Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Well, it got me thinking, so I'm glad you brought it up. I didn't recall that thread.
  3. Other than Rand novels? The Iliad Toilers of the Sea The Stranger Old Man and the Sea Of Mice and Men Lord of the Rings 1984 Lord of the Flies The Moon is a Harsh Mistress The Shining Let the Right One In
  4. Sorry, MisterSwig. It seemed a parallel at the time it was mentioned.
  5. No. The sun is not a member of society, nor can it be reasoned with or defeated in war. It looks like Jon focused too hard on the metaphysical versus man-made distinction and dropped the moral and social context of property rights. Let's take the example of the hunter-gatherers. They are members of a tribe. What is the purpose of a tribe? It's similar to that of a town. Both are social-political groups formed in order to benefit and protect the members of that group. Some tribesmen go hunting to feed the group, some go gathering, some do various tasks around the camp or village to keep the place functioning properly. It's a primitive division of labor. The wise chieftain hears complaints and dictates justice. Warriors train to protect the tribe or raid others for needed supplies. Elders tell stories to pass on knowledge and entertain. Women have children and make clothes and baskets. So when the hunter catches a deer, he recognizes that, in a sense, it's his deer, but also that the rest of the tribe has a certain claim to it, since he is part of a group working to survive together. Their claim is not one of primary (personal, private) ownership. They did not personally kill the deer and carry it back to the village. Their claim is one of secondary (social, public) ownership. They can say that, yes, the hunter caught the deer, but as his fellow tribesmen, we have been raising his children, weaving baskets for him, protecting his family from enemies, dispensing tribal justice and keeping thieves away from his possessions, and entertaining him with stories at night. Doesn't he owe us some of the food that he caught today? Isn't it wrong of him to take from us without giving something in exchange? That sort of claim does not originate from the tribal premise that "wealth belongs to the tribe or to society as a whole." Rather, its source is the trader principle applied to a social context. Part of the nature of a primitive village or a civilized town is the sharing and trading of values. To function properly, however, the villagers or townsfolk must draw a reasonable and just line between primary-private ownership and secondary-public ownership of the things that comprise the village or town. The individual and his personal space and possessions must be respected, and the integrity and proper functioning of the village or town must be maintained. This is the political problem that divides socialists and capitalists. Socialists say "private property" is a fiction, and capitalists say "public property" is a fiction. Neither one is a fiction, but one does have primacy over the other. Without the individual, the group can't exist. Likewise, without private property, there can be no public property. The purpose of public property is to add value to private property, thereby adding value to the town or nation as a whole. Even primitive villagers (with only the concepts of "his" versus "ours") must first recognize the deer as belonging to the hunter, before they can then make a claim to some of it based on the trader principle in that social context. And if the hunter should refuse to trade, keeping the whole deer for himself, then he would be setting himself up against the very notion of the trader principle and the social situation that maintains his standard of life. The chieftain would be very reasonable to confiscate part of the deer for tribal use, and possibly to exile the anti-social hunter, if he could not be convinced to change his behavior. Now, how does all that relate to the ownership of land and space? Well, land and space are very much like the deer, in that they are values needed by everyone in a tribe or town. People must have land and space to use--so they can live and work to produce food and tools, or to make things they can trade for food and tools. A metaphysically given thing, such as an unworked piece of land or an unoccupied region of space, is itself a value to people, whether that value is recognized or not. Its value is objectively relational to man. It's not created by our mind or labor. We discover that metaphysically given value and then later use it to create other things of value from it. We see that an empty field has value as a suitable place to plant seeds, which have value as potential plants, which have value as something to eat. The chain of values begins with the metaphysically given (the land and space), and it continues with the things man makes from the land and in the space. Within a social context the value-chain still begins with the metaphysically given, but now one's claim to a value must be understood within the new context of the village or town. An individual resident has primary ownership over his allotment of land and space, and also the things he produces from that land and in that space, but the other residents have a secondary claim based on the trader principle that governs the proper functioning of the village or town. It is the objective value of land and space which establishes a man's moral right to use and hold such property to survive. And it's the trader principle that recognizes and regulates his political right in a social context. By the law of causality he has primary ownership of any production he causes, including the land and space of his production. And by the same law of causality, he must accept that his fellow townsfolk hold a secondary claim over his land and space, which he owes to them on account of the trader principle applied to his social context. Without the benefits and protections of living in a civilized town, his life and possessions would be vulnerable to any common thug or gang. He therefore must contribute to the overall integrity and health of the town, which means possibly granting easements or property to the public right of ways and infrastructure.
  6. 😊 Touche'. I have heard, on good authority, an individual's take is heavily influenced by their sense of life. I'm sure, by now, your mom knows what she prefers.
  7. No spoilers, HD. I'm only to the part where the hero and the villain . . .
  8. Last week
  9. Yes, but thinking is not a team sport. I've been working these ideas out in any odd moments I've been able to find, but the problems they've highlighted will take a bit more than that. The "remote mountaintop" bit was a dash of my own color, though; it shouldn't take more than a week or two, once I get to it. Besides. The Golden Age arrived today.
  10. Yes, I agree Caramel Popcorn is the most interesting piece on my page. I thank you for your thought out assessment of my pieces, however, my target audience is the elderly in nursing homes, so more of my songs will be predictable and in line with Blossoms and Cake. Everyone's take is different. I played both Popcorn and Cake for my mom today, and she preferred Cake by far and said it's one of my best.
  11. The melodies flow well, but the accompaniment becomes 'predictable'. For the key of C, your left is going C E G C G E C E G C G E C, shift to F or G as a complement key and the left is going F A C F C A F, or G B D G D B G. It was changed up in Cherry Blossoms, albeit only the structure of the chord, Yet it stayed the same from C to F to G. C E G E, back to your starting C or F A C A, . . . or G B D B. . . . The accompaniment should follow the melody, not distract from the melody by drawing attention to itself . . . Carmel Popcorn was more eclectic in this regard, relative to these last two.
  12. If you think that's a contradiction, you don't know what a contradiction even is.
  13. AKilah Be careful not to ascribe causality (or self-causality) to the instantaneous metaphysical existence of anything. An electron does not cause its own metaphysical existence, it simply IS, neither do I cause myself to EXIST (at this very instant) by my act of sitting, I simply at this moment AM. A cause presupposes an effect and an effect presupposes a change or action of at least some kind. So generally speaking, changes or actions are what are caused, not metaphysical existence of things as such. Conversion of energy into matter or the reverse, changes in orientation, position, velocity, configurations, and functions of natural constituents. A leaf rots or a tree falls, or a star explodes.. all changes have causes. The changes are caused (or self-caused), not the sheer existence of the natural stuff which undergoes those changes. Not all change requires a cause even though all causes presuppose some change... a grain of sand flying through space. HAD a cause, but nothing causes it to continually BE or to continue to fly... it simply IS. Of course my current state of being, the particular configuration of my constituents were caused (parents, evolution, atomic element formation in stars)... and my actions have causes (brain activity, neural signaling, biochemical reactions in muscles), but my metaphysical existence is not self-caused in the instant... I simply metaphysically AM. This in no way contradicts the fact that I had to act yesterday in order to be alive today, or that if I do not act at all right now I will soon be dead (after I stop breathing... ).
  14. Then you leave a self-contradiction behind. The Traffic Department (of your State) can insist on knowing your name and address if you want a licence, but such information cannot be asked by immigration officials of an immigrant? Dumb. We should be honest. We all here know what are the fundaments of this debate. Despite a history of several previous Admins battling the same problem, this has resurfaced - lately - with a vengeance, and out of all prior proportion -- because now it is Leftist-propagandist driven. And that agenda is ALL about thwarting this president and frustrating his electorate. And believe me - from my experience with lefties and socialists, like I saw in Zimbabwe - not very much is about kindness and concern for others...They need to advertise their altruist virtues to others much more than they act - the least part - to actually help migrants. Pure power lust and sacrifice of others, and the illegals are just a tool.
  15. I agree with the insight that determinism holds everything and anything can be a cause except for a person causing something about himself. Determinists will even explain how persons can deterministically affect other persons by means of oppression or inflicting poverty or violence but will not accept a person deterministically affecting himself. It is fallacious reasoning. Self-causation applies to the actions and attributes of things that already exist. An elementary particle or field is called into existence by a prior cause even if it is simple and cannot be analyzed into parts. Even people are created biologically by prior parents. The concept of a Universe which refers to everything must include its own cause, and so the Universe is self-caused by the principle that the set of all sets includes itself. Finally, choices are to people as barks are to dogs. Choices do not cause themselves. Choices are actions, actions of prior existing entities, the people that make them.
  16. What are you going to do about the natural producers of such signals. Shall the sun be held in contempt until it blots itself out from emitting into "your space"? See Owning Land? for "The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man's mind and labor." Jon Southall made the argument that the land (or "space" through which electromagnetic waves pass through", was not produced by your mind or your labor . . . you couldn't lay claim to ownership to it. I racked my brains for some time trying to unravel that. It seems you are wrestling with the same issue in a way.
  17. You still aren't getting it. It's about producing value. That's why public property is a collectivist fiction (individuals are producers). Furthermore, a broadcaster passing by your property isn't violating anything. It has to deny you use of something you already own, or alter how you plan ahead to use what you own. I have no idea what you're talking about by suggesting that a broadcaster is using your property. Your argument makes no sense. It's incoherent. EDIT: it's incoherent because you have multiple points going on at the same time, and those points don't cohere together. You make sense with those positions individually, but put together, it's a mess. It's ad hoc.
  18. Do you see how this leads to the opposite of Rand's conclusion? If I mix my labor and my production with the space above my parcel of land, if I construct a house in that space, if I grow trees that occupy that space, if I put my car and my furniture and my food in that space, if I live in that space, then I own it, and the broadcaster has no right to use it without my permission--by a production theory of property rights.
  19. I forgot to answer this question. Now that I'm thinking about it, there's nothing to say. Read the next post after the one you quoted, from 2046. That has all the answers you need.
  20. Oh, just Windows Live Movie Maker for video editing. Picasa for photos. I record myself with the Lexus Audio Editor app on my phone. Eiuol records on his desktop mic, I think. And now we're using Skype to record a phone chat segment.
  21. Nonsense. The value of discussion is to work out things... not to bandy about things one has already worked out. You belong here as you are. First, I only attributed rationalists with such a motive... there are many scientists who do not fall into that category... Second, I was mostly being colorful, in reality the mistake is an honest one, especially for rationalists, although being fooled by the fool who fools himself creates the same result only by a slightly different route. My point is that the sham evaporates when you see the simplicity and the mechanistic brute force of fake intelligence.. I agree that until we understand consciousness when we look at a real intelligence it will be baffling but once we have a science of consciousness we’ll be able to identify its fundamentals. I do agree with most of what you say and perhaps now believe we are in agreement in principle. I’ll not concede but state (i was never in disagreement with you on this) that the thing I think you see is that things are what’s they are and the properties they exhibit, how they act etc is in accordance with their nature. This is solid Objectivism... in principle and in reality the fake behemoth will never exhibit everything a real consciousness does... the PRACTICAL problem with a text interface is that it is an EXCEEDINGLY poor instrument for identification of things in reality. Only a real Monet would look like a Monet to an expert under bright lights and close up... enough for people to pay Via Sotheby’s millions based on that assessment of reality. But a common person wearing a partial blindfold at 100 feet in a dimly lit room?... well now that’s not a fair test is it?
  22. Radio stations can still sell their station with the frequency license. So, in practice, the process functions much like they have a deed. But in theory they could lose the license at renewal time, if, for example, they've upset the public and receive lots of complaints. I'm not sure if a deed or license is more proper for radio waves. They aren't like land, in that they are impermanent creations that travel over an area. I do agree, however, that some sort of title should be recognized. They shouldn't be considered public property. The license shouldn't be for owning a station and frequency. It should be for broadcasting throughout a city or area.
  23. Blog Roundup 1. At the blog of the Center for Industrial Progress, Alex Epstein reports that "YouTube suppresses Green New Deal video" and offers a way to fight back: Here's what I get from DuckDuckGo when I type in the title of Epstein's video. Feel free to reuse my image. And when you tell people about the video, mention that it's easy to find if you use DuckDuckGo. What comes up on YouTube when you search for the exact title of Alex's popular Prager University video "What's the Deal with the Green New Deal?" For most people it's not Alex's video, which has been suppressed, but tributes to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with completely different titles and lower view counts. One way to fight back is to help us advertise Alex's video. It costs approximately 1 cent per new viewer to share this video. If anyone is willing to donate at least $1000 (tax deductible and generates approximately 100,000 views) please let us know and we'll put you in touch with the relevant people. [link in original]This is a pathetic response to this five-minute video, which I found very informative. I recall recommending Google -- YouTube's parent company -- to friends and relatives back when it was new, but very fast and very good. Compare what you see at the link within the quoted material above and what you see in the screenshot of my search results using DuckDuckGo. Guess which search engine I recommend these days -- at least if you want to find something besides ads and things the staff of Google agree with. 2. Jason Crawford persuasively argues that "Progress studies [are] a moral imperative" and I agree. And he has some ideas on how to fill this yawning gap in modern education: Today, I'm writing this blog, and I'm starting to give some talks and do some podcast interviews. But I'm at a crossroads in my career: I've just left a job and I'm exploring opportunities for my next step. My career has been in the tech industry, but I'm considering a sabbatical to work on this project, if I can find a way to fund it. In addition to simply writing a lot more blog posts, future work could include a podcast or YouTube channel, or even interactive diagrams or games. Eventually, I'd like to write a book (or several). If you would like to help fund this, or know of anyone who would, please get in touch: [email protected] I wrote that we needed to improve our education system so people could continue to appreciate and support progress, I hadn't even conceived of this as a special field, which it plainly is. 3. Scott Holleran makes his case for a movie I had not heard of (in large part because I have kids -- but also because Hollywood seems to have forgotten how to make movies). He opens by saying, "The Goldfinch inspires," and continues: It's the second movie this year that I instantly knew I wanted to feast on for its sumptuousness again as soon as it was over. The movie, based on a novel by Donna Tartt, unwraps, rewraps and unwraps its mysterious gauze. What remains is refined, simple and respectful of an ideal. This alone makes it exemplary.Head over there if you're intrigued. As a bonus, you will find out his pick for the best movie of the year so far. 4. I am pretty sure I have mentioned here that since moving to Jacksonville -- a v-e-r-y s-p-r-e-a-d - o-u-t c-i-t-y -- I have taken to using errand days to listen to podcasts and presentations. In any event, although this is nominally a blog roundup, I'll link to a video by a former blogger, Kendall Justiniano (The Crucible), who spoke about The Trader Mindset" at a STRIVE conference some years ago. I listened out of curiosity, and ended up learning quite a bit. I am following up by reading Becoming Steve Jobs, because Justiniano mentioned a problem Jobs faced and overcame. I am grateful, because I know for a fact that I have the same problem. -- CAVLink to Original
  24. No, like what programs did you use to put the slideshow together with your own audio?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...