[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, May 20 - 2:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does anyone have this book?

Citizenship Education (Monarch notes and study guides. High School Level)
Author: Joyce F. Jones
Publisher: Monarch Press, 1966

The book was sold by NBI back in the '60's. If anyone has it, and would like to sell it, I'd be interested in buying it.



Post 1

Tuesday, June 4 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, have it - yes, is a good book - but no, not interested in selling it.....;-)



Post 2

Thursday, June 6 - 4:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I want to see your personal library if it ever becomes possible to make that happen. It is an item on my 'bucket list.'

I like books. For instance, I am in possession of one issue (issue 7) of the "Story of Civilization" books, by Will & Ariel Durant ("The Age of Reason Begins"). And I am of the opinion that that makes me seem pretty cool, at least in certain circles. It's a conversation starter when you are dating -- or attempting to date -- librarians, anyway.

:-)

However, I suspect that you may harbor the whole set -- which would make you seem cooler than me, by some indefinite amount. If it is true, then I will have to accept my relative status, but even so I would like to witness what value you have accumulated and not just for competitive reasons. When I moved to Texas for instance, my books (above all else) took up the most weight and volume -- and I only took the best third of them down here with me. Books are cool.

Ed




Post 3

Friday, June 7 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is notable about Citizenship Education that makes it worth so much effort to procure?



Post 4

Friday, June 7 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, the only book of Durant I have is his Story of Philosophy, which is kept only as a 'horror' file book - he is a die-hard Platonist, and his History is so lauded from that perspective... have read, many years ago, most of those books, and just not found then worthy of being in a good library - there are better individual books covering each of those areas with more objectivity to them...

I do, however , have the OED......;-) [got it for $75, too]



Post 5

Friday, June 7 - 8:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"'Horror' file"? That's funny. It's a good term.

[thinking] Approximately 10-20% of my books are "horror file" books. Though Rand may or may not disagree, it can be illuminating to stay fresh on the positions of your intellectual oppositions.

:-)

Ed




Post 6

Saturday, June 8 - 3:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Under horror I have Nietzche's " Beyond Good and Evil" and Hobbes "Leviathan". Does this allow me entry into the cool club?



Post 7

Saturday, June 8 - 7:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pretty good start, Jules. But pick up a used copy of the Communist Manifesto, and then we'll talk.

:-)

Ed
[owns 2 used copies]
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/08, 7:26am)




Post 8

Saturday, June 8 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To Break a Tyrant's Chains: Neo-Guerrilla Techniques for Combat

How about that one?
I thought it was fiction when I first bought it, the subtitle was not included when it was first published. I think it was actually banned from Canada shortly after publication!

It was...informative..



Post 9

Saturday, June 8 - 6:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sounds interesting ...



Post 10

Sunday, June 9 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke asked, "What is notable about Citizenship Education that makes it worth so much effort to procure?"

It's the only book on civics that I've seen written from an Objectivist perspective.



Post 11

Tuesday, June 11 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Finally someone else nails it... was beginning to think I was the only one who had the book......



Post 12

Wednesday, June 12 - 6:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What about economics from an Objectivist perspective? I think that's possible, but Samuelson, for instance, isn't it-- and is one of the more common textbooks that folks were exposed to back in the day.

From an Objectivist's perspective, towards what ends do we study economics? To attempt to understand economies, for sure, but towards what ends to understand economies?

A] To participate in them(a given; a constraint imposed by the universe as it is.)

B] To control them(and let's start out on that political wish by referring to them as an it.)

C] To not muck them up by attempting to control them(a competing political wish.)

D] Other

What is the Objectivists pespective on the field of economics? Is it enough to say, it would it lean towards Austrian school and/or Chicago's Milton Friedman vs. Chicago's Barack Obama? If that is sufficient to characterize it, then that is sufficient.

regards,
Fred





Post 13

Wednesday, June 12 - 6:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We sorely miss Milton Friedman.





Post 14

Wednesday, June 12 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I lovedddd Milt!!



Post 15

Friday, June 14 - 1:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

Perhaps George Reisman has an answer for you.



Post 16

Friday, June 14 - 11:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kyle:

Perhaps George Reisman has an answer for you.

Yes, I enjoy reading him.

But I've always thought the debate is a little rigged, simply by entering the arena. The economic debate occurs on the Left's home field. The Left has more or less managed to establish the rules of the game as follows:

"How do we best run the economy?"

This is glaringly obvious in the tone of the national debate-- there is no real national debate about that premise. I mean, listen to Mitt Romney in the last election gleefully proclaim; "Let me tell you how I will run the economy."

The question itself is the end of debate. And then various liberal/conservative/libertarian/objectivist leaning economists enter the arena and engage that debate, with the outcome already determined by the nature of the question as posed.

The only meaningful debate is long over, as soon as the premise is accepted; we will follow the Soviet Model, and all that is left to debate is, how to best do that...

regards,
Fred







Post 17

Saturday, June 15 - 12:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

Unfortunately, any candidate who answers the question ("How do we best run the economy?") by saying "I don't intend to run the economy" will be greeted with, at best, a collective "huh?".

Is the battle over? Has it finally be lost? Will "huh?", as a response to that question, be the death knell of liberty? Likely.

If no "huh?"s are said because the question is never asked, liberty will still die because the "huh?"s, though not present, are still waiting to be said (the core beliefs of "running the economy" are still there).

In spite of all this, I'd still love to see the candidate who says he won't "run the economy". I'd love to see the response. It would be better than nothing.



Post 18

Saturday, June 15 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kyle:

That is exactly what happened;

Ron Paul, 2008 GOP California Primary debate at Reagan's library.

Anderson Coopers asks McCain, Romney, Huckleberry, and Paul the fair but loaded question, "Tell us why YOU are best suited to RUN THE US ECONOMY."

McCain inspired us all by admitting that he 'got C's in economics...but I know enough to get by.'

Romney not only embraced the question, but met it with candy and flowers. He was giddy to finally be given the chance to tell us all how he would lead the US down the shitter hole as Czar of The Economy, following the failed Soviet Union.

Hucklberry...who cares what he said, it was unmemorable as always, but along the same lines.

By the time Ron Paul spoke, it was way too late, the GOP had totally self destructed in front of the nation, leaving no semblance of any core belief other than they wanted the power to rule the CronyFest on the Potomac for fun and profit.

Paul literally said "Huh? What are you all talking about? This is not the former Soviet Union. It is not the proper function of the POTUS to 'run the economy.' And kind of just shook his head in disgust. I think he knew the GOP was finished in that moment.

...and the three front runners just grinned at Ron Paul like he was the f'n idiot. Anderson Cooper was grinning like the cat that just ate the canary. It was a fair question; they didn't have to run chin first into it like dolts, but they did. Only Ron Paul gave any kind of an answer I'd associate with an America worth more than pure contempt.

America is a shithole full of complete fucking idiots these days. We are well on our way to the trash heap of history, along with the balance of the global tribal mess. America has become a joke best stepped around, like road kill on the highway. Not that there is a new #1.

But it is what it is.


America used to be something, it used to mean something, it used to stand for something. We can all only read about that America. It is today an elite crust of spineless Ivy League goo that takes America's very best and uses them poorly in long drawn out half--adventures overseas-- far in excess of the duration even of a global WWII -- running around Iraq or Afghanistan making hovels bounce and not really meaning it, just to finally pull the latest VietNam: "Sorry, we really didn't mean what we said, but thanks for the expensive free-fire training exercise--" on the way out of Dodge, spouted by its very worst, safely from the bistros of Georgetown until they can dream up their next cluster fuck on a stick for a buck.

I just read an email back from an A10 pilot flying in Afghanistan. Can you tell?

regards,
Fred











Post 19

Sunday, June 16 - 7:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If it is acceptable to this nation, as it was in VietNam, to throw 55000 Americans into a meat grinder, and then simply end the conflict with a 'Sorry, excuse us, we really didn't mean it,' ... then it was sure as Hell acceptable to have never entered the conflict at all.

Ditto Somalia. Ditto Iraq. Ditto Afghanistan.

It's what we did in Rwanda(never engaged at all), and declared that it is acceptable for us to have easily cowed teenagers with machetes hack 800,000 innocents to death while we sip our cappuccinos and read the headlines and tsk, tsk, tsk around the crabspread at Renaissance Weekend events. As long as all this tribal mayhem doesn't touch the thin resort crust around the world that 99% of us call 'overseas' we really don't give two shits about liberating the 'world' from tyranny.

As Reagan once famously said on the 40th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, "Force used for liberation is not the same as force used for domination."

For sure; and it's also not the same as half-baked force applied in a really-don't-mean-it but expensive in lives fashion to feed IKE's MIC, either, managed by the Madison Avenue campaign PR firms surrounding a perpetually campaigning politician safely back near the Georgetown bistros and nowhere near the pointy end of the stick while calculating only the latest 'optics' from some shit storm overseas and how it is going to impact this weeks polls.

And ever since WWII, the idea that once was America has been declaring to the world "We don't really mean it; feel free only to destroy the world with your dark ages tribal bullshit nonsense. We're busy throwing a party called 'modernity' that we believe is a gift not requiring payment. Just try not to mess up the thin 1% resort crust near those international airports, the rest of the world is yours."

regards,
Fred




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.