Andrew said: "yes that is the same concept that led to the 2008 collapse of Wall Street ..."

That's what some idiots and ignoramuses like socialist Michael Moore say without understanding what the hell they're talking about. You are clearly misinformed...

Read these to know what really caused the 2008 Wall Street collapse:
http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/statistm-a-l...

Here's an analysis about how the Federal Reserve and America's Big Government caused many great depressions in the US:
http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/the-roots-of...

It does...

Excellent post. This reminds me of a formspring questioner who asked me the following: "Do you think that a person merely needs to read the works of Ayn Rand in order to be convinced of the tenets of Objectivism?"

Here's my answer:

This phrase sounds awkward to me: "...merely needs to read the works of Ayn Rand..."

Is there any other way or alternative to know the works of some famous people? Is there any other way to have an objective opinion about the works of Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault?

If you do not exert any effort to read the works of Ayn Rand or any other philosophers before her time, then you would certainly have no idea about her or about other philosophers unless you merely rely on the second-hand opinion of other people.

The answer is NOT only one "merely needs to read" her works, but to understand them as well.

Why?

1. Because there is no such a thing as pre-stored knowledge in the human brain;

2. Because "thinking" or the use of "reason" is not automatic;

3. Because man has to consciously and deliberately define and understand his philosophy or outlook in life;

4. Because the only way to understand Ayn Rand's philosophy is through reading her works, although there are some people who said they had been practicing her ideas even before they met her.

5. Because knowing and understanding Ayn Rand's ideas and philosophy is just the same as knowing and understanding the works and ideas of Aristotle, Plato and Immanuel Kant. It's the same as knowing and understanding Physics, Mathematics, Law, Medicine, etc.

For instance, one needs to read and understand the works of Aristotle to be convinced that he is the father of science. Those who aren't aware of Aristotle and who didn't read his works simply know nothing about him. When you were a baby you knew nothing. A baby doesn't know that a four-legged object in front of him is a table. What I mean is that man has no pre-stored knowledge in his brain and that he can only acquire knowledge by means of thinking and the use of reason.

Before one "can convince" himself of anything, one needs to know the facts. And the facts must be "objective", not merely second-hand opinion or dishonest evaluations of other people.

Now, if you really want to know Ayn Rand's ideas, do not merely rely on second-hand opinion. Otherwise you'd end up like this plagiarist from the Filipino Freethinkers who claimed he personally read some of Ayn Rand's works yet he produced a plagiarized article about her philosophy.

Awesome! Very true. Vote out the leftists and libtarts on Nov. 2!

Your a racist douche bag! Go away and join Muslims in Iran!

Ron Paul is deserves to be given this award: The Most Useful Dhimmi of the Century! http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/dhimmi-ron-paul-an-evil-appeaser-of-evil/

This guys is a dishonest prick. Here's a proof written by an ex-Libertarian:

Raimondo wishes us to believe that Peikoff "faithfully echoes" the views of the neoconservatives. That would be convenient, given the flaws of neoconservative ideas, except for the minor detail that the Objectivists vigorously denounce the neoconservatives. Brook does so explicitly in his "Morality of War" talk (at least in the version I heard). (Peikoff is voting for Kerry.) The Objectivists believe the neoconservatives pick the wrong wars for the wrong reasons and fight them by the wrong tactics. Both movements are superficially similarly in that both are in some sense "pro-war," but the ways in which they are pro-war are so radically different that further comparison is impossible.

Raimondo calls the Objectivist method "daffy," yet he totally distorts the substance of that method. Raimondo claims Objectivists ignore the data, refuse to read newspapers, and exclude empirical facts from their analysis. In Raimondo's words, Objectivists "derive the answers to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or the how to defeat Al Qaeda, or what position to take on the Iraq war, from knowing that 'A is A'." Yet all Objectivists explicitly and strongly oppose the sort of methodology Raimondo attributes to them. True, Objectivists advocate thinking in principles, but not in an empty rationalistic way. Rather, Objectivists explicitly endorse building principles inductively from one's knowledge of reality.

Raimondo urges us to look at empirics, but he totally ignores the enormous work Objectivists have put into evaluating the realities of the Middle East. Peter Schwartz (who, with Peikoff and Brook, also works at the Ayn Rand Institute) conducts in his new book precisely the sort of empirical investigation Raimondo claims he's looking for. John Lewis has pursued extensive research about terrorist attacks. Robert Tracinski offers daily analysis of key news stories. So Raimondo's description of Objectivists is completely false.

Raimondo chooses not to take on the Objectivist view on fundamentals -- indeed, he doesn't even discuss the fundamental tenets of the Objectivist view. Instead, Raimondo takes a couple details from the Objectivist position, drops the context of those details, distorts their substance, and then proceeds with his ad hominem attacks.

The grain of truth in Raimondo's review is that both Peikoff and Brook would allow military action that results in civilian deaths and the limited use of torture of enemy soldiers. Raimondo distorts this view and claims Objectivists "think it's okay to torture and kill six-year-olds." In fact, Raimondo's description is false, Objectivists oppose torturing children, and Raimondo seems to be intentionally misrepresenting the Objectivist position in order to demonize it.

Read the whole article here... http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/10/jrvlp.html

Ron Paul is merely echoing the anti-American propaganda of the leftists and liberals to topple America and destroy its founding spirit. America is not an empire. It never occupied a foreign territory. Sure, it invaded my country Philippines but it left. America had no intention to occupy the Philippines. In fact most Filipinos should be very grateful for America for saving the Philippines from Japanese occupation. America waged a wrong war against Vietnam and then left the country. Again, it missed the wrong target after the September 11 attack when it invaded Iraq, but America then pulled out its troops and gave what the liberals and conservatives call “democracy” to the savages there.

Ron Paul firmly believe that the terrorists are motivated by the so-called historical crimes of America. This proves that he also shares the sick mind of Noam Chomsky, who has been spreading Anti-American propaganda and helping the cause of America’s ideological enemies. Yes, both Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky are America’s most useful idiots!

It seems that Ron Paul is not really listening to the “hate speeches” and anti-American slogans of the terrorists and their sympathizers on American soil. They said they “love death and the Americans love life!” They said they wanted Islam to dominate the world and impose Shariah law. In Iran people shout “Death to America” every Friday as part of their Orwellian “two-minute hate”. They said they all wanted to kill all “infidels and destroy Western Civilization” because that’s what their prophet commanded them to do.

Indeed, if Mr. Paul is very much familiar with the history of and the principles held by America’s great founding fathers, he must do a Thomas Jefferson. Ron Paul must cure his Islamic idiocy and clarify his perception of reality by getting a copy of the Koran. This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson did.

READ: http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/dhimmi-ron-paul-an-evil-appeaser-of-evil/