HMM. maybe you hit it on the head. Most animals dont produce anything, just use what they can take. The liberals have the ability to produce things, but are too lazy to actually do that. Instead they want to take whatever is there, like the "other" animals. Insteresting

The election is a hallmark of sanity.

Donald Trump indicates there's none.America is a land of more freedom.One may believe it is the freedom of the rich.Read more of Howard Roark's words.What enriches are professional goodism.

The country is alive more than ever. There are more people, animals, and plants.

It's on Mars. He's from there. Not on Earth.Is Earth a certain way? One may believe it is. Correct?

They follow various animals.

It can be a gulch, but not Galt's.

Ask Captain Picard to talk to Troi to talk with Captain Kirk.

The robots can drive fiats.

They will tax the robot with a special "robotax" upon purchase, and then a "robousage" tax for every hour that it works.

Maybe the government will put robo-socialism on us, whereby the government buys and owns the robots, and has them work for IT. That way the rich productive people dont have to provide the money for the government to give away to the unwashed.

It's okay. Atlas Shrugged is not about societies.

There's a country, no society. Country not downhill. There are hills. Up and down. Down and up.

There's no society.

I was almost certain that you were going to say that robots were the answer. Government can give every person a robot at birth (funding by debt, of course) and the robot can do the work to provide for the lazy and to pay off the debt. Fiat, Fiat, Fiat!
Only problem is that there is nothing in this for the looters. ;^)

So whats the answer? The productive rich people should just refuse to give $$ to the unproductive masses? Our problem is that the third parties (government agencies) pull out the guns and force us to "contribute", and "democracy" gives the unproductive masses the powers of the government. Not sure how we can fix this, cause its so pervasive.

I just saw a perfect answer by Steven Crowder. He said 'As long as the rich are in a minority, and the poorer majority believe that they will benefit from stealing the rich's wealth, there will always be democratic socialism (which is just the current version or name that socialism is being called now). Because having to work to earn a living or being lazy and collecting a check for doing nothing doesn't require much investigation to understand why the latter is the overwhelming answer. But socialism is a turd, wrapped up in a beautiful package, because most people don't look beyond their personal situation to realize that when no one is being productive, there is no money to redistribute. And who wants to be productive if you are just going to be robbed of your efforts?

Yes the judge in the case with the autistic boy was both black and a member of the Islamic judicial group.

""Creature from Jekyll Island" provides a game plan for where the globalists (Obama and company) are taking us...very probable...but nasty

Re your second paragraph - that is true UNLESS the gov't sees you as a tax protester or a second amendment advocate or other anti gov't person. Then it is the opposite and you are guilty before th trial starts. With this exception, I agree whole heartedly with everything you say!

No, we have burned our ships and now we, like the army of Alexander, have to fight and win or die.

Why do people seem continually attracted to socialism when there is irrefutable and constant evidence it doesn’t work? Just look at venezuela

It is because we humans are a social creature. It helped us evolutionarily to survive. Socialism plays on this aspect of our nature. It causes the have-nots to believe it is a way to level the field to allow all to experience wealth by redistributing it to all. The problem is we humans are never satisfied with enough and always want more. This is the flaw in socialism because it doesn't elevate anyone, it just drags everyone down to the lowest level and then no one can move up. Because when you try, you are targeted and punished (by the others coming to take your wealth). Eventually, no one wants to try to better themselves because there is no reward for it. So society stagnated and dies.

Right, not only can it happen here, it has already happened here.

We are witnessing the rise of the clan of Ellsworth Toohey. To understand the media and universities read the speech the character makes to Peter toward the end of Fountainhead. The degeneration has been going on for a long time. Little Ellsworth clones are running media, universities and even many so called libertarian and conservative orgainzation. Tucker over at FEE is a good example of the bankruptcy. .

Legal minds operate in a delusional, classroom environment, rather than the reality the rest of us dwell in. This approach is instilled in them to get them to approach legal issues dispassionately. The theory is that this is the only way to avoid a society too ready to "burn the witch!"

The downside (and it's often a big one) is that the jurists begin to approach each case before them as a challenge to see if they've exhausted all conceivable arguments in favor of the defendant. The obsession with "beyond all reasonable doubt" is more important to many jurists than justice for the victim.

One restriction that should be removed is the omission of a defendant's criminal history, treating each offense in isolation. The intent is not to color the jury's opinion by painting the defendant as likely guilty going in, but sometimes habitual violent felons avoid due punishment as a result.

Sometimes a decision is the fault of the prosecution, as was the result of the Steinle case. The prosecutors were so obsessed with getting justice for the Steinle family that they spent little time building a case for the alternative of involuntary manslaughter. Given that the victim's wound was a result of a ricochet, the manslaughter should have been easy to prove, but the obvious exaggerated stretch to first degree murder undermined any credibility, given that the jury was unaware of the defendant's past history.