algernonsidney

An excellent question. I would remove them and argued for their removal back in the 1960's. Question for you, is there anyplace that American troops are currently deployed that you think is justified? For example, I think that we have, as of December 2009[update], 35,688 U.S. military personnel stationed in Japan, and another 5,500 American civilians employed by the Department of Defense in a support role, for a total of 41,188. Do they serve any purpose in your judgment? Adam There is no justification for them to be anywhere. The only purpose they serve is to enrich the likes of Halliburtion.

I personally would have loved to seen the fruits of a Rand-Rothbard alliance. Both would have been more powerful working as allies than apart. The Foundation for Economic Education was about the only libertarian organization that Rand was ever friendly toward. I think the reason for this was that FEE's people always were pretty adamant about rejecting anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Rand seemed to consider libertarians parasites. I wonder if she had any idea how many libertarians and book sellers promoted and marketed her books. I was just a child at the time. But I at least get the impression that the two movements actually talked to each other and helped each other back in the 1970's and early 1980's. They certainly do not now, and this has hurting both of them.

I suppose that's true. The LP might have been as much a failure without the chart. During its 39 years, it would have been difficult for the LP to have done any worse than it has done. Ultimately, I don't care that much about winning elections. The sad reality is that the LP hasn't even influenced the course and direction of the country. If the LP had never existed, I don't think life in American would be very different today. Most tools are effective "in the hands of a good salesman." Most tools are ineffective in the hands of bad ones. I've long commented that the LP "couldn't sell ice water in the middle of the Sahara."

Of course, money laundering shouldn't even be a crime. I do find it wonderful that a scumbag like Delay ends up being a victim of these laws though.

And nobody is claiming that "anyone has been claiming that the Nolan Chart is a political treatise." Most Americans do not inquire into political philosophy at all. At the same time, a lot of these people vote. So, if you want to make a difference, you have to influence these people in some manner. Is the Nolan Chart effective in doing this? That's the question that people seem to want to avoid discussing. Considering the colossal failure of the people who like to distribute the Nolan Chart, I would conclude that it may not be very effective.

What is the point of having any American troops there at all?

I should have figured this. Objectivists would look to their dream paradise, their utopia, their role model--Israel.

It was also during the early 1980's that the LP began its long period of stagnation. The LP's greatest Presidential election was in 1980, and it has not come close since then. Of course, that period of stagnation did not last forever. Since around 2000 or so, the LP has been in decline. The last time the LP's Presidential candidate was on all the ballots was 1996. It's a safe bet that the LP has now more former members than members. Of course there is no way for them to know this.

Rand always stressed that the appeasement of evil makes it possible. The people who cry, "I was just following orders," are worse than those who actually give the orders. And people like who say this: "Look, if the alternative is being blown out of the sky by terrorists, I'm all FOR IT. Go AHEAD and zoom in on my privates. That's a minor inconvenience compared to being BLOWN OUT OF THE SKY." are even worse.

So what? Is the country more libertarian today? Are taxes lower? Are people more free?

0 Finally, someone else who questions the value of the Nolan Chart. The Nolan Chart seems to be the most sacred of all cows to the LP. They all love to brag about how "we got people to take the quiz." This about like saying: "Wow, that pretty talked to me today in school." I'm beginning to wonder if this damned thing is an effective recruiting tool. Considering the colossal failure of the Libertarian Party over the past 39 years, I must say that it's effectiveness should be questioned.

What the hell for? I honestly can't think of an organization that is more worthless than Advocates for Self-Government. What do they do? What do they put out?

One of my Facebook friends actually mentioned that it was the 47th anniversary of Doctor Who. Actually that's tomorrow.

Dear Yaron Brook: That's an interesting piece of advice. I have definitely been taking "a look at ARI's track record, its work and successes in promoting Ayn Rand and Objectivism, its mission, and its considerable achievements." And this alone was reason enough to withhold any and all support from ARI even before McCaskey left the ARI board. Sincerely yours, Chris Baker

This is absolutely disgusting and reprehensible. These psychologists are whatever should all be sued.

This whole thing raises a lot of questions How would Objectivists handle this situation? What does it say about these kind of situations? How do you deal with it all? How do you maintain your mental health?

Speaking of South Pole, I hope that people here are familiar with the story of Shackleton's expedition to the South Pole in 1914.

Back in 1999, I did warranty service for a very good computer company. We did custom builds and sold them to customers all over Ohio. That company went out of business in early 2000, partially because of our generous warranty policy. We would go on-site anywhere in the state of Ohio. One day, I went about 125 miles to a very poor school district. I don't specifically remember what the problem was. The computer was covered under our warranty, which included me going there for free. Of course, the warranty only covered hardware problems. That is, the warranty only covered things that we could return to the manufacturer. Once I got there, it turned out to be some type of software issue. I told the principal of the school that it would now be a billable call, since it was a software problem. The principal told me to do anything, as he said that they could not justify any such expenses. For a billable call, he would be paying for one hour of service plus travel. I think it would have been about $200. Now, I had already driven about 125 miles and would have to drive back. We weren't going to get paid for that either way. My company also lost me for most of the day. They wouldn't get that back. Either way, my employer was going to pay for me to go out there and come back. Naturally, I figured I should do something to fix the problem. I lied and told my company that the hard drive was bad. I told the principal that I would send the hard drive "back to Seagate." This allowed me to fix the problem and reload the software as it was when they got the computer. The customer's problem was fixed--they had a working computer. Was anything actually wrong with the hard drive? Probably not. I never heard anything afterward. The bottom line was that I had already made the trip there. I figured I might as well do something. My company lost nothing by my action. My feelings in this case: put out the fire and then bill him. If he doesn't pay the bill, put a lien on the house. Finally, I would think that an insurance company would require some type of proof that he had paid this fee. Maybe even insurance companies would pay this fee for their customers? I was glad to get out of warranty service. I was tired of trying to manipulate free service calls into billable ones. If the customer had a problem, I felt morally obligated to fix it.

It was obviously a mistake to start this topic.

People only had positive things to say about Colton Tooley. They said that there were no "warning signs." Everybody seemed surprised by what he did. On Tuesday morning, Colton Tooley decided to fire a few shots from an AK-47 outside the main library at the University of Texas. He was in a busy place and could have hurt a lot of people if he had wanted to do so. My guess is that it was his original intention, then his conscience stopped him. He then went inside the library, went up to the sixth floor, and turned the AK-47 on himself. He ended his own life, and nobody else was harmed. What motivates people to commit suicide and to do it in public? This is the second time this year that someone has engaged in public suicide in Austin. The first was more destructive--he flew a small plane into a building. It seems that people now feel so helpless that they feel not just to kill themselves, but to do it in some type of dramatic fashion. It's as if just committing suicide at home isn't enough. I often wonder if such people don't get help because of the disclosure laws involving such acts. If a patient tells a therapist that he wishes to end his life, the therapist is legally obligated to report him to authorities. What will they do? It's hard to tell. Still, one common theme is that the people who commit public suicide don't get help, don't seem to look for it, and don't even seem to talk about what is going with them. They are alienated from people and don't seem to trust anyone. Suicide is the most preventable and the most unnecessary of all deaths. It's just a terrible waste, as these people might have made some type of difference in the world. It's obvious that they didn't think it was possible to do so, and the only way to make a difference (for them) was to kill themselves in a dramatic fashion. Suicide also says something about the world, too. A person who ends his life is effectively giving up on the world. The fact that it seems more and more frequent should make us wonder just what kind of world this is.

I agree with many of your sentiments. As we say in the world of NLP, "there is no failure, only feedback." Of course, you have to utilize that feedback. The first problem with the LP is that they refuse to admit that their 39-year history has been one of failure. They try to paint every failure as some kind of success. You are right that starting out locally is the way to go. In many cases, local elections are won simply by knocking on doors. This does not require money--it does require time and effort though. Local journalists are also much more honest with local elections, and most debates and forums actually are open to ALL candidates running for the office. You are more likely to get equitable coverage. Once you have won a local office, you can possibly go for something higher. If somebody says "you can't win," you can say: "I already have won." Lots of time and effort of the Libertarian Party is horribly wasted on the Presidential election. It also happens to be the election that LP candidates seem to do the worst in (as far as voting percentage is concerned). In many ways, it harms the "lesser" candidates. The LP Presidential candidates have also been some of the most non-libertarian people to run for office. Bob Barr was a total disaster, likely a saboteur. I also want to bring up another issue for the LP. The LP should focus more effort on races in which the Red or Blue team is not running in. While it may be nice to say that "we have all these candidates running", it might do better to say that your candidates are getting more votes. This will get more people into the habit of at least considering the LP, instead of just ignoring the LP.

That's simple. A lot of people make decisions on feeling and then rationalize.

I definitely think John Mackey of Whole Foods is one.

I wonder: how did these people get so rich? How did they get rich when they say such stupid things? It's especially troubling when Warren Buffett says it. His father was actually a pretty decent Congressman who had some good ideas. "I believe we can solve the problems of urban education in our lifetimes and actualize education's power to reverse generational poverty," Rhee wrote. "But I am learning that it is a radical concept to even suggest this. Warren Buffett [the billionaire investor] framed the problem for me once in a way that clarified how basic our most stubborn obstacles are. He said it would be easy to solve today's problems in urban education. 'Make private schools illegal,' he said, 'and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.' " There you have it, although it seems to be old news. Warren Buffet wants to make private schools illegal.

I would like someone to explain how and why this man was ever allowed to be a part of the collective. Murray Rothbard commented that he was always a Keynesian. He has done more to discredit free markets and Ayn Rand than anybody else has.