basimpson22

trust me, it's relevant

Hey all you Ron Paul supporters! If you're like me, you're anticipating a major disruption by our fellow Paulites at this weeks RNC and will be very disappointed if it doesn't happen. I created this thread as a way to get acquainted with my fellow Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters here on OL. So, please, introduce yourselves.

Come on Bob...EVERYONE KNOWS THE PURPOSE OF SAND~~~~ It is something to hold up these beauties.... She has beautiful eyes - don't you think? the girl on the right looks as though she's trying to take a shit standing up and they all look like they're just generally trying too hard

"Fortress North America versus the rest of the world will mean continual economic and military problems leading to eventual collapse."

I know this has been discussed in other threads but, as the son of a livestock broker and cattle farmer, this issue hits real close to home. Anyways, this all got started with a post I made on facebook: "Why do we blame unemployment on the government? Job creation is not their responsibility." Well someone brought up the prices of corn, wheat, etc. I did a bit of research and it seems that government subsidies deserve much of the blame for high food costs. Yeah, not sure how we got from job creation to corn prices either, but that topic really intrigued me. It's something I think deserves much attention. I believe that, with food prices soaring over the past few years, an agricultural reformation is imminent. It seems to me the solution would be the decentralization of agriculture: to move toward more locally grown produce. Also, thought I'd throw this out there. It's an article about a lettuce plant here in Tennessee, actually, less than 10 miles from my job. They use advanced hydroponic technology to grow their produce. This is a good way to go but we can't rely solely on this. Like with a mutual fund, we ought to diversify. I think that in the near future we'll see more people growing with hydroponics as well as more people growing, selling and consuming produce on a more local scale. lettuce link: http://ucbjournal.com/news.php?id=244 Thoughts?

haha, way to be diplomatic

I just came across this. Thought I'd respond to Carol's request. Well, when it comes down to it, I don't see why an Objectivist would join the military. It seems to me that by joining you're throwing the whole idea of "rational self-interest" out the window. I wonder how many people really think through their decision to join? Perhaps that's the benefit of the military: to take those civilians who either can't think or choose to "evade" thinking, and make some use of them.

http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2012/aug/10/fresh-local-tyranny-and-economic-development-ar-2120236/ This article also mentions that evil guy in Oregon who collected rainwater.

I agree! It does sound pretty awesome. Lol! I had never heard of a cunninglinguist until today. Had to look that up on urban dictionary, lol!

Update: I can't believe it. Here it is six months later and my plans are underway. I was finally assigned a job as an airborne crypto linguist! I won't know which language I'll be studying until I get out of basic. My ship-date is December 18th.

And I'm still not sure why greatness has been ignored or how you would, in fact, define "greatness". You make this statement,"Greatness and genius is based on reason based on sensory evidence." Is it? Ok, tell us why.

Hey Ben, be careful about making so many assertions.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a conspiracy analyst. Everything the Bushites touch is screwed up. They could never have pulled off 9/11, even if they wanted to. Even if they longed to. They could step aside, though, or just go out to lunch while these terrible things were happening to the nation. I believe that of them. - Gore Vidal made me laugh

Haha, that'd be too much work. Anyways, when I said I'd look into it, I meant just for shits and giggles.

It's the Church of Christ. I'm still living at home but no longer feel the need to appease my parents by pretending to care about their religion, i.e. I haven't been to church since December. I'm definitely gonna check out the Unitarian Universalist. Come to find out there are several locations hear in Middle Tennessee....

My goal was to develop an assertion that explained how self-esteem is dependent on integrity. Instead, I ended up writing a long-winded paragraph. My initial statement was that "self-esteem is impacted directly by our decisions". Then I followed with the assertion that "Self-esteem is positively impacted when a decision reinforces one's integrity." I may need to amend this completely. Maybe I just need to expand my definition of integrity. Integrity: consistently making the right choices in achieving a desired outcome or in meeting some standard of excellence. With this definition it can be said that integrity is a confidence builder, since it results in the realization of one's abilities. Or maybe I should have just said what I wanted to say from the start and that is that "Each choice that brings us closer to a desired goal, results in an increased level of confidence/self-assurance, since with each choice we improve our self-efficacy." Hell, I just hope ya'll got something out of this. I need to stop. I've been up all night.

The topic of self-esteem is very dear to my heart. I've struggled with it all my life as I'm sure many people do. That's why, even though I've stayed up the entire night, I'm very pleased with myself for tackling this issue. And so, after spending much time dissecting this and other statements in this thread, I've decided to end my mad brainstorming session with the use of Occam's razor in reducing my findings to one, fairly simple assertion: Self-esteem is impacted directly by our decisions I will expound on this later. In the meantime I'm waiting to see how you all will interpret this assertion. EDIT: Ok, so after two hours I couldn't bare it any longer. I have to throw two more assertions out there that derive from my initial assertion 1)Self-esteem is positively impacted when a decision reinforces one's integrity 2)Self-esteem is negatively impacted when a decision compromises one's integrity So, the three main terms in these statements are self-esteem, decision, and integrity. Decision is a fairly easy one and I'm going to ignore self-esteem for now. Now, integrity is defined as adherence to one's moral and ethical principles. Calvin quoted AR as saying,"Free will is equivalent to the ability to choose one's values." How right she is! Now let's talk about choice. A choice, such as the fundamental choice to uphold integrity as one's personal value is comprised of ALL the choices that are involved in continually adhering to this standard. If we make any one choice that goes against this standard, we cannot be said to have made that choice at all, can we? So, you see how AR's statement that "Free-will is equivalent to the ability to choose one's values" is somewhat of a riddle? It's because free-will is more about strictly adhering to one's values and morals than it is about having the freedom to do whatever the hell you want. Now how can I prove that integrity or the lack thereof has an effect on self-esteem? Well, take personal hygiene for instance. Let's say you've acknowledged the fact that you should be better about it. You know you should have a standard for personal hygiene but you avoid the decision altogether and as a result suffer from the effects of poor hygiene. That's the first scenario. Scenario two is the person who has taken the time to consciously set a standard for themselves they feel is acceptable. However, this person fails to consistently adhere to this standard. Now,scenario three: the person has a set standard and consistently follows it. Which of these people has the most integrity? Which of these people has the highest self-esteem? Now, substitute personal hygiene with personal finance. Then ask yourself the same questions. It's apparent isn't it? Self-esteem is directly related to the level of integrity one exercises in adhering to standards of excellence. It's definitely not enough to avoid setting standards for ourselves as with the first scenario and, for the second scenario, well, as I suggested earlier in this paragraph, if we aspire to some goal or set some moral standard for ourselves and then at anytime down the road make a choice that goes against that goal or that standard, we have,in effect, made no choice at all, and as a result, fail in proving our worth/obtaining any measure of value, be it self-efficacy, self-sufficiency, integrity, etc. that enhances our self-esteem.

delete post

You must mean the U.S. government. Well, Michael speaks of separation of economy and state (which I completely agree with) and you, correct me if i'm wrong, hint at the solution being to remove the gov't, which automatically brings to my mind the concept of anarchism... Personally, I believe what anarchists preach is very true. They see the evils that are spawned from hierarchical organizations which includes both governments and corporations. That's not to say that governments and corporations are inherently evil. Also, a variety of organizational structures can be applied to G's and C's that would act in curbing the negative effects of hierarchy or, if so desired, its very existence. Our own gov't is suppose to be operate under a system of checks and balances though it would seem that the majority of power lies within the executive branch. I'm sure you guys could easily expound on that.

Man, I'm not trying to be a smart ass either when I ask this question. How did we go from the UFC's involvement in Guatemala to tort law? I'm not seeing a connection. Yes, they are legally created entities....I don't deny that. I have nothing against corporations.... Anyways, I'm not sure where you're coming from on this issue.....

you tell me

Why corporations? I don't understand what you're asking.

Aristocrates, Why would anyone want to see a justification of that? It would be far better to study Bernays and see why it happened so that crap won't ever happen again. (Like study how propaganda public relations works for real.) Unless you're just a contrarian looking to see if you can goad people you look down on. Then you might decide to make a "leading question" kind of request that presumes the folks you address believe that something bad is justifiable, thus they are (1) stupid, (2) evil, or (3) hypocrites. Whatever... Michael Hey Michael! Man, it's been a long time since I posted this. Tonight I was doing some research on this and made me think of this post. First, I want to say that I admit I was out-of-line in the way I presented this topic. Anyways, about Bernays.....You make a valid point, but that is not the underlying issue. The problem is when a single corporation has the ability to persuade the Presidency to act in a manner contrary to democracy and diplomacy. More specifically, when a single corporation has the ability to influence a government to promote war and corruption in order to protect and promote its economic interests. Here's a nice little story from the New York Times about the UFC http://www.nytimes.c...z-Phelan-t.html

I actually just finished doing a little research. It seems that the Sharks are a more successful franchise. Lol, this discussion may have to go to the hockey forum but did you know they're re-zoning the NHL?

No way! Yoda totally wins