enter/leave could occur. Of course such actions are going to make your ring around the city worthless quickly. Who wants to live in a town that has a high-prices entery/exit fee? Who wants to build new industry in a town that is virtually held hostage by one? Look at East Berlin, no industrialists flocked there, people risked (and lost) lives attempting to leave.
Two points: first, I don't blindly follow Objectivism. It's quite impossible to blindly follow it, since it would be a contradiction of terms (to blindly follow Objectivism would to subscribe to its conclusions on faith; one of Objectivism's conclusions is to have individuals think rationally for themselves and not to believe in things on faith - to have reason to believe what you believe, not just because someone told you it was so... hence the contradiction, the paradox, the irony). Second, forcing people to pay taxes isn't right in my system. I've thought about it, and am repalled by forcing anyone to do anything. I understand what taxes give us, some of it needed, some of it good, some of it bad. I am not against people pooling their money to accomplish larger tasks. I am against people forcing you to give them your money to do what they please with it (or even if they are going to do exactly what you want them to do, it should be given voluntarily).
welfare extends life, and you don't believe it is good
By sucking life from others. Life is good - parasites are bad. Animals like fleas have no choice in the matter, humans do.
I hope you agree with me, that all three things are a necessary evil to make driving a safer venture
I agree with you, if there are the lives of others who you are risking, then such laws are in order - again, it can be argued that having such laws is in my self-interest. If these are widely accepted laws, then my chances of not being in an auto accident increase. What I am against (and think most Objectivists are) are things like mandatory seat-belt wearing laws. As a rational adult, I can weigh the consequences of wearing and seat belt or not, and should be able to make my own decision.
Is obeying the rules of the road that different from paying your taxes
Oh yes. As I said earlier, such laws make it safe for me. Second, the roads are owned by the gov't (which they shouldn't be, but whatcha gonnna do?). So, they have a right to make their own laws on those roads - if you don't want to obey them, don't drive on the roads. If I buy a couple of acres, create a road on my property, I should be (and am able to) drive as fast as I like. I'd have a problem if the gov't came to my land and said, "You have to drive slower on your own stretch of road or you will go to jail."
Axiom: it is wrong to initiate violence.
Axiom: make decisions that are benefitial to yourself.
Conclusion: Kill someone for money.
A contradiction, so obviously one axiom must take presedense over the other, no? I tend to think the former supercedes the latter, but I guess that is a decision for each of us to make.
Besides assuming them, how do you know intelligence, hard work, and effort are good
Life is good, an axiom in my personal system. Hence, continutation of life is good. Hence, traits that increase the chances of continuation of life (and make it more enjoyable) are good traits. I live much longer today with science and medicine; I have a more comfortable life if I work hard and put forward good effort in sustaining my means for life. Granted, sharing has its benefits in a base level of survival (if there is limited food resources, it is imperative that sharing exist for all to survive), but when you are beyond the basic necessities of life, placing sharing first is detremental.
If it doesn't work in the real world, why use it
Has it not worked in the real world, though? I assume it would not, but have no concrete proof that it wouldn't. (Of course we have plenty of hard, concrete proof to show that communism doesn't work.)
Have you ever seen that Simpsons episode, "A Streetcar Named Marge?" In it, Maggie (the baby) attends the Ayn Rand School for Tots. Funny stuff...
Because you've continually misquoted her (or taken her words out of context).
On what grounds do you say believing Objectivism is a better belief than communism, when both of them don't work in reality?
One encourages man to do his best; the other encourages man to do his worst. Objectivism rewards intelligence, hard work, and effort; Communism punishes those same virtues. With Objectivism, you will have a harder life being mentally retarded, physically disabled, riddled with more kids than you can support; in Communism, such a person would have the same standing as one who worked hard and made wise decisions (you know, we could have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy, but it would be wise not to, since we can't afford another child right now).
I ... don't put too much stock in your conclusion if you know your knowledge is lacking in that field
As you shouldn't. I have never claimed to be a philosophy person, an expert on the subject. However, who knows my life, my morals, my ethics, better than me? Aristotle? Hume? Calvin? Hobbes? Calvin & Hobbes? Rand? No. None of them know me as well as I do.
People have been thinking about these problems for thousands of years, to disregard their work is irrational
Ah! You're putting words into my mouth again. I never said I disregarded the works of others. I've read more Rand than other people, granted, but that does not mean I disregard all other thoughts. To stop thinking, to stop questioning, that's what I'm against.
There isn't much I can dispute with that, besides the fact that egoism doesn't coincide with those beliefs
How so? Explain yourself.
If every belief reduces to faith, how can you decide which beliefs are more rational
As I said last post, those views that I perceive are the most rational. What is more rational, to think that I can fly or not? Observation has taught me that I cannot fly, hence it is more rational to know that I cannot fly than assume that I might be able to. You must go with your perception and observations, or you will be able to justify hate and violence. "Well, I shot him in the head, but that is just one way to perceive reality, he is still alive, I have done nothing wrong."
Hardly. If one were to follow your assumption to the T, following Rand's word blindly, they would soon read Rand's words on rationality, that each Man must think for himself, and must make his own rational decisions rooted in his own self-interest. Hence, ironically, one who followed Rand's words blindly would follow no one's thoughts but his own.
A quote from Rand: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." I find that "philosophy" to be a wise one, one that I've found fitting.
> It comes down to the simple fact that Objectivism is an ideal philosophy that would only work in a utopia. They say the same thing about communism. Why should we abandon communism and not Objectivism?
If your idea of a utopia is to have man's progress frozen in time, then go for communism. What achievements would a communist state produce? No one has any incentive to invent, to create, to think... in fact, folks are encouraged not to do those things, or they, being "more able" will be forced to toil harder for less. Russia had both community farms and a few farms where the folks who worked the land owned the farm and could profit from their sales. I don't recall the exact numbers, but it was something like 90% of the farms in Russia were community farms and 10% were privately owned, but something like 75% of the total food sources for the country came from the private farms. (These numbers were from a social psychology text box which I don't own anymore, so I can't back them up, sorry.)
I think you mean late nineteenth century
Indeed I did, typo.
Just as aside... Most people agree, the Spanish-American War was the work of William Randolph Hearst
How many men did he command to fight? How many rounds did he fire at the Spanish? While he may have gotten America psyched for war via his yellow journalism, is he then to blame for our gov'ts decision to fight? Hearst screamed, "Remember the Maine," alluding that the Spanish attacked it diliberately, but the gov't knew that it was an onboard explosion.
In any case, my philosophy is fairly simple (like I said, I'm no philosophy stud):
Like I said, it's pretty straightforward - let me do my thing, you do your thing. I won't tell you what to think/do, you don't tell me what to think/do. Regarding decisions that affect me, I am the best judge of myself, hence I should make those decisions. Now, how can you be against that?
Have a nice Saturday...
It may be in my self-interest to shoot my neighbor and take his belongings, but if you'll recall, Rand decries initiating physical violence. Clearly, our gov't is to blame for a lot of the suffering over there. The Objectivist thing to do would be to trade in an open market with those who have oil.
It comes down to the simple fact that Objectivism is an ideal philosophy that would only work in a utopia. I know that, you know that, I think everyone knows that. It would require that all people in the society behave rationally, do not initiate physical violence, etc. Perhaps a small nation could be Objectivists, but who knows. Even when the US was its most Objectivist (early ninteenth century, I'd wager, when gov't was much smaller and the US was much closer to laissez-faire capitalism), our gov't still went out and initiated force: Spanish-American War, for example.
Objectivists argue a very simple logic, as you've pointed out: to each his own. Don't tell me what to do, I won't tell you what to do. As long as the gov't takes a minimalist approach, doesn't go fucking over foreign nations for gas, then all is well.
I know, and you should know, that this is not true. Within any sufficiently complicated logical system, you cannot prove that that logical system is consistent (me paraphrasing Goedel, I won't bore you with the proof).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Goedel only prove a finite set of axioms could be proven inconsistent? Hehe, so simply create a philosophy with an infinite number of axioms... :-)
No matter how hard you try, you will always depend on faith
How do you figure? Does nature depend on faith? Does the likelihood of the gravitational constant remaining constant hinge on faith? Does the speed of light have something to do with faith? Since we are beings that are, quite literally, part of nature, how could our observation of nature require any dependence on faith?
Then my "gut feeling" is wrong. Rand's ethics are quite simple: make rational decisions based on reality. Following a "feeling" with no rational ties is silly. Believing that abortion is wrong because you feel ill when thinking of an aborted fetus is not a rational reason, nor a valid argument against abortion. Those feelings were not there at birth - rather, society has trained me (and you and everyone else) to have certain reactions to certain stimuli. Have you ever heard of that pscyhological experiment where they showed one group of kids a video of an adult beating up an inflatible clown and the other group of kids just saw the adult playing with toys. The kids that saw the adult act violently, when put in a room with the toys (and clown), beat the clown - the other kids simply played with the toys like normal kids. Another experiment showed that when a young child's mother acts scared of an object, the child will fear that object as well. It's advantageous to our survival, to observe what to fear, what to avoid, etc., and, since we are social creatures, to see what others are doing and immitate it. It is built into us biologically, refined via evolution, but just because our "training" has us "sure" of "gut feelings" that hardly makes them right.
"The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time." Having read the entire quote now, I think have a better grasp of what she meant, but I still think she would be against CEO's earning more than the inventors
Actually, it is still a little out of context. If you read the paragraph after that quote, it will make even more sense what she is saying. The quote was from Atlas Shrugged, John Galt Speech (pg. 980 in the copy I have).
Of course, I think your beliefs don't really coincide with that of the movie. It just might be torture for you
Did the main character sacrifice himself for the sake of others due to being forced by threat of jail or violence? If so, then, you're right, it would violate my moral stance.
Either I have not heard anyone say that, or people have said it and I have subconciously filtered that out. That doesn't make sense. It _can't_ make sense
You'll see quotes just like that (and similar ones like: "BillG shouldn't complain, he can afford any settlement the gov't throws at him") here on /.
I think it does in a way. Most members of society agree to the tenet, "Hey, if I see you, I'll save your life." Why? So that others will save MY life if I am the one dying. Hence, me agreeing to than tenet increases the chances that someone will attempt to save my life, hence it is in my self-interest.
Are you willing to disregard this thing you "know"? You have a gut feeling as to what is right, which is what I meant by "know"
When I was younger, I had a gut feeling that masturbation was wrong, that it was a sin. I felt guilty for doing it. My parents never told me not to touch myself, never heard about it in church, I can't remember any specific event that would lead me to feel that way. Regardless, I felt guilty, like it was something to be ashamed of. However, after maturing a bit and giving it rational thought, I realized that it was nothing to be embarassed or ashamed about. So... that "gut feeling" of guilt, does that mean masturbation is "evil?" Hardly. It was an irrational thought, and shows the mental stress such irrational thinking can have on a person.
Rand said, basically
Again, it was out of context. You can read the whole quote at: http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/Q3.ht ml. You can read the whole essay by going to your library and checking out a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
The one thing that I do strongly dislike that MS did was strongarm Intel to give up some of their technological advances. That appals me, and I think it bugs BillG too (he is a uber-geek and geeks don't like holding back technology). What I don't like is the view people have of Microsoft that they are a bunch of rich whining babies who deserve to get sued because they are so rich. If I had a nickel for everytime I've read, "Why should BillG not be sued, he's got so much money as it is..." (or something along those lines...) That infuriates me, those who say that are no better than the hordes of looters and moochers in Atlas Shrugged.
Because I value my life and assume he values his. Because if I were to be choking one day and that bum was to be crossing my path, I'd want him to assist me as I would assist him.
As far as I can tell, you are going to save the bums life because you "know" its right. Why do you know its right, because society says so
It is quite irrational to just "know" something is one thing or the other. Mystics claim this power, I do not. Spiritual mystics "know" that God created the heavens and the Earth... how? I dunno, but they "know" it. I do not profess to "know" anything. My rational knowledge is based upon the sum of my observations. Of course, years of living in a "we" society have instilled certain irrational beliefs in me, ones that I am trying to shake or replace with rational reasons.
If you can provide me with a good reason as to why you would save the bums life, we can move on from this
To requote myself: "Because I value my life and assume he values his. Because if I were to be choking one day and that bum was to be crossing my path, I'd want him to assist me as I would assist him."
If you are forced to go to church, or whatever, since day 1, you are not going to be able to CHOOSE what to believe in
Ha! I was forced to go to church every Sunday for a loooong time. When I was about 11 I started questioning it all, putting my stock in science. I told my parents that I didn't believe in Christianity. They still made me go to Church. They made me be confirmed. I went, but protested in my own ways: I wouldn't take communion; I wouldn't read a Bible passage in front of the congregation like the others getting confirmed had to. When I went to those confirmation classes, I questioned everything to the angst of the poor teacher there. By the time I was 13 my parents stopped making me go to church, but even if they continued, it would not have affected my beliefs.
You ever wonder why religous people tend to beget more religous people
Because a lot of people accept what they are told without rationally questioning it.
The ability to choose what you believe in has all but been removed at birth
Hardly, as I think my personal anecdote displayed quite well.
Ever hear of opportunity cost? If clean floors aren't worth the amount of money to clean them, don't clean them. If people think janitors are too expensive, they won't pay for them. Simple as that. Minimum wage very well be wrong, (I've been stradling the issue for a few months now.) but if you don't think clean floors are worth 800$ a month, deal with dirty floors
Exactly, but what if I think clean floors are worth $400 a month and I find a good cleaner who agrees and will do the work for $400 a month? I have to pay this person as a contractor or under the table, otherwise I am violating minimum wage laws.
Microsoft DID do these things, and they are wrong
Wrong by whose standards? By the law of the land? Yes, perhaps, but is that law just? Microsoft knew of the laws, though, and made a rational decision to break them and take the consequences that might come along with them... but still, are the laws right?
I don't know if I'd volunteer if those conditions existed. In any case, it should be my decision if I wished to put up with those inconveniences to volunteer. It is my decision to donate 3 hours a week, no more no less. Those are all my decisions that I made. No one made them for me. How would you feel if the government required that you donate 3 hours a week to help the less fortunate? I would hate it? I donate 3 hours per week on my own accord, because I want to. What I don't want is to be commanded what to do. Answer me this: do you enjoy being told what to do? Do you enjoy having someone threaten you with jail time if you do not comply to their wishes?
Outline why it is in your self-interest to save this homeless guy, and maybe I will believe egoism is a sound ethical system
It is for a rational man to decide if it is worth his effort. Would I save the person's life? Yes. Would you? That is your decision, not mine.
Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, except for those that I deem irrational
You really, really, really need to read Atlas Shrugged. So far I have been quoting Rand out of context (since the 1200+ pages would take too long to type in here). Rand argues those who are irrational hold life, libery, and happiness as vices, they seek to take those three things from others. Those who wish to rob you of your rights do not deserve to have you uphold their own rights. If a murderer is attempting to kill you, do not hesitate to retaliate in self defense - do not worry about his right to life when he is obviously not concerned about your right to life.
Now, are these people subhuman because they chose to be irrational, or because they are irrational
Because they choose to be irrational. Humans are born with perception, the ability to perceive reality in rational terms. It is a choice they make to ignore reality, to follow their feelings as opposed to their perceptions.
I know they did not choose to be irrational
I had chosen to think irrationally, to follow all of that silly "serve the people" rhetoric taught these days. I then decided to think for myself and have since become a rational being, IMHO. I thought irrationally before (welfare == good) and chose to stop thinking in such a way. If I can do it, why can't others?
If you look at the Rand quote you provided, you'll notice she is angry that people that don't get paid in relationship to the amount of mental energy they expend. The government has nothing to do with this
Uh, it's called minimum wage. The government forces businesses to pay a minimal amount. That's not capitalism. The CEO is using many more brain cells than the janitor.
I'm finding it difficult to enjoy it as either a philosophical text, or as story. The characters, thus far, have all been painted with one of two colors, good or bad
I'll agree that this is one weakness of it from a story point, the characters are quite one-dimensional. Those that are good remain good throughout - those that are bad remain bad throughout.
If she wants people to act in accordance to their best interests, why should a big railroad company vote against securing a solid revenue stream? Yeah, we know they shouldn't, but nowhere is a reason given as to why it serves my best interest to have a competitor?
Just keep reading, you'll see why...
Glad to hear you decided to read it, I think you'll find it interesting. Rand lays it on heavy at times, but I think it is both a good story and a good philosophical text. Compare it to today... should Microsoft's fate be controlled by the gov't? What if Microsoft ends up going down five years down the road from the government fucking with them? You may think that would only cost the jobs of 30,000 greedy software engineers at MS, but there are millions of others who make a living based on MS. I have written two books on Microsoft technologies and run a Web site covering ASP (an MS technology) that makes money via advertising. The last thing I want to see is Microsoft go down, or my livelihood is hampered as well.
Kinda. If the expiration date is MM/YY, MM is restricted from the values 1 - 12, not the full range of values from 00 - 99.
Buying a DMX CD for my brother. At the time of the sale the clerk asked, "How old are you?" Not expecting such a question, I stammerred, "Uh, 21." The asked to see my ID. I let them see it all right. Fascist pigs! B'wa ha ha ha...
Today's justice system is very good in the eyes of an objectivist. A madman would be prosecuted for ending the lives of others, companies that commit fraud would be sued in a court of law by consumers. Criminals would be punished for their crimes... Objectivists aren't cowards, ducking action, they just don't believe in using force to get someone to do something. Rather than sticking a gun in someone's face, offer a trade of some sort. Companies do this, the government doesn't. Companies don't say, "Hey, give us money or we'll arrest you," they say, "You can purchase our goods or services for money." It is up to you to decide if what the seller is selling his goods for is a fair price and if you even want what the seller is offerring. You can easily refuse the sale and not be threatened with jail time. The government, on the other hand, forces you to pay taxes for programs you have not approved. That is robbery in its purest form.
And I do think irrational people do qualify as being in the "mental lower class."
People are born rational, they make a conscious choice to think irrationally.
If there are so few rational people, how is it that society works
Please read Atlas Shrugged and you will see how this works. Those who are rational carry the burden. In today's society, most people are hard workers and are rational beings. However, there are a number of people who expect to cruise through life, who have no ambition, and how expect others to pay for their lack of work ethic. We have been brought up to think that everyone deserves the basics: food, clothing, shelter. I use to feel the same way, that welfare was a good thing, that the rich needed to watch out for the poor. However, after actually thinking about what I had been taught, I've come to realize that those moochers, those who expect the basics for FREE, they are criminals. Those who do not feel like working to feed their family should have their family starve.
Right now, this class of moochers is fairly small, I think. However, if it keeps growing we will soon be immersed in the world set in Atlas Shrugged, where the few remaining industrialists toil to feed those who would rather not work. John Galt's speech brings up a good point when he asks why the moochers, who know nothing about industry, who know nothing about science, who know nothing about progress or efficiency, are allowed to elect the leaders who determine the rules of industry, the rules of science, and the rules of production.
If [Rand] is really fighting for the rights of people, why must she be so condescending towards them
Because she views irrational people as subhuman. Rand loves life, values to her include freedom, joy, happiness. Those who doubt reality, those who give their faith to mystics of the soul (religion) or mystics of muscle (those people who say man must sacrifice for "The People") give up their rationality. They turn those values into vices. Again, you really need to - at minimum - read John Galt's speech in Altas Shrugged.
God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason
I see why this might have been a little baffling, I took it out of context. Rand was quoting what mystics of the soul say. It's the mysic of the soul who says, "God is non-man, sould is non-body, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory..." Perception is non-sensory... to quote John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged (which you need to read, BTW): "Those who tell you that man is unable to perceive a reality undistorted by his senses, mean that they are unwilling to perceive a reality undistorted by their feelings. 'Things as they are' are things as perceived by your mind; divorce them from reason and they become 'things as perceived by your wishes.'"
What about CEO's who don't invent anything, but make millions of dollars a year
Capitalism is great, it is a system where seller and buyer can freely negotiate a price amicable to both. There is nothing wrong with this, since the company agreed to pay the CEO $X and the CEO accepted $X. What would be wrong is for the government to step in and say, "Everone must be paid at least $Y (minimum wage)" or "Noone can be paid more than $Z." What right does the government have in setting terms in a free market?
Objectivism boils down to a very simple point, one that I agree with wholeheartedly: "Man should be able to make his own decisions." Should an individual be able to do heroine? It's his decision, let him weigh the consequences and decide if it's right for him, no one should be able to forcibly prevent him from doing such a drug. Should man give money to the needy? If he wants to, it's his call, but under no circumstances should someone force him to. I hope you agree with Man's right to make his own decisions and not be forced into making a particular one.