It's funny because people who come across as entitled to me are the ones who hold the exact ideas that Rand was so strongly against: altruists.

The ideas of social responsibility, duty, innate obligations to "society", "greater good" are the ideas that hold that is reasonable expect individuals to think and act pro-actively in certain ways for the benefit of others. The demand that an individual love everyone equally is making a claim to an individual's most deepest and intimate emotions. That's a sense of entitlement if I've ever heard one.

This is not Rand's definition of the word "liberty" but it is one that I think she would have liked: "Liberty, in a political context, is an environment in which all relationships are consensual."

Here's quote of Rand's on the subject of conflicting interests:

"When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept 'rational' is omitted from the context of 'values,' 'desires,' 'self-interest' and ethics." - Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

Rand advocated for the complete separation of economy and state for the same reasons as a separation of church and state is necessary. She saw it as two sides of the same coin.

If it is wrong to dictate to an individual what he/she can think it is equally wrong to dictate to an individual what he/she can eat. There are also a lot of overlaps. Just as individual chooses what to think he/she also chooses who to associate with and trade with and under what circumstances. If individuals require the freedom think and act in order to make decisions regarding their life then that extends into producing the material means of survival: producing material goods for consumption and trade.

In other words: if politics involves itself in what is proper to worship and believe in then the result is telling us what to think. Conversely if politics involves itself in production and trade the result is telling us who we can trade with, what prices we must accept for goods we produced, what kind of toilet we can put in our own bathrooms and what kinds of food to eat.

If it helps you, stop thinking about "corporate welfare" and think of your own, because all trade is a two-way street. Keep in mind that the government doesn't just regulate the banking sector at the moment, it's basically nationalized. Yes, private banks still exist but every single loan and transaction occurs with government-issued fiat currency, which means they're setting terms on every single transaction that occurs during their jurisdiction. Not just between banks and consumers but between little Joey and Mrs. Potter when they trade $5 for a lawn mow. People don't seem to get that. That is the most fundamental hardcore regulation of the economy you can possibly have... the central bank gets to decide, by meddling with the supply of currency, what your savings are worth, what interest rates for loans will be, the value of what people who have bad loans will collect and so forth. It's even thought by one popular school of economics to be the cause of the boom/bust cycle.

Prices are determined by the law of supply vs. demand. As supply of fossil fuel decreases the costs will rise and that will leave people very hungry for energy. People are already complaining about rising energy costs and fossil fuel is still relatively extremely cheap.

So long as "we all agree" that fossil fuel is not inexhaustible, then it's pretty much common sense that there is going to be a massive market for alternatives in the future.

I have nothing at all against investing in those alternatives. I just don't see the point in using tax money to do so. Not only do I think it's unnecessary but I think it's counter-productive; which is to say if anything is going to prevent alternatives from coming to market it's going to be government intervention that keeps new energy start-ups out of the market as a favour to the giants who lobby and buy politicians. One can even argue that direct funding of alternative research by government is potentially dangerous to the emergence of "viable alternatives" because tax money doesn't generally have a way of finding itself in the pockets of those who are competent and capable of building, producing, marketing and distributing things on their own. Instead it finds it's way into the pockets of those are really good at getting things from government.

Derren Brown is a magician. He has used an interest in psychology as a means of misdirection, to get otherwise sceptical people to, even just temporarily, buy in to the possibility that he's not using tricks. Not in an attempt to make people think that he's "really magic" or even to sell psychology as something that it's not, but as a new way to say "LOOK OVER THERE!" so that they're looking in the opposite direction of what's really going on.

I'm a hobbyist magician and Derren Brown became my hero when I was starting out a couple of years ago. I've read everything that he offered either to the lay public and for magicians. I've studied his work. I can't claim to know how he does everything, but I can reproduce a great deal of what he does and what I can say with absolute certainty is that no performing artist, no magician, leaves anything to chance (whereas psychology always introduces the human variable). When you deal with psychology you might get an 80% success rate when applying a given principle, but it only takes one single person acting a little bit different to ruin your performance and make you look like an idiot. Don't get me wrong, all magicians use psychology to certain degrees. As Teller once said "A magic trick is a psychology experiment", but they use it as sugar to make something that's already bulletproof seem even more spectacular. I promise you, the only routines of Derren Brown's that are purely demonstrations of psychology are when he reproduces classic experiments (such as the famous Milgram experiment that he did on "The Heist"). Whenever you see a feat of "mind reading" or a drawing duplication etc. it's always a trick.

The fact that Brown has been so successful at getting smart, sceptical people who are totally put off by the David Copperfields and David Blaines who built their routines around traditional ideas of mysticism and "magic" to suspend their disbelief and think that what he's doing is actually anything more than traditional tricks dressed in new clothing has even gotten Penn and Teller to start discussing that new method of misdirection in their shows. BTW, Teller is often credited by Brown as one of his heroes and mentors, the two of them often refer to their friendship in interviews. And Brown once mentioned an ongoing debate the two of them have been having over the years regarding the ethics of what Brown does.

I just came out of The Dark Knight Rises. My wife and I decided to avoid the mad opening weekend rush and see a Tuesday Matinee instead. It worked out since the theatre was pretty quiet. They showed a preview for The Man of Steel and it got me pretty excited, but I didn't catch a glimpse of the director's name.

Now I'm 20 x more excited.

Sucker Punch was, IMO, brilliant and not the least bit misogynistic! I'm the only male in my household. My two daughters and my wife all freakin' love that movie too. It was deep and philosophical, it had a complex story line that takes intelligence to follow and appreciate and the heroes were strong women who were overcoming oppression. How the hell anyone gets "misogynistic" out of that movie is really beyond me, and if Snyder is directing Man of Steel then I have even more high hopes.

There are two types of monopolies:

1) A company is so good at satisfying it's customers that it eliminates it's competition by providing value in the marketplace.

2) A company gets special privileges and favours from the government, including increased regulations of it's own industry. Because when you're a huge corporation with billions in annual revenue and a team of lawyers and lobbyists on staff full-time, complying with regulations that cost mere millions per year is a small tax in exchange for an environment in which it's impossible for start-ups - who only have mere millions in start-up capital to begin with - to enter the market and compete with you. Best part, your team of lawyers and lobbyists can actually be the ones to suggest specific regulations to the politicians who are in your pocket, so you get rules that are cheap for you to follow but prohibitively expensive for others. And those regulations are extremely easy to pass because as well all know, corporations aren't regulated enough!

Poor analogies. It would be more akin to wanting your neighbour to spend his money to buy you a TV instead of one for himself.

Well, I certainly agree that we do "regular people's behaviour" all the time but I do not consider enforcing rights to be "regulating" and what we do makes no statement regarding what we should do. And it occurs to me that we're headed straight towards a semantic argument, and so "regulate" isn't really a good word. When you hear the word obviously that includes preventing people from harming others. When I hear the word I think of dictating to people what to do with their property and/or thoughts. I'm going to stop using that word since it makes communication more difficult.

If you're concerned about "everyone's benefit" then really consider the meaning of "everyone." Society is a group of individuals who choose to coexist, form interpersonal relationships and trade with one another. Given that definition, the "good of society" must include every single individual that comprises that society. Would you then agree that if an act hurts one single individual then it cannot be said to be "good for society" ("everyone's benefit") ?

The only way, therefore, to protect "society" is to protect the individual and that means protecting individual rights and liberty. For the sake of clarity I define "liberty" as "an environment in which all relationships are consensual."

If "we make the rules" then that puts anyone who gets to claim to represent "we" in a position of great power. If it's up to certain individuals or groups to sacrifice or make concessions for the sake of "society" then everyone is placed immediately into an arena where each group battles it out to get the privileged position of claiming to "be society."

I know there's an awful, face-palm-inducing quote by Mitt Romney saying that "corporations are people too." I am not a Romney supporter, nor a republican, nor do I want to get into a discussion about corporate law and how corporations should be treated (since they are a special case of business and subject to special laws). But when it comes to businesses keep in mind that businesses are created by individuals using their money and their ideas to produce something for the purposes of trade. A business is property. Therefore you're saying that "society" gives a license to everyone else to own property and use it how they see fit. That's a dictatorship, by definition. If the government is "we" and "we" give a license to own and use property how "we" see fit then the government has the authority to take your house, your food, your clothes, your car and anything it wants because you only hold that property with a license from "us."

Since human beings, by our nature, are both a body and a mind; both material and non-material, it means that our nature dictates that we have to satisfy two kinds of "needs." We've acknowledged that people do not think with a license but there's a huge push in the direction of claiming that we breathe (or digest food etc.) with a license, which is essentially the argument that you just made.

"We" can either protect an individual's right to own property or "we" can dictate what a person is to do with their material possessions (and by extension their bodies), which out principle would make it "our" property, making "us" a dictatorship since we would be dictating how people live their lives.

"I'd love to see the money oil companies spent on defending their dirty businesses go to research and development of cleaner technologies."

I'd love to see their money go to paying my mortgage and buying me a corvette, but it's their money.

You did mention subsidies and I agree with you completely. In the case of subsidies it's not their money. But instead of giving that money to some other business venture I'd rather give it back to the tax payers and let them decide who deserves to get it. Government and business need to be kept separate for the exact same reason that government and church do. When state and church lay in bed they tell us what to do with our minds, when state and business lay in bed they tell us what to do with our bodies. It amazes me that so many who are opposed to religion making its way into politics don't see the problem with government and business mingling; or maybe they do, they just don't see the similarities between regulating thoughts and regulating trade.

I don't really care too much about "viable alternatives." I'm more worried about legal alternatives. As with all scarce resources, prices will rise as supply diminishes. When people are hungry for energy there will be a lot of money to be made in providing it. I'm not so worried about running out of fossil fuel as I am about legal barriers in place preventing new startups with mere millions from competing with the big boys who have the courts and police and politicians in their pockets.

Sorry for the double post but in hindsight I really wish I had elaborated more on this one part of yours:

"If a woman was going around bragging about her conquests she'd be labelled a slut and people would talk shit on her, while the dude, after being called a pig, is applauded."

Firstly, you brought up the word "conquest." And that's something, not just the word but the entire sentiment, that I hear way more from women than from men, and it's also a very derogatory way of regarding men and male sexuality.

Obviously I'm not a woman, I don't have the female perspective, but I do believe that all relationships not only between men and women but all people in general have to be earned. And I see something extremely romantic in the idea of one person, be it a man or a woman, pursuing another and winning them over. And when someone achieves a value the natural human response to that success is pride.

Now there are frauds out there in all walks of life. I have no doubt there are guys who lie to women and tell them they love her in order to get in her pants and then prove themselves liars by never calling etc. but that's not what I'm talking about; I don't recognize achieving a value by means of fraud as being worthy of experiencing pride and someone who brags about it is akin to someone who brags about robbing a bank. And I bring this up to say that one could point out that there are women who lie about being on birth control or fake pregnancies to get married but it would be unfair to assume that all women are like that, right? Just as it's unfair to assume that all men are liars and cheats. Though it seems to be the cliche. There's a gender stereotype there, which is what "feminists" are supposed to be against.

So back to this idea of "conquest." When I said "express their sexuality" I wasn't talking about getting laid. I was talking about being open about being a sexual creature who is attracted to other humans. That's it. So a guy who says "big boobies" is sexist while a girl who makes a comment about a guy's butt being cute is encouraged.

And realize that you chose to interpret that as "getting into someone's pants and then bragging about it" which says a lot about your own biases and stereotypes. And I will end by saying that if a girl were to "earn" the title of "slut" from a man or a woman, it would not be because of a "conquest" it would be because of a lack of conquest; i.e: no chase, no pursuit, no earning ... just giving it away to anyone in exchange for nothing. The trade of a value for a null or disvalue.

"If a woman was going around bragging about her conquests she'd be labelled a slut and people would talk shit on her, while the dude, after being called a pig, is applauded."

By women. The men I know would be asking for her phone number.

"You don't see the impact of patriarchal society because you don't experience the effects. The same way that many white people feel that there is no such thing as institutionalized racism in North America because they don't experience it."

I find that interesting because as I hinted to, I've experienced the same thing from a male's perspective, from my own family. I experience gender bias all the time from people who proudly label themselves "feminists." They make generalizations about men, they side with my wife every time the two of us have a dispute and we seek support from family, they speak for me as if they know what I'm going to do and the false assumptions they make are based on the fact that I have a penis. Women think they know what I'm thinking and what my intentions are just because I'm a man. So I know exactly how it feels and I do experience it, only I experience it from the same people who complaining about it most vocally.

That's what I was alluding to when I said "... I don't see it. In fact, I see the trend going in the opposite direction." and "the complete double-standard backwardness that has been instituted in the name of 'feminism.'"

I remember a time when I was working along side a female sysadmin. The two of us always got along and worked very well together. One day we had a dispute, I wish I could remember what it was about but it's not that important, she got extremely upset and accused me of being sexist and hating women etc. I would have been very open to the possibility that I said something which was perceived as sexist completely unintentionally, but fortunately for me the argument was made in front of several witnesses, some of them women, and they didn't understand where she was coming from. Now that may be her past experiences causing biases which were transferred to me, perhaps she worked with a lot of chauvinists and/or misogynists and something about our argument worked as a trigger, but I submit that as one small piece of anecdotal evidence that men are being thrown under the bus in a huge way and the "movement" is becoming quite hypocritical without even realizing it. Publicly accusing someone of gender bias in the workplace is a very big deal.

"but honestly I can't imagine very many of us are actually truly completely comfortable with the idea of people we aren't reasonably intimate with commenting on our chests."

No one has said anything about commenting on the size of a specific individual's chest. If it were personal I could understand how it would make someone feel uncomfortable, but I still wouldn't consider it "sexist" because it would also make me feel uncomfortable if someone were to comment on the size of my nose or my waist line.

"Professionalism dictates keeping this sort of thing out of the workplace."

I disagree with that profoundly. The most productive professional environment is one in which everyone gets along, has a good time and enjoys what they're doing. If certain individuals feel uncomfortable it is either because they are being singled out or bullied unfairly (in which case there is something wrong with the environment) or they have a personal problem with the way the business is run (which does not necessarily mean there's something wrong with the individual, just that it's not a good fit).

Femminism is supposed to be about equality and social change, right ? Then here's a social "problem" I would like the change: the complete double-standard backwardness that has been instituted in the name of "feminism." For example: if a guy expresses his sexuality or his sexual nature in any way he is labeled a "pig" but if a woman does it it's applauded as "liberating."

I was raised by a single mom with a tremendous amount of support from her single mom. Both describe themselves as "feminists." Both also talk about "patriarchy" but as a male who was born after 1980 I gotta say ... I don't see it. In fact, I see the trend going in the opposite direction.

The people who I find to be most "sexist" are self-proclaimed "feminists." They constantly draw attention to the differences between the sexes, and by appropriating a title such as "feminism" (emphasis on the root "fem") they are taking a position that there is an inherent conflict between the two sexes, that sides must be chosen and they have chosen the side of women. The foundation of the philosophy is not unifying but polarizing. If they had any pretense of "equality" they would identify themselves as "egalitarian." If they had a pretense about equal rights under the law whilst respecting (or celebrating) natural differences that exist between all individuals they would identify themselves as individualist. Instead they keep dragging the issue of gender through the mud and make everyone, male and female alike, uncomfortable.

I'm sure I could answer my own question with 2 seconds of googling, but for the sake of discussion: What are the differences between Unity and Gnome 3 besides performance ?

I've been using Ubuntu for quite a few years now and have never considered switching desktops, particularly to Gnome (and isn't Unity just Gnome with some changes or am I *way* behind the times ?) xfce is just too ugly for me. I'm one of those rare tech people who actually doesn't mind sparing a few CPU cycles to have something nice to look at, as long as it doesn't cause performance problems (I would even argue that for a lot of people a nice aesthetic UI can boost productivity as long as it's done properly - i.e: to create a more pleasant and intuitive user experience).

So, would I have any reason to want to switch from Unity to Gnome 3 ?

I deleted my Facebook account about 2 months ago.

And then I really missed, not the people / friends (the important of whom I speak to outside of Facebook) but the updates from pages that I "liked." I realized that I used Facebook more as a homepage / portal / news feed than anything else. And some of the stuff I couldn't get outside of Facebook. I wanted to create a new account that would have zero friends (except for maybe my wife & kids), but the registration insisted on providing them my cell phone number to "verify" the account. No thanks.

Ironically, I've since "hi-jacked" a fake account that my wife set up with our daughters for games (that never required verification, go figure), which I used to re-like the things I missed. Now I have all of the updates Facebook was actually useful for without the social network element that I never cared much about. And the best part about it, it's anonymous. No more getting tagged in people's photos. No more concerning myself with privacy issues etc. That's why they want to verify new accounts these days (not an assumption, the verification page stated it outright).

Let me give your analogy everything and say unequivocally "YES we're 'lettuce'" ... it does not invalidate my point.

Can the grocery store benefit by selling rotten lettuce ? Can it benefit by stocking less of it despite their "customers" demanding more ? And can it benefit from an attitude of "fuck the farmers who make the lettuce, we're going to spit on them and kick them to the ground because we 'only care about our customers!'" ?

Honestly who cares if we're the product ? Why is that a bad thing ? When we sell our services to an employer we're "the product" (to the same extent that we're "the product" to advertisers. Obviously we're not talking about trading or selling us as human beings in a literal sense). The point is, we choose to use Google for a reason. If they remove that reason or start slacking then we'll be itching for an alternative and a new market opportunity opens up to compete with them. For what it's worth I've already heard of some people who have stopped using Google search, going directly to Wikipedia instead. It might not be a great example but it is an example of choosing "not Google." In fine dining the Filet Mingon might be the product but you better bet your sweet ass the Chef holds that cut of beef on an insanely high pedestal and treats it with ridiculous amounts of respect because doing so is crucial to the restaurant's bottom line.

Without users Google has no "product" to sell.

There is a distinction that can be drawn between "customer" and "consumer." The average Joe might not be Google's primary "customer" but he is their primary "consumer" ... and without consumers Google is out of business.

It's a total logical fallacy to assume that Google doesn't need to treat their consumers right, and only needs to pander to the people who buy their advertising services. Their advertising services are worth nothing without the consumers, and that makes "us" important (no, essential) to Google's bottom line.