Let's put it this way. I'm a fan of Howard Stern because he makes me laugh. I also think he is full of fertilizer on just about any political topic except sex.

Wasn't Wright supposed to build Ayn Rand a home, at one time? But it never got off the drawings stage....

Thank you.

Our government can perform the duties required by the constitution for far less than the $4T that Obama asked for in his recent budget.

If the government were adhering to the constitution, you wouldn't feel compelled to "buy" protection from the government, but might be a lot more willing to contribute voluntarily to secure the protection of the government.

But, of course!

There was an F.L. Wright house being built a few miles from where I lived. As it was being built, my then fiancé and I would watch its progress, and as it was being built I noted certain things that, If I were the architect, would have done differently. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have been thrilled to be the owner of the house. I am just as thrilled to be an Objectivist which illuminated my life and by clarifying the world around me, gave me profound happiness. Still, there are some parts I disagree with. They are minor parts, and I am not about to throw the baby out with the bath water.
PS
I love Beethoven and also Offenbach, (which I'm told she enjoyed).

I have to get back to work at the moment. Your points are interesting. May I get back to you later?

In theory maybe. But there isn't anything to compare our public roads to...at least in any amount to make the study meaningful.

Maybe the term 'force' is my issue, since I am paying for my roads by compulsion...but I see it as value for value, since I could not live without them.

Can you tell me how the road even gets there, if it will eventually get paid for through it's use (tolls)?
The old chicken, or the egg conundrum?

Chuckle!
I was going to try and figure out how to sell some of my 'good' karma. But then it occurred to me that that might cost more in other ways! Besides, I would probably then need to buy some somewhere in order to offset my dogma.

I'm confused. Why wouldn't an objectivist want a woman to be President? (I exclude Hillary from the 'woman' class, of course...)

But those roads could have been better, cheaper, maintained better by private sources.

Remember there were three abuses in the year 1913. Federal Reserve, income taxes, AND direct election of senators. First, ruined the monetary system. Second, ruined property rights, due to the tax system that allows you to keep only some of your production/wealth. Third, ruined the federal system of government and places all power in DC.

Just enough to skirt around it, demolition it quietly, or quote it in front of the right crowd.

That technology is used all the time on the toll roads and HOV lanes here in California. I would agree with you re the "tax" on gasoline if those funds went exclusively for roads and road maintenance, but unfortunately it does not. My point in this discussion is that there are ways to accomplish paying for infrastructure without forcing it on people. We should always seek those ways as opposed to initiating the use of force.

Giving away your own money is charity. Giving away someone else's is stealing.

Are we talking about this gulch or the one in the book? And in order understand the "emotional" part of objectivism you first have to understand the logical philosophy that backs it up (for your own rational self interest and happiness). ;) many emotions are not based in reason, but rather unearned guilt.

my comment was that someone COULD be a 'fan' of Ayn Rand, and still be IN the Gulch, but not really yet understand the philosophy part of it.

I can't believe you said, "on an emotional level"!! Bad objectivist! BAD!! BAD!!

But that's the point, CG. I'm simply not interested