DavidV

Where do you work, Gabriel? For the state?

The point is that his claims are typical anarchist nonsense and have been refuted long ago. See "anarchism as a form of statism" - OPAR p371. Perhaps, but the word "Objectivism" refers to a particular philosophy, as presented by a particular individual. It is intellectually dishonest to either represent Ayn Rand's ideas as your own, or your own ideas as hers.

That's what I call a model of dis-integration. That “map” is more of a list of trendy dissertation topics than any kind of systematic and hierarchical approach to philosophy. It makes a false distinction between “abstract” and “applied” knowledge but does not recognize that logic and ethics cannot be studied without a basis in metaphysics and epistemology. There is a "concept chart" of all the major areas of philosophy at http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Chart.html -- however I'd be wary of any such map becuase it borders on playing an alphabet soup of floating abstractions. To understand each branch, you have to undertake a systematic and in-depth study.

Yes, and no. "Miscellaneous" in most cases. In some cases, it would be a good idea to split a thread into two and place them in the releveant categories. Yes.

They are not covered by the other branches and they deal with cruical and universal aspects of human life. Why should they not be?

OK, edited. Feel free to change any of the descriptions if you have other ideas. I'm going to get back to you on the rest after I take OAC test..

More forum topics, new Java-based chat room (objectivismonline.net/chat), security patch, and many minor changes to site settings...

Ash, are you aware that there are web-based IM clients for AIM and ICQ that do not involve installing any software? I've used them quite a bit when I was unable to install software on the machine I was using.

Some new rules I’m posting in response to recent behavior on this forum: 1. Links: No advertisement or spam of any kind will be tolerated, including any posts made just to advertise links. 2. Spelling and grammar: Spell-check and review your posts before submitting them. Posts with excessively bad spelling or grammar will be deleted at the moderator’s discretion. 3. Quoting and scope: Keep your responses short by refraining from excessively quoting a post above you. If you are replying to multiple people/topics, split up your response into multiple posts.

Welcome to the forum, Amar! There are two other Objectivist forums I'm aware of: and the Capitalist Chicks Forum and the Capitalism Magazine Forum

I haven't read it, but from a glance, he seems to be an anarchist libertarian tolerationist "objectivish" type. Two random lines I saw: "Truth is sometimes so dangerous as to need a bodyguard of lies." and "There is no such thing as freedom."

The webmail for the new server is http://webmail.1and1.com Mail Server: pop.1and1.com Outgoing Server: smtp.1and1.com

As you’ve probably read on the front page, our web host disappeared without a trace along with all my files and databases. I’ve heard that my data is not gone and may be yet be restored. Meanwhile, I’ve transferred what I had backed up to a new host and restored the last database backup I made of the OO forum -- from November 16. I don’t have recent backups of any other sites (sorry Ash, Steve) but I’m working on getting them back. I’m not sure whether making the forum live now is a good idea – if I get my databases back, I will overwrite it (making an attempt to copy new threads to it.) On the bright side, my current webhost (1&1) claims to be the top web host on the net, which (I hope) means that it will not disappear without a trace or a warning like my last one. Regarding email accounts: while the DNS is in flux, I set all email account to point to me. As soon as the DNS clears, I can set up new email accounts on the new web host. If you provide me with an alternate email address, I can point it to that in the interum, but the DNS should clear within the day.

I think RationalEgoist makes a good case. I'm going to create the new forums and move all the philosophy threads to the "Metaphysics and Epistemology" sections. Moderators, feel free to move old and new threads to the proper forum. Also, can I get some suggestions for the new forum descriptions? I suspect than a number of casual visitors don't know what "metaphysics" and "epistemology" mean, so I'd like to provide some indication of the content of each forum.

Has someone been watching Timeline previews lately? This is more of a question than an answer -- wasn't there a merchant class that continued to exist throughout the Middle Ages? The feudal lords had to get their exotic spices, silk, and dyes from somewhere, right?

Earlier this year, I was watching the sequel to the Matrix. I unsuccessfully tried to follow the philosophy presented in the film, when I realized that it wasn’t that I wasn’t bright enough to follow it, but that it was pure gibberish meant to impress your average moviegoer. Since then, I’ve come to the conclusion that when I have no clue what someone is saying, it's usually safe to assume that the speaker has no clue of what he’s saying either. I think that applies to this case as well.

Nov 19: Updated to a new forum version and accidentally overwrote the configuration file. I recreated it from memory, so let me know if you find anything fishy going on.

Here is a review I wrote about A Bug's Life a while back: As a disclaimer, I admit that I get too hung up on ideology sometimes, and miss the wider sense-of-life theme a movie might have.

Welcome to the forum, Cicero! While this website is intended primarily for students, anyone interested in Objectivism is welcome to participate on the forum. Oh, and flamers haven't been a problem thanks to our dedicated moderators

A request: Please abstain from quoting large blocks of text in their entirety whenever possible. It wastes server space for me, and bandwidth for everyone else.

Thanks for telling me what the website I created is about. Since this thread has degenerated into J.M.S talking to himself, I am closing it, and offering a warning: such behavior will not be tolerated.

Anarchism is neither similar to Objectivism nor is it a philosophy, so a comparison between them isn’t valid. Most anarchists are socialists of various sorts, and the ones who aren’t are usually pacifist libertarian hippies. If you want to comprehend Objectivism, I suggest that you study ….Objectivism.

Man has rights qua human being, not qua citizen of a western or civilized nation. But by your use of the term "brutally subjugate," you're clearly aware of that, right?

I don't like this definition for a number of reasons. But first, I might as well point out that I was the one "Wonder" originally debated, and pointed him to the property thread. However, I quickly realized that the root of his error is not a mistaken view of property or even capitalism, but a mistaken view of concepts and deeply entrenched collectivism. Until he drops his nominalism and utilitarianism (which is very doubtful) any debate on the nature of property is pointless. I would also point out that I haven’t yet read more than one or two essays from CUI, VOS, or ITOE, but that I’ve found the ethical and political philosophy of Objectivism by far the most accessible. Regarding your definition, it’s both non-essential and overly specific. First, the meaning of property does not differ according to context. Second, property rights may not necessarily be exclusive. Third, exclusivity of property is a non-essential. Fourth, not “anything” may be property. Fifth, the use of property to initiate force goes beyond its definition. Property rights are not always exclusive because one can have both the complete rights to something, or partial rights: for example, mineral rights, water rights, or air-space rights. Property may even be shared: for example, air-space and right-of-way rights. Sure, within a certain context property rights are exclusive, but ownership does not necessary mean absolute control of any particular object. Property is also limited to particular entities: material objects and ideas which are limited, can be exclusively assigned to a party, and the property assignment of which may be recorded. For example, words, laws of nature, and commonly-known facts cannot be property. Air may be property on Mars or the Moon (where it can be assigned to particular party) but it cannot be a property on Earth, where we cannot assign X cubic feet of air to any one individual. (There may be exceptions, but you get the point.) The most important point is that property must be defined by its essentials, not by aspects which follow from those essentials. I like RadCap’s definition (which Wonder mistakenly attributed to Ayn Rand): “Any material element or resource to which mental and physical effort have been applied.” In other worth, a possession is essentially a value brought forth into a tangible form. As Ayn Rand said, “Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form.” This is the basis of the concept of property: the application of reason to labor in order to create the material and intellectual objects needed to achieve our values. As an aside, while de jure recognition of property requires a government that recognizes individual (including property) rights, de facto property ownership exists in any human society. Property is such a basic necessity of human life, that human life is virtually impossible without it. Even primitive African tribes and Neanderthals have/had de facto ownership of (for example) their tools, clothes, and hunting/gathering grounds. Property is not merely a social invention, but a pre-condition for any society. The recognition of de jure property-rights on the other hand, is a prerequisite for any civilized, human society.

To some extent, I agree. Just as some people happen to be born with rich parents who give them a head start, so will past success, the bad judgment of customers, and pure chance give some people and some companies an unwarranted advantage over its competitors. But as RadCap pointed out, If capitalism is not the “most efficient” system, then the arbitrary redistribution of wealth by governmental coercion is better, right? Of course not. A is A. Just as a fool will quickly part with his money, so will an incompetent corporation. Governmental intervention of any kind guarantees only one thing: that the corporations with the most pull will get the wealth created by others. Capitalism is not a “perfect market” in the sense that everyone automatically knows which action will be the most efficient – because human reason is not automatic or infallible. Substituting the judgment of a bureaucrat for that of the individual cannot change that. However capitalism is a “perfect system” in the sense that it is the only system that allows every individual to act according to his own judgment – and as such, it is more efficient than any possible alternative.