Free Republic

“By the way the author is not an Objectivist and does not promote Objectivism”

For him to deny Hume’s positive impact on the evolution of “his” philosophy is ignorant. To deny Rand’s is just laughable. He can call himself what he wants, but he is Objectivist in ideas, tone, and even word choice.

I suppose his next article will be a similar hit piece on Rand. For completion’s sake, he can afterwards write a hit piece on himself.

Sort of...

Let’s not forget the businessmen who advocate government takeover of healthcare, supported the National Socialists, recruit the Justice Department against their competitors, lobby for federal subsidies, etc.

It’s not so much one’s occupation as one’s philosophy that is defining.

Anyone know why Fox News is in HD ONLY for Fox News Sunday on their local HD affiliates? They obviously have the equipment, why don’t they have their own HD cable channel?

Another untempered selective hit piece on Hume without any sense of perspective. Hume’s salient characteristic is no more “little confused fuzzy pictures” than America’s is slavery. Hume’s major effect, as evidenced by college philosophy curricula throughout the West for decades, is to further pull metaphysics out of Dark Age mysticism and into the realm of rational analysis. Someone needs to tell this author that Ayn Rand wasn’t born until after Hume died.

This author has a personality trait of Rand that is shared by many of the more suggestible Oists. With them it is never “X was wrong about Y because...”, but rather, “The monstrous X was deceitful or ignorant of the absurd Y which is the origin of all evil in the world...” It leaves one wondering if “Histrionicists” isn’t a better term for them.

This piece does at least give a reasonably concise summary of how Rand’s metaphysics differs from Hume’s, though I might have worded some things differently.

The vandals should be forced to pay for the painting, plus a fine equal to some percentage of that value.

That should keep them busy for a while.

Some people like to use religion to create tension and hostility, some like to use it to try to promote peace and cooperation. The zealot likes the former, the statesman the latter.

Bush is right to restrict his enmity to murderers and avowed enemies of the US, and not to spread it to encompass every individual raised within a particular culture.

Thanks for the link.

It looks like the drugged out panhandler that I refuse money to will get $196/month in tax money no matter how much he spends. Certainly considerably less than $30K/yr. I was wrong in the amount but not the concept.

Now, why should I support a $196/month taxpayer handout to drug addicts living on the street?

Hmm. It seems I did have it wrong. But since I paid 30% of the $30K, someone is going to have to cut me a check for 30% of $10,210, or $3,063, which is my overpayment. Which is the same whether I spend $30K or $30M.

So the government will give everyone $3063/yr?

Hey “conservatives”! Ever hear of choosing your battles? Geez for petty.

I put all the former governors above the non-governors. Judging from history, so usually does the general electorate.

It will be Guiliani or Romney. Both are infinitely preferable to any of the leading Dems, likely to be at least reasonably successful if elected, and both are electable in a general election.

Seems odd to me too. I prefer Guiliani over the others, but it doesn’t make sense to me that primary voters would. Not judging by his reception on FR, anyway.

“Democrats are starting to get heat from their constituents to support H.R. 25 / S. 1025. They have begun to join the movement.”

Democrats should have no trouble getting on board the Fair Tax. It guarantees a $30K income to every citizen (and illegal alien with fake IDs). There’s a wealth transfer Dems never dreamed of.

“Democrats are guaranteed to say “rich people” (which they define as a family earnign more than 80k) should not get the prebate at all. [for the children]”

Exactly. And how are the Dems going to know who is rich? Back comes the IRS!

The best initial approach is probably just to consolidate all federal taxes (corporate income, FICA, communications, tarrifs, etc.) into a single simplified personal income tax, and to fund as many Federal services by user fees as possible.

No tax is fair. Income tax is probably less fair than sales tax (b/c it requires people to divulge their income). But we already easily avoid sales tax by buying on the Internet, and the Federal policing of the Internet that would be necessary to fight that would probably be as bad as the IRS.

Then there is that insane wealth transfer known as the Fair Tax “rebate”...

That rebate would amount to a huge wealth transfer unless it is capped to the amount of taxes actually paid by the individual recipient. But if that were the case, then you’d need an IRS to file your sales tax forms to to claim your rebate.

The rebate alone is a poison pill. Couldn’t possibly support that. I can’t have the drugged out panhandlers around here who I daily choose not to give money to, suddenly getting $30K/year on my back.

“We have been running more than an $800 billion trade deficit. That can’t go on for very long. Ron says we’re a debtor nation and we are.”

Trade deficit is not debt. Trade deficits are paid for.

“Can one chromosome from the mother pair with another chromosome, from the same mother?”

Yes, trisomies do occur, but this is an issue completely unrelated to anything in this thread. Even if chromosomes pair up the way you think, it is still unlikely the baby will have 50% of its legal father’s genes. And it is possible it will have 0%. The diagram I posted to you illustrates this.

“There is no way a mother can provide more than 50% of the non-sex-determining chromosomes that are paired.”

Actually, there are ways, but that was not the issue. The article is about a child whose legal father is his biological brother. And once again, it is possible that the child will have none of his legal father’s genetic material, but that is about as unlikely as having 50%. It is much more likely he will have in the neighborhood of 25%. And the exact amount cannot be determined, as it is random.

And I’m not quite sure the relevance of bringing up dominant and recessive traits in all of this. We were talking about genes, not phenotypes.

I thought the diagram I gave you would have clarified this.

“So I’m left with a choice between more government interference that attempts inefficiently to correct the problem, or letting the telcos continue to operate unchecked.”

Those are not your options. Restricting flexibility of business models as NN does will limit the options for profitability and more free market incursions.

There is no problem that NN could correct, unless you think further liberating the market for Internet access is a problem. Technology and free enterprise are rapidly diminishing the advantage given to monopolies in this industry. Please don’t put the brakes on it.

I doubt you would call yourself a socialist, but by supporting NN you are playing into the hands of an anti-free-market agenda.

“It is a history of which Mr Rodriguez is fiercely proud.”

As well he should be.

Che and Castro accomplished something astonishing. They succeeded in replacing the Batista regime with something worse.

Death to monsters! And to the monsters who replace them!