nothing you say here makes sense or is accurate. Germany does not have strong patent laws. Germany is reeling under the EU arrangement it made on currency and patent laws. bla on the rest of your statements they are not germane to the conversation. stick to our own country and gun control advocates. You, Mike? are you for stricter gun control? I dare you-make a post and lay out your position...I'm looking forward to it, actually

K you do not have any facts; and facts contradict your claims. In the first place, you make a sweeping generalization without any citation of time and place. Britain had strict gun control laws, but strong patent laws. And the guns trained at their heads were aimed from across the Channel. You did not mean Britain, did you? A simple search on Nazi Patent Law and Nazi Gun Control popped up two Wikipedia articles that totally disprove any claim against them. German gun control is strict _today_. It was strict as a result of the Versailles Treaty which disarmed the state; so the state disarmed the citizens, being otherwise unable to maintain any order. However, just before they lost all power, the conservatives _loosened_ gun control law; and when the Nazis came in, they relaxed them even further - except for Jews. "...except for Jews..." also defined Nazi patent law. Of course, they turned the rules to their benefit. (Read about the bicycle reflectors that enriched the SS.) However, those industrialists, Krupp, IG Farben, Junkers, even Zeiss (which was not in the gang), never would have tolerated the loss of their patents. German patent law has always been strong, if different from US in significant ways. So, which examples are you actually trying to refer to?

the demand of sacrifice by tyrants is altruism. I was NOT asserting that tyrants are selfish. That was not the question I answered

It could also hinge on the word "major." I could believe the worst atrocities were committed from altruistic intentions.

he could easily set up his secretary to avoid being a traditional income earner. In fact, I would not be surprised if she already is. I am well aware of this story. His argument is disingenuous. and you really thought I would look at an article in the Atlantic as being unbiased?

I agree with you 100%, Robbie. That is why the word was in quotes. K was referring to these mainstream media reports about the disparity in taxation between Buffett and his secretary. Again, for me, there is no scandal. I do note that in reply to my pointing out that flat taxes are regressive on the poor one Objectivist friend of mine suggest that that provides an incentive to get out of poverty. Sort of Heinleinesque, and I decline to agree, but I appreciate the thought.

See Lucky's comments in reply above. We heard Tenzin Gyatso ("The Dalai Lama") speak in Ann Arbor some years ago. Nice guy. That said, in _God is Not Great_ Christopher Hitchens wrote at length about the horrors perpetrated by Buddhists. Even in Lhasa before the communists, while slaughters were unknown, floggings were common - not very "one with everything".

Hitchens also has similar charges to lay against Mahatma Gandhi. His peasant utopia meant death and suffering.

As for Mother Theresa, if you still believe that she was virtuous in any way - even by so called "altruistic" standards, then you are in for a rude awakening. For over a thousand years Catholic orders actually did and do care for the sick. Mercy Systems, St. Joseph,... they operate real hospitals in the USA - and not without criticism, granted. However, Mother Theresa was all about suffering, letting them suffer, allowing them to suffer, nurturing their suffering while _refusing gifts of medicine_. She was the perfect embodiment of altruist evil, a soul sister to Stalin.

The Dalai Lama- an amusing and usually sensible chap who out of egotistical do-goodism joined the celebrities promoting environmentalism -the movement that steals tax money to pay for diverting food crops to fuel, thus causing starvation.
Mahatma Gandhi- Supported every claim of the propagandist Jinnah during the separation of Pakistan from India, by giving in to Muslim threats and actual violence cost the lives of many Hindus. 14 million people were displaced, there were half a million fatalities most of them Hindu at the hands of Muslim terrorists.
Mother Teresa- One of the great frauds of modern times who was part of the gang that gave us the slaughters of the middle ages, the inquisition, and recently massive child abuse.

They can't be forced, but life can be made particularly painful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR_fkXB86...

His home is in a neighborhood. If you take the $31,000 price and move it to today's market, it is like $3 million. We have housing tracts like that here in Austin, whole neighborhoods. The people who live there make $250,000 to $500,000 per year: successful sales people, video game designers,... not robber barons by any standard. Buffett earned his home then and has been happy in it ever since. Maybe you don't like him for political reasons. He made his money in the open market. He once said that he loves people who short Berkshire Hathaway because they are telling him where the floor price is.

Sorry K, but you stepped on your shoelaces. She earned about $200,000 per year. The "scandal" is that she is in the 35% tax bracket and he pays less. See "The Atlantic" here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...

No. You nodded to jbrenner's assertion that collectivist leaders "get something" in return when they "do something" for other people and so they are selfish, not selfless. I pointed him to Branden's essay on "Counterfeit Individualism." All the bad guys in _Atlas Shrugged_ and Washington DC jockey for power, trading favors, trading friendships, making deals, but it is not selfish behavior because their essential motives are not self-generated but other-directed.

In _The Fountainhead_ Keating says to Toohey, "I don't follow you..." Toohey quips, "I have so many followers I have to brush them out of my hair." He is calling his followers lice. He holds them in contempt.

Awards that come from your peers are valued as acknowledgments of the achievements you know you attained. Those accolades come from people whom you respect. That is selfishness. Garnering adulation from people whom you despise is a consequence of altruism, both on their part and more saliently on yours.

See below to khalling. It is not that they "get something" but _what_ they get. See Branden's essay on "Counterfeit Individualism" in _The Virtue of Selfishness_.

"But not all who have called for sacrifice have been genocidal dictators...One does not equal the other."

Who said they did?

The article says, "Every genocidal dictator in history has risen to power calling for sacrifice."
The sentence does not have an equal sign.
The article does NOT say, everyone who have called for sacrifice have been genocidal dictators.