Peter Schiff suggests 2019 or earlier in "The Real Crash". The US Dollar will lose it's status as the international reserve currency, possibly nudged earlier by China's posturing. We will declare national bankruptcy and attempt to negotiate down our national debt and entitlement obligations. IF entitlements go down in conjunction with hyperinflation, we may see the kind of rioting and restraining that you're predicting. On the other hand, we may just see people slowly starve to death relatively peacefully. I tend to think that the government will be forced to concede that it must get out of the way to allow capitalism to do the necessary repairs.

Will the economy [of US Dollars] break? I'd say it's highly likely if we do not get government out of it very soon.

Will civility break? I'd imagine a rapid crash would initially spark greater civility in the short term.

Will the crash of the dollar be apocalyptic? I doubt it. Too many educated people.

At what point is the social compact broken? I read somewhere that only 3% of the colonists participated actively in the Revolutionary War. They were actively supported by about 10% and had another 20% as sympathizers. Actually more colonists fought as Tories for the British. And about 1/3 just went about their business and tried to be left alone.

At what point is self-defense legitimate against a government in general (as opposed to an individual case where specific events might make self-defense justified). Ragnar Danneskgold was doing self defense "in general". The boats he targeted did not necessarily have Rearden metal on them or Stockton cars (if he made cars - could be mistaking my gulchers but you get the point). The gold he returned was not the exact gold taken. It was a general defense, using force, against tyranny.

Mostly you of late.:)

Pendulum of Justice -Dk hallling
Passion of Ayn Rand Barbara Branden
Snuff -Terry Pratchett
Ghost Story- Jim Butcher
The Nothing That Is; A Natural History of Zero-Robert Kaplan

Nope. No doomsday predicting material.

"Does the success of other people cheer you or threaten you?"

Frankly, if deserved, in accordance with my own judgement, success cheers me. If undeserved, I may take undo solace in the knowledge that a popular idiot while wealthy, is still an idiot, even if he dies wealthy and "happy" by his own criteria.

I (personally) cannot equate idiotic success or popularity with happiness. These are not satisfying. While I have experienced both idiotic success and popularity, neither has represented more than a passing satisfaction. Lasting satisfaction cannot be gained through individual actions that fade into history. It is a seemingly never-ending pursuit.

I would wager, that even a life free of contradiction, while logical, is not explicitly satisfying. Even the closest approximation to an omniscient rational entity may never state, "that is enough".

"Happiness" is certainly never permanently earned. It must be purchased each day, without end.

Still, I don't think we've addressed the distinction of happiness from other "emotions". Certainly, we have not proved that happiness is apart from other emotions. THAT would be an awesome accomplishment. Too many connotations?

Emotions are the automatic response that derive from ideas. Your emotional response to events depends on the ideas you formulated or accepted before the event. The sum of your ideas is expressed by your emotions.

Does the success of other people cheer you or threaten you?

Ayn Rand often employed the phrase "man qua man" to mean living as a human at the highest potential, similar to the Aristotlean concept of "eudaimonia" or "high mindedness."

Happiness is not the range-of-the-moment pursuit of transitory physical pleasures but the engagement of your reason and rationality in the physical world to attain the goals that further your own best interests.

Seeing an attractive person, watching a winning sporting event, contemplating a positive work of art, all evince positive emotional responses in an integrated person.

You have little control over society you are born into. You might find emigration to a different nation to be an option. Whether you did or not, you would still pursue your own happiness.

"You cannot hold that rationality trumps emotion, and also claim that happiness trumps logic, unless you explicitly define the strata of mental functions."

They are inextricably integrated. You cannot separate one from the other, except conceptually for analysis. In living, "happiness" and "logic" are different aspects or facets of living. If you live logically, you find happiness. If you are unhappy it is because some of your ideas - your assumptions and attitudes, conclusions and inferences - are inherently contradictory, i.e., illogical.

Yes/no. By common standards, happiness is an emotion. For the majority, and even for proponents of Rand, this is a critical issue. You cannot hold that rationality trumps emotion, and also claim that happiness trumps logic, unless you explicitly define the strata of mental functions.

Until and unless, the strata of mental function rises from sensation, to perception, to emotion, to rationality, to super-rational emotion (satisfaction), there is yet a contradiction to reconcile.

Personal happiness is a laudable goal, but as a mental state that is superior to rationality, it is, for the majority, an incomprehensible contradiction.

No?

"The Future and Its Enemies" by Virginia Postrel. Read here:
http://vpostrel.com/future-and-its-enemi...

Ayn Rand's speculative philosophical novel, "Atlas Shrugged" has been seized by religious fundamentalists who dream of immanentizing the eschaton, i.e., bringing about the end of the world. Considering the plot of "Atlas Shrugged" as it integrates with the plot-theme, in objective point of fact Hank Rearden was exploited by his wife and family long before the government came into the picture. He caved in to the State Science Institute and signed over his patent because he accepted a personal guilt for his affair with Dagny Taggart, though Taggart herself later publicly announced their relationship.

"Atlas Shrugged" is "about" the collapse of the government the same way that Harry Potter is "about" the power of magic spells. Something deeper is at play.

Moreover, Ayn Rand's many other works - fiction and non-fiction both - speak directly to the philosophy of PERSONAL HAPPINESS. Social consequences are secondary and dependent upon a significant minority of trend-setters defining the direction of the larger culture, as when Dante and Petrarch scoured monasteries for lost manuscripts, wrote important works in Italian dialect, and thus launched the Renaissance, as at the same time artists in Florence discovered a new sensuality in color. No one sought to "destroy the Middle Ages" or "bring down the Holy Roman Empire." I will grant though that as a constitutional republic Genoa for over a hundred years did indeed strike coins in the name of Conrad, a pretender to the HRE who never actually stepped foot in the city.

The future is going to be wonderful! New biotech will bring longevity and health. Barack Obama may well retire from the presidency as a small, cold, and crunchy person, but that is a footnote.

The future holds promise for those who know and engage their rational self-interest. You may have no control over the wider culture. (Ayn Rand did influence the wider culture by challenging the moral philosophy of the last 2500 years. We are testament to that.) You do control your own life. If you understand and engage the philosophy of Objectivism, your life will be better for you than if you did not.

Should you work for the IRS? You get good pay, great health and retirement benefits!
Should you work for yourself, as a sole proprietor, corporate CEO, independent contractor, or freelance specialist? It is a longer and harder road, but more rewarding on many levels.
Should you surround your living and work space with grotesque art of no special meaning, or with heroic art that reflects your own best image of yourself?

Those questions are far more cogent and consequential to anyone who truly understands and appreciates the work of Ayn Rand.

This is what I was talking about. I could just spend the evening exploring and contemplating your answer to this one post Brilliant mind. Well done.