Not really... and you sent me a video that started with an ad that had a SHARK (!!!) in it. That was just plain mean.

Thanks...still looking :)

Thanks for the link....the one I'm looking for isn't that long..I read all on the list. (I need it for the signature on my email). I just read it somewhere recently... When I find it I will post it. Thanks for your help :)

I saw that lol

hey we both went to the same site at the same time!

came from you :)

Does this feel good?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx2fZU5US...

Many quotes I found come close to meaning the same thing, but this one I thought came the closest to what you said.
""No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."
Samuel Adams"

Find others here http://www.liberty1.org/virtue.htm

there are several close ones here:
http://www.liberty1.org/virtue.htm

Hey, nice word! Ribald, bawdy, all fun!

I feel like I'm on a scavenger hunt.... after the word "you" ? (Friendly reminder...incorrect punctuation is not tolerated here!)

Hey, (<--- proper comma puttage) I need help with something quick. I can't find the exact quote from a founding father that basically says, Freedom cannot prevail with an ignorant or lazy populace.. I think it was Jefferson, but I can't find it and I need the exact quote...I even flipped through 5000 Year Leap really quick too. Pweeze?

You know, I really should put that comma in where it belongs up there. But I won't... :)

Was that really your best shot? :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa0KZFz-a...

khalling,

Inspired to do some review and new research I came up with the following things to add to the discussion.
I hope some will find them of value.

John Locke held, since "God gave it to the use of the industrious and the rational (and labour was to be his title to it)" and the primary role of government is the protection of that property.

It is probably because of statements like the preceding that left Rand less than adoring. The epistemology is wrong. She did not need Locke. She had Aristotle.

I see no reason for Rand to abandon mathematics, deductive reasoning/ logic as evidence of Newton’s or Einstein’s theories. They are only more complicated extrapolations than simple trigonometry which could accurately, factually, determine the distance to the moon before we had laser instrumentality to corroborate the fact. Aristotle would have no such problem.

John Locke in "Two Treatises Of Government" said "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself.

Here is something of note:

Locke argued that each individual possesses the rights to life, liberty and property, that these rights exist in nature prior to the formation of government, and that the only legitimate government is one whose function is limited to protecting these rights. Rand argued that man's essential nature is to use his reason to produce the values on which his life depends, which in turn requires a government whose function is strictly limited to protecting him from the initiation of physical force by other men. Locke's ideas were the basis for The Declaration of Independence and the Constitutionthe United States. Rand's essential contribution was to give Locke's best theory of rights a consistent philosophic foundation that eliminates any possibility of misunderstanding or misapplication.
Of course, these principles are highly abstract, and, for someone unfamiliar with the writings of Locke and Rand, probably raise as many questions and objections as they answer. Complicating matters immeasurably for most people is the prevalence in the culture of the antithetical moral, political, and economic ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, and Karl Marx. (Just as Locke's ideas provided the intellectual foundation for the relatively free governments of the 19th century, such as England and the United States, the ideas of Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and Marx provided the intellectual foundation for the totalitarian governments of the 20th century, such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.) Unfortunately, these antithetical ideas have come to completely dominate higher education during the last century, with the amazing result that most Americans are now, quite unwittingly, better versed in the political and economic premises of Vladimir Lenin and Adolph Hitler than in those of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.
Chuckbraman.com http://www.chuckbraman.com/Personal/Pers...

I highly recommend the entire following essay if you care to follow the link.

“Thus in the beginning all the world was America”
by Edward Cline
For the Colonial Williamsburg Journal, April/May 1999

The two men most responsible for the founding of the United States never set foot in it, though their intellectual signatures are stamped on the Declaration of Independence as indelibly as any of the signers’ flourishes: Aristotle and John Locke. It was the Greek philosopher who bequeathed to the West – via Thomas Aquinas – the fundamental rules of reason and logic and the means for men to determine their purpose for living on earth. It was Locke who applied reason to politics more thoroughly and convincingly than had any political thinker before him. And it was to Locke that the Founders turned for their most trenchant arguments in the conflict with Britain. As Dr. Harry Binswanger, a lecturer on Locke’s importance in the history of ideas, has said, “As far as I can determine, Locke is the originator of individual rights.”

http://drurytrantham.blogspot.com/

Regards,
O.A.

My understanding of Rand is that she rejected both and saw them as polar opposites. I see Locke as a deist, so I do not believe he abandoned reason or abandoned that we must observe the world to understand it. I think that Rand may have ignored Locke, because he was not consistent in his epistemology and because some people tried to force his ideas into a “pure” empiricist point of view. I think Rand could have been more clear on this point also. It is clear that reason and logic are the tools for non contradictory thinking (Rand’s point) and these are important in understanding how the mind works. However, every logical system must start either with a premise (assumption) or an observation. Mathematics is the study of logical systems divorced from reality. However, it is amazing how often it is useful in analyzing the real world. Even obscure areas of mathematics, such as number theory interest in prime numbers often turns out to be useful in understanding reality or designing real world systems. For instance, the study of prime numbers has been important in designing encryption systems. Physics is the study of the physical world but uses math and logic to extend our knowledge. It is amazing how often the study of the world leads to insight into mathematics. For instance, see Fourier transforms.

No! Not YOU...ME...hit ME!
K..gotta go to a meetin'. Later on Dudes!

Dang..yer on to me!

Hey you beat me! That is violence too!

That would be initiating force!

we established we are non-violent in here today

Too funny! Don't bite your tongue/finger tips(?) off now.
I was trying to lose a point...come on! Hit me!

I wouldn't say that. I'm trying not to say a lot of things! :)

....that that's the first time you've gotten a point for size...alone???

Interesting. The differing definitions represent lack of consensus. The term will then be "thrown around loosely." I have read many scholarly accounts attributing empiricism. If we are to accept Rand's definition and your appraisal then we must accept that Locke abandoned reality as opposed to his mind. He was not atheist so he was a mystic, but he probably practiced more empiricism than anyone else at the time. Perhaps this why he has been labeled as such. There is another way to look at it. We could consider it a matter of degrees and integrate the two. I find section 1.2 of the following link/page of interest.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ration...