I am, therefore I must think...
The purpose of this blog is similar to many blogs out there: to spread ideas. Particularly my ideas. I consider myself a rational, active minded person. I love the discussion of ideas but if you use any logical fallacies, prepare to be called out on them. I am interested in individual liberty and the philosophies involved with liberty. I refuse to label myself as this type of philosopher or that, because I think broad labels lead to dogmatism and regression of ideas. Respect begets respect, so keep that in mind when commenting.
Please feel free to browse through my public posts to get a feel for who I am and what I think. If you are not a member, I have just recently made it so you can comment on my public posts, however the comment will first need to be approved by me, so please be patient. If you wish to view the rest of my writings (70% of this blog is only viewable to members) please register or login. If you like what I have to say, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed as well: 
MAF
I’ve been pondering this question for years. Finally I have my answer:
The cereal is also known for going stale much faster than other cereals and to mitigate this it is packaged in a foil-lined bag. [wiki]
And more detailed info:
(1) Corn Pops and Smacks apparently are the only “puffed grain” cereals Kellogg’s makes. (Post also has Super Golden Crisp, which is a cheap Smacks ripoff.) So, they’re fundamentally different from the other cereal types, which typically are ground grains.
(2) This difference means that the cereal itself is unflavored (most cereals start as a pasty mix which is then turned into whatever shape cereal is desired), and also a bit prone to drying out, and therefore it must be sugar-glazed.
(3) Sugar glazing is hygroscopic (absorbs water), and if these cereals absorb water vapor, they stick together. You can do this experiment yourself by leaving one of these cereals open in an even slightly humid place.
(4) Evidently, the folks at Kellogg’s decided that these cereals got stale too quickly inside the normal bags, suggesting that water vapor can penetrate them. Therefore, they developed the foil-lined bags (which would indeed be impermeable) and solved the problems that way. [straightdope]
I love teh internets.
I’ve been busy reading up on the arguments for/against government since my last post about it. I picked up a book (Universally Preferable Behavior) by Stefan Molyneux that I think solidifies the argument against the need for the state and has a much more solid argument for man-based ethics than I have read before. Since this is a relatively new subject to me (compared to Objectivism) I’m going to take my time before I lay out my argument here. For now, if you are interested reading about this new argument for objective, rational, man-based ethics (that I think is more cohesive and logical than Objectivism) pick up this book. Here’s an introduction by the author himself.
Mr. Molyneux has a good background in philosophy and is an admirer of Ayn Rand. He found some flaws in her works that he thought needed to be corrected, and so far I agree with his arguments. My admiration for him started when I began watching his Youtube videos about a year ago. Since then he (and many others like him) have convinced me that state only hinders individual freedom, no matter what way you pitch it.
Cappy started a new site called New Height Books. New Height Books serves as a comprehensive collection of Romantic Realist Literature and Rational Nonfiction. The purpose is to find authors and books (explicitly Objectivist or not) that meet Ayn Rand’s definition of Romantic Realism in any branch of literature. At New Height Books both those new to Romantic Realism who are looking for titles beyond Ayn Rand, and those who, like us, canvas bookstores and libraries searching for another heroic story can find what they are looking for.
What’s really cool about this site is not just the vast database of romantic realist literature that Cappy has found, but the ability for other users to add literature/movies to the database, rate the selections and write reviews. There are tons of RSS feeds as well, so you can sign up for a specific category with your feed reader and be the first to be notified about new additions to the collection.
If you have any questions, or have suggestions for improvement, please don’t hesitate to leave a comment on this post (Cappy lurks here occasionally). Spread the word! I’d like to make this a popular site for rational minded individuals who enjoy romantic realism. Don’t be shy! Write a review or post a new book.
I’ve been giving more thought to my argument against state control. Paul McKeever made a good point about self defense and retaliation. I wasn’t differentiating the two, and therefore my argument about the non-aggression principle didn’t hold water.
First, term defining. Self defense is defined as a forceful action taken to protect yourself or your property in the immediate time that a violation of your rights is taking place. This means that self defense only goes as far as your ability to protect your life or property at the exact moment your rights are being violated. Self defense does not extend to what actions you can take after your rights have already been violated. Retaliation is any force/action taken immediately after your rights have been violated, in order to serve justice. For example, someone steals your bike and you are unable to catch them, but later find out who the perpetrator is. The actions taken after you find out who the perpetrator is are retaliation.
So, the question now is: Should government exist to regulate retaliatory force? For example, if someone steals your property, and you are not able to stop the violator with immediate force, do you have the right to retaliate or should an objective third party be brought in to judge the situation? Does this objective third party necessarily need to be a government with a monopoly on retaliatory force?
I await your responses as I think about my answer to the question.
I disagree that we need government control our lives what-so-ever. I do not endorse Ron Paul. However, I like what he said in this talk at Google. It’s worth a watch, even though I ultimately disagree with his conclusions that we need any government, even if it be minimal.
What I find most interesting about this is that ideas like this are becoming popular. I’m not sure what to think about libertarian ideas becoming popular. I hope that people will start to think more about individual freedoms and will begin to question more… but ultimately the change of ideas will take more time than one presidential term. The change of ideas will not happen until individuals apply them completely to their own lives. A change in political ideas is a start, but until no compartmentalization takes place I don’t think there will be a significant shift towards pure individual freedom.
…and then watch this:
It’s the Fifth of November.
*EDIT* I just found out about bill H.R. 1955. I suggest you read it through, because basically it says that if you think the violent overthrow of the U.S. government is moral, you are a terrorist.
Drew Carey helped start a website called reason.tv. Go check it out, it has some interesting video topics from a libertarian perspective.
