Alfonso Jones

Adam - I am greatly encouraged by the responses of many to the encroachments on liberty. I suspect that many from the latter two decades of the 18th century would be using words such as tyranny to describe the current situation. For an interesting exercise - reflect on what your grandparents had to say about Social Security and other such encroachments on liberty. So many found it totally unacceptable, even at the extremely modest (by current standards) financial levels. Bill P

She probably didn't have to undergo the routine security measures to which the rest of US citizens are subject. This is a broad issue, in my opinion: Enabling politicos at a sufficiently senior level to be exempt from the things they make ordinary citizens subject to removes one natural form of feedback. Example in another context: NOt a few of the problems of the "big 3 US automakers" with customers were rooted in the way the senior executives obtained their vehicles - no need for them to go to the dealer, no need to go through the deceptive and manipulative negotiation process. Bill P

Robert - Good news on two fronts: 1) It sounds as if Chris got some relatively good news in the health department. 2) The pipeline containing a good supply of articles Bill P (who has served as an AE for quite a few journals and is used to working/managing the pipeline)

Joel - That is a wonderful question. I've often mulled about the related question: Does anybody really find that those in the Church of the Orthodox ILLUMINE Rand's very clear writing? Did Rand have her faults - yes. But lack of clarity was not one of them. I'm reminded of a comment made by someone who I don't remember - "The Bible certainly illuminates the commentaries." Work for Rand and those who would "explain her," also. Bill P

Phil - THere is an abundance of methodology of this sort. The most commonly known one is called regression, in which the criterion of fit is the sum of squared "mistakes" (difference between the value given by your function/equation and the value in the data = the mistake, called the "residual"). The method of least squares minimizes the sum of the squared residuals by choice of the unknown parameters in the equations. See almost any applied low-level statistics textbook (say, sophomore level). I'm not certain where you are going with this. I have a PhD in the field of statistics and can steer you to reading if you want to learn about the large amount of methodology which has been developed over many decades to handle such problems. There are a variety of different criteria (pros and cons of these can be described), and the associated algorithms, etc... The properties of the lease squares estimators (ordinary regression) are those discussed in most elementary statistics textbooks. Under the acronym "GLM" you can find a broad variety of other methodologies, of which the above is a special case. Let me know what is of interest... Bill P

Yep. He seems to have nothing to contribute, and no understanding of Rand/Objectivism. That sort of poster makes me think about what a LARGE number 5 is. Bill P

Those threads are the lumps of coal in our stockings, Ted. Bill P

I suspect that the reason for making such a statement is that you missed most of the point of Atlas Shrugged. I find AS to be extremely compact - packed with fascinating plot, characterization and implications. I suggest the following exercise: Try to summarize the content of Galt's speech more succinctly, her coherently and giving the support for the results (not just a "standing on one foot" summary). See how well that works, how successful you are at cutting it to 25% of the current length. Bill P

YOu are using the concept "right to defend national borders" in an equivocal sense. Sense 1 (by allusion to common usage of the phrase): Defend borders from invasion by troops of another nation. OF COURSE there is a right to self-defense. Sense 2: Preventing immigration. Yes on 1, No on 2. Sense 2 - - - silly as a matter of policy to prevent immigration with the POSSIBLE exception of immigration of someone with identifiable hostile intent (terrorism) Bill P

RagJohn, I'm glad you made this post because you helped me figure out what to do. I don't have time this holiday season to run behind every one of your posts to see if the blatant racism you display here is present. Your posts tend to be extremely varied in content, from interesting to void of any intellectual content to disgusting like above. You did 54 posts or so yesterday and today you have reached 39, and it's still early afternoon. That's too much when crap like the above is put in among the flood. So it's five posts a day if you wish to keep posting here. And if there are any more of the kind above, I will simply delete them. Michael Thanks, Michael. Bill P

Welcome to OL, Tim. Bill P

For many such messages, the message IS the virus - in that it provokes a cascade of folks forwarding the "warning." Bill P

You're getting predictable, Bob! Bill P (Imagining Bob in the starring role in a certain Dickens Christmas tale, perhaps as performed by George C. Scott...)

Best of wishes for Chris. An honorable man. Bill P

David: You are incorrect. She lost because the Republican Senate Committee refused to finance a "ground game." This is my area of expertise. The "air war" was fought to a draw. By that we mean TV/media advertising. Other than the Christian coalition, she had a poor under financed election day operation. This cost her the election. That us a fact. Adam Well put, Adam. This was my impression also, but you (as someone with much better knowledge) can speak with authority. Sad, very sad, that Harry survived because of this. Bill P

Let's hope you are correct in your assessments, Adam. Regards, Bill P

Now, this is funny. Bill P

Brant - Best wishes. You will be missed. Keep us posted. Bill P

Well, . . . . . 1) The homeowner was stupid. He should have paid the insurance back when the offer was made at the beginning of the year (or whenever). And to hope that the firefighters would put out the fire when he was only willing (per the report) to reimburse FOR ALL COSTS to put out the fire was unreasonable, in fact ridiculous. The price was to pay the $75 at the beginning of the year. He turned down that offer. 2) I wish the firefighters had put out the fire (perhaps asking him quickly to commit to pay $X for their services, $X being considerably in excess of the marginal cost of putting out the fire). Note: If a homeowner just has to pay the marginal cost of putting out the fire, that is surely a better deal for him (in expectation) than properly priced insurance. Bill P

Well, . . . . . 1) The homeowner was stupid. He should have paid the insurance back when the offer was made at the beginning of the year (or whenever). And to hope that the firefighters would put out the fire when he was only willing (per the report) to reimburse FOR ALL COSTS to put out the fire was unreasonable, in fact ridiculous. The price was to pay the $75 at the beginning of the year. He turned down that offer. 2) I wish the firefighters had put out the fire (perhaps asking him quickly to commit to pay $X for their services, $X being considerably in excess of the marginal cost of putting out the fire). Note: If a homeowner just has to pay the marginal cost of putting out the fire, that is surely a better deal for him (in expectation) than properly priced insurance. Bill P

Barbara - Well and succinctly put. And chilling. I wonder how many other self-styled Objectivists refrain from Peikoff-like behavior only because nobody is willing to yield any "authority" to them. Bill P

Michael - It will be painful. But it is long time past time for "Objectivism" to become more Objectivist. Ironically, "faith and force" must be banished. Bill Parr

Ed - As we have come to expect from you, another well-reasoned and well-written piece. I have to concur that some of the "Tea Party" favorites such as Angle and O'Donnell are lacking in credibility. The only arguments in their favor are "they aren't the other one, who seems much worse." Bill Parr

Did Jefferson really say "allow PRIVATE banks to control..." as you say above? That seems very strange, in the context of the rest of the quote. I wonder if the quote may be spurious. Bill Parr