cab21

what is meant by "economic devastation"?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-18/news/ct-oped-0918-page-20110918_1_ron-paul-health-insurance-tea-party so i was sent this story, it says a person who did not have insurance, racked up 400K in bills and died from pneumonia. 50k was raised for the bills and his estate got charged with the rest, to pay whatever way the estate wants, from paying from its assets or raising more money. the writer of the article used it as a example of wanting a national healthcare system. my thought is "what did the 400K buy? 400K and the man still died. if that money is to be privately paid, that's one thing, but to suggest that others should pay to buy whatever was bought through a state?

that innovation was higher then than it is now has to be looked at . that many patents are evolutions or mixing older innovations is not a factor in what new innovations are coming out in any given time period. if the invention is a update, one would have to look at the human need for a update, or something new. does the wheel need a update or a revolution for instance. say that period in Germany was the most innovative, what factors made it so?

what are your sources? you think genetics were invented by nazi germany? 1933 to 1945 was the time period http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kahales/301genetics/timeline.html so how did nazi germany invent genetics? konrad zuse invented the computer, that's a bit different than saying the nazi government invented the computer. i don't think the funding of the science, or the institution gets the credit for develuping the science, the mind who invented it gets credit. a political regime cannot invent anything, it can only fund it. to give some retard nazi germany sterilized with their eugenics program credit for the inventions of konrad zuse seems a bit of a stretch. konrad zuse, not nazi germany, gets credit.

instead of saying "the fact", can you give the evidence for this?

stats about abusive homes, and stats about people that end up in bad places, can work together. there is power in both i think. stats about both means and ends make for a good combination i think, and your example points that out. what you stated can be used in combination with what i stated, and i think that creates a more powerful ad

what proof is there for this claim? http://www.ideo.com/work/#work_categories one example of innovation from a established institution

What cause are we talking about here? modern conventions, or lack thereof, is not a proper moral criticism having a cause without justification is subject to moral criticism, considering morals are about justification. what causes are there without justification being given?

after asking the person, the person responded that the wrong word was used, instead of saying "reasonable", the person meant to say "coherent". making the new question: "why does it seem like you are unable to respond in a coherent way?

just for a example of thisperson A - is english your native language?Person B- yesPerson A- why does it seem that you are unable to respond to a post in a reasonable way?Person B- .... i just did...

so how would you respond to someone asking something like "why are you so unreasonable", or "why does it seem like you are unable to respond in a reasonable way?

obama is a person whose physical description would likely be a rand protagonist than a antagonist, yet Obama's view would make him a antagonist. "James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age fromadolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hairclinging to a bald forehead. His posture had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall,slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, buttransformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale andveiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternalresentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old." just the physical description alone makes james like someone who would not have a high position at a company. i'm not sure how many presidents of companies have such features as james has, let alone personalities.

well someone did not build a car by setting out to build a chariot

so the big idea is more important than the people. seemed like a big idea there was in picking heirs.

so what was the idea of the wheel updated from? what was the idea of things that roll updated from? what was the idea of using things that roll updated from? what was the idea of using things updated from? what was the idea of things updated from? would you consider the idea that at one time there was no idea of things? is there no root idea here? would you say that a chariot and a car are the same idea? that a corvette and a rolls royce are the same idea? i guess one could say all ideas are timeless and only discovered and not created, or that ideas are not timeless and can be created?

so reading atlas shrugged, just finished chapter 1 Right now my biggest thought is "how is James Taggart president of the company"? The character seems the most unfit character ever to be a company president, and I don't know how he turned out so differently from dagny, and why he has a job with the company at all, rather than dagny being the president? How could the their father let this happen? James is a total train wreck here, and Dagny is more on track, although operations wise, the employees of the company are complete jokes and either was not told how to do their job or did not listen on how to even operate a train. The corporate structure of the company seems like such a mess. Things James says are just plain weird rather than showing any attributes at all to make him fit for a president of a company it seems. Things dagny says seem robotic and not giving true motivations, and blaming that if only almost everyone else was not such a idiot, she would be so much more accomplished and the non idiots would share the abundance with her. That she can find a few employable people here and there, but not enough to competently run a company and expand it, maybe there is some truth to that, yet James seems to go out of his way to find these incompetent people to hire and do business with. While dagny is shown with judgment, knowledge, responsibility, leadership, prospecting, individually heroic, and mindful, James is shown without judgment, without knowledge, without responsibility, without leadership, without prospecting, individual heroism, and without mind. so the stark contrast between the two is making me wonder if this is any way to start comparisons off in a novel or other discussion? is this kind of thing effective or just turn people into saying that the characters and situations are a bit unhuman and unreal?

would be interesting to hear him talk about his change

it's posible it's not your job to

Watching the first few minutes again The question the key to reach a better world in the future Where children don't get punished They will not grow up thinking violence is a solution to whatever problems If the parent is telling the child to follow NAP or be spanked, spanking a child after the child broke NAP at least has some cause -effect relationship. If the parent is spanking the child regardless of NAP being broken, then the parent is being a hypocrite and not logical anyway. If the parent tells the child to not violate NAP, then does violate NAP by spanking a child who did not violate NAP, then the parent is the problem. so maybe the question could be " how ought parent deal with children (nap violent children), so that children (nap violent children) don't turn into nap violating adults"? with the question of not spanking children being key to nonviolent solution, it would have to be measured as to what are the causes of violent solutions. if the responders have not had the expirence to say spanking children was the difference between violent and nonviolent adults, i don't think they could call this ishue being key.

was the question asked in the right way? saying no spanking and we all turn out great was never the argument. saying no spanking is one step towards a better and more free society could be more in line with the argument?

If someone thinks it that persons well-being is better served by theft than free trade, that does not seem like a system that will provide for the wellbeing of someone who thinks his well being is better served by free trade than theft. If a person prefers to be stolen from, I think the case is not rational and not part of rational morals. Ethics of free trade include that through consent and mutually benefiting trade, which would be for wellbeing of both. Say a person wants to own footprints in the sand. The person could sell the land for something more preferable. If someone clings to footprints in the sand ahead of better offers for the person's wellbeing, at that point it's not really making rational decisions. If there is no one out there that could offer a mutual solution for trade of the original property, there wont be much survival going on, or the survival is through force and the people are less well off.

can they be sustained with the state?

make peaceful parenting more profitable make anarchism more profitable social norms of a successful and profitable anarchist peaceful parenting family

i'll start off with notes myth one education will change behavior telling 20% how you present information 1make information tangible 2personalize information 3interact with other people 60% loss adverse appeal to audiance give information audience cares about myth two you don't have to change attitudes to change behavioar attitudes follow behavior set behavior expectations connect to values conserve resources understand values myth three people think they know what motivates them social norms saw someone else do it experiment results rather than what people say social norms and modeling show social norms in correct way now to create some sentences, with some figures pulled out of nowhere, the the principle is the point 90% of prisoners came from abusive homes, do you want your child to be in prison? 90% of millionaires came from families that practiced peaceful parenting and pro capitalism values, do you want your child to become a millionaire? behavior of happy and successful adults includes X 90% of the time behavior of unhappy and unsuccessful adults includes Y 90% of the time create a movie/ picture of a mother spanking her child in prison create a movie picture of a mother and child doing different peaceful parenting activities and being happy, maybe a family sitting at a dinner table telling stories, or a child reading a bedtime story with her mother and father. Got stefan molyneux beliefs?

what is the true representation of natural law? so i think by this one would have to look at the history of natural law, and find rational for a secular natural law rather than natural law from a creator?