PS: Why do we allow them to confiscate a very nice word.... that doesn't even come close to describing the left. Send them all to Venezuela for and education, instead of the Universities!

I have a real problem with so-called liberals, referring to themselves as "Liberals." They are NOT! As are most of the folks who comment here, and as are most Conservatives, I am a Liberal! I believe in freedom of thought and expression, in people being free to do what they want, so long as they do not infringe on others' rights. They are NOT free to throw cigarettes out of a car window, etc., etc. - but are free to think and act pretty much as they wish. If you agree with the "Golden Rule," you are a liberal. Many refer to the fascists who shut down free speech at Berkeley as "Liberals." REALLY?

Objectivism has a selfish component to it as well, but it is a moral and responsible one, where you do not need to impose yourself on others. I find that Libertarians have that same desire, yet will implement it through means that impose it on others.

Not a chance!

I think that pirate was speaking to the content and proliferation of types of articles and discussion. I do not see that Martimus strays from the site's stated goals

from the article: "All of this makes it increasingly clear that the models greatly exaggerate the warming effect of carbon dioxide. The models’ errors are not random—as often above as below observed temperatures, and by similar magnitudes—but consistently above observed temperatures, making it apparent that the models are biased. The large and growing divergence between model simulations and observed GAT severely reduces the models’ credibility both for predicting future GAT and for informing policy."

are you suggesting that man made global warming and the supplied models are truth? huh.

I agree with KevinS completely. I loved that they didn't modernize it and they didn't hit you over the head with a voiced-over montage backstory explaining why the trains mattered in the story. They just showed someone pay $700 to fill up a tank of gas.

Exactly so, and one reason why watching the movies is mre than a passive form of entertainment, you actually have to look into the background..

Yes it was unclear as I was thinking he would certainly recognize his post.

Sorry, I thought that you linked the article because you might have agreed with it.
A short comment as to why you posted the link would have helped me to understand whether you considered that article to be objective or that Martimus might have been contradicting other posts of his.

Indeed, what a hoot! They (probably intentionally) gloss over the fact that Ayn Rand wrote her most famous novel over half a century ago, when railroads were far more in the public eye (before the days of the interstate freeways). By the way, rail IS used a lot today for heavy freight (but I guess the libs don't know that either). When they did the movies, I suppose they could have "modernized" the plot to make Taggart Transcontinental into an airline, or a "high-tech" computer company or something along those lines, but at some point, it ceases to be true to the original storyline. I think they did a real fine job of modernizing the story to make it more contemporary, such as showing how inflated gas prices had made rail more attractive (wow, if it took ME $700 to fill up my F150, I might start looking at a train ticket too!). Of course, they overlook the fact that the message endures; in fact, is timeless...

I was responding to Martimus who above was complaining about submitted posts: "The majority of the discussions seems to me off the cuff, superficial discussions of the "news" of the moment. The opinions are stated as "obvious truths", with which no one possibly could disagree and at the same time providing not even a hint of how those opinions are rooted in the basic philosophical principles, Objectivist or not.

Add to that the fact the religion is, in fact, a dogma, but likes to pretend to be useful as a philosophy (see above). The religious people like to ignore that there a fundamental conflict between the Objectivist philosophy and a religious commitment to sacrifice for a reward in afterlife. Irreconcilable, I think"

I went to his submitted posts and this was one of his most recent. To me it appeared that he is the pot calling the kettle black.

Just for a long extended moment, think about some of what you wrote. Where might the money come from by not letting the market determine wage rates with respect to the worker's abilities and the results of artificially raising those rates by the use of law (ultimately by force and if necessary by guns)? Rand did write against conservatives. Find out what socialism is and the necessity for the military. Not all guns are owned by the government. Any idea what it means "to be objective" ?

You cannot have a form of "me-ism" and selfishness in the same idea. They are incompatible. Modern liberalism is an adolescent form of wanting to be taken care of as is most conservative-ism where one is cared for by some mythical non-being. It is self interest which causes one to recognize the importance of rights and to have empathy and caring for other selves. The liberals whom I have known, seem to lack an importance of selfishness even though they have done well. Their concerns for others seemed empty of anything other than that they believed that they are doing what they are supposed to do to make a good society. That does not necessarily make them bad people but somewhat pitiable in their mental outlook on individualism.

So what do the religious references and speculation add to the science of the article? It is similar to the ancient alien references on cable where one is to believe that humans could not by themselves get the ideas for their early technology and that it must have been given to them by aliens who traveled from other star systems. Here it must have been some god that got humans to believe in it and thus develop science and to try to be good to each other instead of humans developing forms of individualism and thus finding that it might be possible to trust one another and develop better lives.

No they wouldn't be horrified. They would simply repeat the mantra that "you can't have an omelet without breaking eggs." To be oblivious to the damage they cause, progressives would have to lack not only self-awareness but awareness of their entire surroundings. I think most of them know exactly what they are doing.

Among other things, Objectivism stands for the right of individuals to freely trade goods and services with each other, and opposes the use of government force to interfere in peaceful commercial transactions. For this and many other reasons, raising the minimum wage is not a good idea.

I'm a liberal and have read Atlas Shrugged twice and own all the DVD's. The problem I have with conservatives is that they are not objective at all. I don't think Ayn would agree with their lack of reason. Where are all the real thinkers? For instance, trickle down economics has never worked, yet the Republicans are at it again. Second, people need to have money in their pocket to spend so they buy things and companies have to hire more people. Thus raising the minimum wage is a good idea.

I'm not for socialism, but the military is where we spend most of our money and that is true socialism The government owns every tank, gun, and bomb etc.

Objectivism to me is being objective and too often our politicians and Ayn Rand supporters are not objective at all. She would be ashamed.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/clima...

Hello, K,

Great contribution. Thank you. I will save it in my files for then being able to hand it out as a lesson for people who attack AR without ever having read a line from her writings.

Thanks, again. All the best to you.

Sincerely,
Maritimius

Hello, Pirate,
I agree with you completely.

The majority of the discussions seems to me off the cuff, superficial discussions of the "news" of the moment. The opinions are stated as "obvious truths", with which no one possibly could disagree and at the same time providing not even a hint of how those opinions are rooted in the basic philosophical principles, Objectivist or not.

Add to that the fact the religion is, in fact, a dogma, but likes to pretend to be useful as a philosophy (see above). The religious people like to ignore that there a fundamental conflict between the Objectivist philosophy and a religious commitment to sacrifice for a reward in afterlife. Irreconcilable, I think

Best regards.
Maritimus

No. You make rational and reason arguments. That is a positive in my book.

I'm a Conservative and considered right wing by most leftists and moderates. I've never stated otherwise here or anywhere. Does my long-time presence here take away from Objectivism or degrade this site?

wow. it reminds me of some things the Pope was saying recently. He even went out of his way to target Libertarians!