There are currently 0 users and 6 guests online.
Linz's Mario Book—Updated!
Who Should Be the Republican Nominee?
Total votes: 21
Submitted by Marcus on Thu, 2006-06-22 12:51
Here is a very short fiction story from the latest issue of nature. Projecting dissatisfaction with current statist trends into the future. For those that don't know NHS = "National Health Service" and HSE = "Health and Safety Executive". Enjoy.
Nature 441, 1026 (22 June 2006)
Check elastic before jumping
Standing before the museum display case, I listened to the cracking of stun rifles outside as CCM — Combined Corporate Military — engaged with the few government troops who could be bothered to fight.
Nice. Reminiscent of Robert — by Ross Elliot on Thu, 2006-06-22 23:56
OK — by Marcus on Thu, 2006-06-22 13:15
Submitted by Prima Donna on Thu, 2006-06-22 00:44
Well, after a squillion hours of work, and months of hair ripping-outing and what not, the Gilded Fork Online Boutique is at last open for business.
We've put together quite a decadent collection of caviar, truffles, foie gras, fine vinegars, and oodles of other treats for you to savor. My particular favorite is the set of Tahitian vanilla beans, but I'm also a fiend for the truffle oil.
God and quality control — by Craig Ceely on Sun, 2006-06-25 01:00
Speaking of God... — by Prima Donna on Sun, 2006-06-25 00:40
Thank God... — by Boaz the Boor on Sun, 2006-06-25 00:27
Submitted by JulianP on Wed, 2006-06-21 23:07
"Cold War cartoon defending the profit motive against anti-capitalist critics." Cartoon in public domain and available at Archive.org. 1948.
What Makes Us Tick:
Submitted by Rex Wilkinson on Wed, 2006-06-21 15:07
An atheist is someone who believes there is no god.To realy accept there is no god allso means there is no devil,heaven,life after death,ghosts,spirits,reincarnation or magic,witch craft,voodoo etc.If you imagine any of these to be real YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST,you are a confused agnostic as are all agnostics,too confused to make a decision either way.I don't know how any agnostic can call themselve
Spaced out man — by Rex Wilkinson on Sun, 2006-07-16 18:35
Rex — by Greg Mullen on Fri, 2006-07-14 18:41
Trust in self — by Rex Wilkinson on Fri, 2006-07-14 04:40
Submitted by JulianP on Wed, 2006-06-21 01:58
Quoted from Foreign Dispatches:
GoodArt — by Marnee on Fri, 2006-07-14 18:48
Julian — by Lanza Morio on Wed, 2006-06-21 09:28
Submitted by JulianP on Wed, 2006-06-21 01:29
Well worth a look — by Lanza Morio on Thu, 2006-06-22 08:23
Urgent!! — by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2006-06-21 22:53
Nice find. — by Lanza Morio on Wed, 2006-06-21 09:41
Submitted by Lanza Morio on Tue, 2006-06-20 23:07
I watched this movie for the third time last night. The conflicts and resolutions are worked out brilliantly by director Frank Capra. Mary Hatch (Donna Reed) is a total babe. Last Christmas I watched it and was a little conflicted about it all. This time I loved every minute of the film and after thinking about it for half an hour I began to feel that I'd been tricked.
There seems to be something wonderful about the movie but I'm conflicted as hell about it. On the one hand the theme is "Be satisfied and even happy with what you have," and that's a good thing. On the other hand that same theme, "Be satisfied with what you have," pisses me off because it suggests that one ought to resign himself to a lesser existence.
Great post, Marnee. It — by Lanza Morio on Tue, 2006-06-27 07:40
The problem is that the film — by Marnee on Tue, 2006-06-27 00:24
It is a beautiful, touching film... — by atlascott on Sat, 2006-06-24 00:57
Submitted by Victor Pross on Tue, 2006-06-20 00:20
Drew Barrymore from the cot... — by Rick Giles on Thu, 2006-06-22 00:56
Ironically — by Landon Erp on Thu, 2006-06-22 00:47
Rick, Rick, Rick... — by Jameson on Wed, 2006-06-21 00:53
Submitted by Jameson on Mon, 2006-06-19 22:35
A pepper-loving spankee? — by Ross Elliot on Sun, 2006-06-25 00:41
All talk? — by User hidden on Sat, 2006-06-24 19:46
Knock down? — by Prima Donna on Sat, 2006-06-24 02:15
Submitted by atlascott on Mon, 2006-06-19 20:49
The Supreme Court of the US has made a pretty important refinement to the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The 4th Amendment provides:
Being helpfull — by Rex Wilkinson on Fri, 2006-06-30 19:57
Michael wrote:"...the — by Robert on Tue, 2006-06-27 05:41
I hope I didn't get your hopes up too much, Robert!! — by Michael Moeller on Tue, 2006-06-27 04:50
Submitted by wngreen on Mon, 2006-06-19 09:33
The phone rang at 4 am this morning. Not my cell phone surprisingly enough, but my house phone that only my immediate family has the number for. It was the Baltimore City police. Some punk had smashed my back window and took my cell phone and mp3 player from my car sometime after I parked it at 10pm about a block from my house. Tips from the neighborhood led to the police stoping a shady character peering into car windows on my block. An hour and a half later I have my property back (minus the non-smashed window) and the perp is taking a short ride to jail. Thank you Baltimore City Police!
The Wire — by MJ on Tue, 2006-06-20 01:58
Oh say can you see... — by Victor Pross on Mon, 2006-06-19 20:22
Relative Risk — by Ashley on Mon, 2006-06-19 20:12
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Mon, 2006-06-19 05:43
[reprised from the SOLOHQ archive in response to the current public fascination with 9/11 conspiracy theories]
There's a vicious little conspiracy theory about that maintains that Man never set foot on the moon. That it was a hoax. A lie.
It goes something like this:
The Cold War was in full swing. President Kennedy had committed the United States to a moon landing as a counter to the early Soviet space successes. However, NASA discovered that it was an impossible task. So they decided to fake it; to save face for America and to show superiority over the Soviets. And, with the full knowledge of thousands of officials, scientists, engineers and of course, the astronauts themselves, they filmed the moon landings on a massive lunar movie set. Then they kept it a secret for over 30 years.
Technology has certainly — by Erik Christensen on Sat, 2007-07-21 18:33
Good on you Lindsay — by Rex Wilkinson on Fri, 2006-06-23 10:20
Linz — by MJ on Wed, 2006-06-21 15:17
Submitted by Tenyamc on Mon, 2006-06-19 04:16
The Death Penalty..to some, a CAPITAL idea, to others, it's murder...it's something that has divided libertarians since the word was created. Hopefully this topic will divide our group next Tuesday, June 20th at the home of Jack McHugh. Social Hour (just to KILL time) will begin at 6, and the meeting will start around 7:15. Please bring a LAST MEAL, oops I mean snacks and/or drinks if possible, and lets EXECUTE some fine philosophical discussion. At the heart of this discussion will be the concept of justice vs. the divinity of human life, even that of a convicted murderer. If you have some valuable reading material or something to share that would add greatly, bring it! Hope to see you there!
Cool — by Tenyamc on Sat, 2006-07-15 16:35
a question — by Landon Erp on Thu, 2006-07-13 22:35
I've now forgotten how many — by Tenyamc on Mon, 2006-07-10 05:23
Submitted by Victor Pross on Mon, 2006-06-19 01:04
LWH — by Michael Allen Yarbrough on Mon, 2006-06-26 01:46
Gore poisons the well — by LWHALL on Sat, 2006-06-24 14:27
Saw it today — by Michael Allen Yarbrough on Sat, 2006-06-24 07:00
Submitted by JoeM on Sun, 2006-06-18 22:59
(This essay is based on "The Incredible Revolution" orignally published at SOLOHQ.com. Reposted in consideration of the new movie SUPERMAN RETURNS.)
Although creator Brad Bird denies any direct influence, THE INCREDIBLES is an evolutionary step towards an Objectivist view of superheroes, but there is a vestigial tale of a mixed premise of altruism, and that altruism is inherent in the classical idea of heroism itself. The hero's journey often requires a sacrifice, and this sacrifice is usually interpreted as a renunciation of the ego to engage with something larger than themselves, i.e. God, the greater good, the collective unconscious.
Dont feed the trolls — by Bill Visconti on Sun, 2006-12-10 01:53
Good thing Rand's emphasis — by Melodrone on Sun, 2006-12-10 01:46
I hope not — by Marcus on Wed, 2006-06-21 22:27
Submitted by George Reisman on Sun, 2006-06-18 21:36
The collapse of socialism-communism has not only given rise to the remarkable growth of environmentalism, as a replacement outlet for hostility to capitalism, but also to some growth, vastly less considerable of course, in the remnants of the old anarchist movement, which now sometimes calls itself “libertarian” or “left-libertarian.” A leading strand of this remnant goes under the name “Mutualism.” And its philosophy has recently been set forth in a book by one Kevin Carson, called Studies in Mutualist Political Economy (Fayettville, Arkansas: Self-published, 2004), which I reviewed in the current issue of The Journal of Libertarian Studies. The opening portion of my review appears in my blog posting of June 14 on this site.
The purpose of this posting is to expand on the following paragraph of that portion of my review:
A self published book — by seymourblogger on Sun, 2012-01-15 04:07
Word is misused — by F L Light on Fri, 2012-01-13 05:32
Mutualism would work — by Morten on Tue, 2012-01-10 10:10
Submitted by Landon Erp on Sun, 2006-06-18 18:51
I brought up conspiracy theories on another thread. Victor mentioned humorously how someone at a Q&A with Rand thought Objectivists were just pawns in the Illuminatti conspiracy and it made me think of the following.
Reminds me of a conversation I was having at work a couple days ago. I was talking to a guy who buys into "Bush planned 9/11," "Freemasons control everything" and of course "the illuminati."
Rex: what a nice short — by Matt on Fri, 2006-06-30 02:54
I aggree with Claudia — by Rex Wilkinson on Wed, 2006-06-28 21:58
Funny thing about those — by Victor Pross on Thu, 2006-06-22 04:58
Submitted by Richard Andreassen on Sun, 2006-06-18 18:40
Just signed up here so I figured I'd say hello
Make a blog post outlining — by Richard Andreassen on Tue, 2006-06-20 14:52
Make a blog post outlining — by Ross Elliot on Mon, 2006-06-19 08:15
Oh, how did you find SOLO? — by Richard Andreassen on Mon, 2006-06-19 07:53
Submitted by Rex Wilkinson on Sun, 2006-06-18 18:19
Lets just clear this up now,I don't want the government to force people to believe atheism.I want the government to stop forcing religion on us.Surely you can all see that we live in a society that has religion on every station every corner and every town in NZ.We are constantly being brainwashed by government funded religion.I don' like having religion forced on me.I would much rather sit back an
Submitted by Adam Buker on Sun, 2006-06-18 15:30
And on days like this... — by Prima Donna on Tue, 2006-06-20 05:15
Manners maketh the man — by Jameson on Tue, 2006-06-20 04:32
Perfect. — by Prima Donna on Tue, 2006-06-20 02:47
Submitted by Marcus on Sun, 2006-06-18 14:49
Animal rights militants are paid legal aid!
What are your opinions on legal aid?
I'm against it. However, someone always makes the following point.
What about the individual or small businessman who cannot afford to sue a large company?
I think they should have insurance, but...how to reconcile a failure to be able to seek justice with the right to be free from force or fraud?
Right on! — by JoeM on Sat, 2007-09-01 00:20
No Legal Aid doesn't mean no — by Michael E on Fri, 2007-08-31 08:31
I — by Elijah Lineberry on Fri, 2007-08-31 03:38
Submitted by DianaHsieh on Sun, 2006-06-18 13:58
A few years ago, the Ayn Rand Institute surveyed high school teachers and discovered that the major reason many don't teach Ayn Rand's fiction in their English classes is the simple lack of books. The bureaucracy makes it difficult to obtain them from the school, and they are expensive to buy out-of-pocket. So ARI started its "Free Books for Teachers" program to remedy that problem.
FINE. FINE! — by Michael Allen Yarbrough on Wed, 2006-06-28 07:13
Two-For-One Matching — by DianaHsieh on Tue, 2006-06-27 11:17
Question — by Michael Allen Yarbrough on Mon, 2006-06-19 21:26
Submitted by Marcus on Sun, 2006-06-18 10:46
Great article from the times criticizing those that want to demonize the former British Empire.
"British society was intolerant of injustice, cherished individual freedom and believed that the world was moving onwards and upwards."
Submitted by Ross Elliot on Sun, 2006-06-18 05:42
Left sidebar and down. Please vote!
Note: If you vote Other, then please add a comment as to what that Other was
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2006-06-18 03:16
Ronald Reagan used to tell the story, though not to Mikhail Gorbachev, of the fellow in the late unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, who bought a car. He was told by a clerk behind a desk that delivery would be seven years three months and five days away. “Morning or afternoon?” asked the buyer. “Morning or afternoon?” echoed the clerk … what difference does it make when it’s seven years three months and five days away?” “Well,” said the buyer, “it has to be the afternoon. The plumber’s coming in the morning.”
5:40 minutes (1.95 MB)
Lindsay — by Michael Allen Yarbrough on Thu, 2006-06-22 08:09
I'm not one of the "locals". — by Ross Elliot on Wed, 2006-06-21 05:03
Serendipity — by Craig Ceely on Wed, 2006-06-21 04:08
Submitted by Peri Sword on Sat, 2006-06-17 15:52
Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that evidence gathered by the police who did not use the "knock and announce" rule can be admissible in a court of law. This is yet another erosion of the rights of the individual, a trend that has been going on for years, but has certainly gathered momentum since 9/11.
What public response, if any, should Objectivists and Objectivist organizations make to this disturbing trend? Unlike other organizations, I don't hear their voices raised against this in public. On all of the Objectivist online communities, I've seen a lot of raging and rants directed at various Objectivist "denominations" or "parties," and their adherents, which means zilch to anyone but the "initiated" and does nothing to stop the very real threat to individualism that we, as individuals, face.
Penelope — by Landon Erp on Sun, 2006-06-18 19:26
Smile — by eg on Sun, 2006-06-18 04:20
Brant, I just *knew* someone — by Ross Elliot on Sun, 2006-06-18 03:56
Submitted by Scott Wilson on Sat, 2006-06-17 09:52
Bill Gates recent announcement that he is stepping down as CEO of Microsoft (but not Chairman) to focus more time on his charitable foundations gives cause to admire the man – not so much for his charitable endeavours (although there is little doubt that his charities will be better focused, less corrupt and more productive than most, given his own acumen in delivering results for his business), but for his contribution to the world. His own personal wealth, it is not fortune (which comes from the word “fortunate” implying luck), is a tiny fraction of the contribution that his company and the products he has promoted and produced, have done to global productivity.
On Gates — by F L Light on Sun, 2006-06-18 04:22
Flirting or not, there's — by Ross Elliot on Sun, 2006-06-18 03:45
Ross, please see my agent, Jennifer... — by Craig Ceely on Sun, 2006-06-18 03:18
Submitted by DianaHsieh on Sat, 2006-06-17 00:08
Chris Sciabarra's Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (a.k.a. JARS) describes itself in the following terms:
Chris, I'm not clear what — by Fred Weiss on Tue, 2006-06-27 18:42
More on Mack — by Fred Weiss on Mon, 2006-06-26 00:00
Fred-- — by Chris Cathcart on Sun, 2006-06-25 17:37
Submitted by Victor Pross on Fri, 2006-06-16 22:55
"Bones! — by Victor Pross on Mon, 2006-06-19 20:45
What...should...we...do...Jim? — by Lanza Morio on Mon, 2006-06-19 19:16
Lance — by Victor Pross on Mon, 2006-06-19 15:28
Submitted by John Drake on Fri, 2006-06-16 19:56
As a former TOC supporter and occasional participant in their summer seminar, I was originally very startled by Diana Hsieh's leaving their fold. Although I was not very active with TOC, I still had a positive impression. Diana's departure opened my eyes to the possibilities that something was fundamentally wrong with them. I was determined to finish my PhD (still another couple years away) before re-visiting the philosophic issues stemming from David Kelley's departure from ARI. But today I read TOC's mission statement and found that not only was it difficult to determine what exactly they meant, but that they are fundamentally changing what Objectivism is, beyond what even Kelley said was possible in his statement on open vs. closed systems.
“The Center promotes these values by articulating their meaning and implications..” how does articulating a value promote it? Don’t you actually have to – promote them? Later in the paragraph they say: “We seek to influence the course of debate and the climate of public opinion in these arenas…” Sounds to me they aren’t interested in winning the debate, only influencing it. I suppose influencing toward the core values mentioned above, but it’s certainly not clear.
Homemaking and Yoga — by Kenny on Sat, 2006-06-17 22:45
While the world is perishing — by Penelope on Sat, 2006-06-17 03:13
Diana — by John Drake on Sat, 2006-06-17 00:49
More SOLO Store
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand