Iakeo

"Faith", from indoeuropean "bheidh-" meaning: to persuade, compel, confide "Reason" from indoeuropean "ar-" meaning: to fit together Do YOU see any "conflict" here? -Iakeo

What is your "warrior"..? What do you mean by the (rather loaded) term "warrior"..? If your warrior is an agent in the service of the government's sole purpose, then your warrior is a policeman, and is right in his actions. If your warrior is anything else, then he is a thug and a criminal. That was simple. Got another simple question? -Iakeo

If you know that acting unethically is wrong, and you know that an act is unethical, then to perfrom that act is immoral. Period. An action's consequences, positive or negative, are not the determiner of whether it is an ethical action (is morally based). The determiner is whether the act violates a moral imperitive, and if it does then it is immorally based and unethically performed. Is that a perverse enough rationale for you? -Iakeo

Oooooo... cooooool..! It might be fun watch you fo go splat, eh brah..!? -Iakeo

Hae ae ae..! Yeah....! A sense of humor..! That characteristic (behavior) will take you far, and keep your spirit alive during the trek. Glad you could see the point of my 'caustic" remarks. When someone actually GETS the point of harsh words, which is a more and more rare occurance these days, it brings me MUCH happiness and a feeling of closeness to the one who can smile back at my rude, yet pertinent, nonsense, which isn't nonsense at all. Excellent..! And,.. YES,.. you need to lose the scratchy shirt and uncomfortable belt. Objectively, what good do they do? Other than slow you down and force you to relive the unchangable past, when you should be moving forward,.. not suffering the past. Concentrating on that which hurt you gives it power. Sap it of it's power by finding something of value to obsess about. As you're going to obsess about SOMETHING anyway,.. it's obviously just in your nature. -Iakeo

So what has the "governement" (entity) bought..!!? Did they buy (X number of) items, or the rights to have others manufacture the item..!? If they bought bought ITEMS, then by what right do they put out requests for bids to manufacture this item? If they bought the rights to put out RFP's to manufacture this item, where's the problem..!!!? Now,.. PLEASE make some sense with what you're trying to communicate, or expect to be ignored as a crank. Thanks again for the intruiging word puzzle, dude. -Iakeo

What do you mean by "torture"..?! The flaky use of language around here is very bizarre to me. What is the purpose of a human beings action on an animal? If it's purpose is to simply inflict pain then it's immoral, unless pain measurement for some other purpose is the goal. If simple sadism, the enjoyment of another beings pain, is the goal, then your being a sadist, not an objectivist. Your freakin' fuzzyheadedness in asking this NON-QUESTION is amazing. Now,.. ask a real question Moose. -Iakeo

Your self flagilation is disgusting. I have no tolerance for such self-sacrificial nonsense. If you're a good person, show it by being what you consider a good person should be. Period. The past is the past. We don't need your bid for pity, which is nothing more than self-righteous self agrandizement, which is the typical sign of the evangelist zealot. If you want to not be a self mutilating pity monger, simply stop it. I am indeed harch in my words, but if you have truly been "studying" objectivism you would have realised long ago that your wish to "rectify the so-called damage" you've done is nothing more than imposing the past (the not you now) on the present and future. To continue in this embarrassing train of action and thought is very VERY non- objectivist. Snap out of it, buckeroo..!! Get real and heal yourself with what you know is right. -Iakeo

So what'cha got to say, Piz..? Some interesting stuff, I hope. Do you prefer high-bar to the rings, or the other way around..? -Iakeo

I think you use far too few words. Your terseness leaves me with the impression that you're as deep and involved as a coat of PAM on a cooking sheet. I apparently have cookies on the brain,... sorry about that. I'd have to actually have an involved conversation with you to get ANY sense of who the froog you are, and whether it's worth my time conversing with you. Other than that,.. you seem to have nice antlers, and your name is easy to type. Now,.. say something interesting/controversial/amusing/annoying/etc.. I can tolerate anything but the "stupidly bland". -Iakeo

Recreation is "re-creating" something. Since entropy breaks down that which is "created", if a creation is deemed valuable it is a good thing to "re-create" it. The purpose of recreation is stated above. It is to "re-create" that which entropic forces have and are breaking down. Increasing what one values is a moral activity. "Re-creating" (restoring/increasing) what one values is therefore a moral good, and an ethical imperative. Any act that enhances what you value is "productive", and therefore is part of your "productive life". Increasing what you value IS "production". Your definition of "recreational activity", as you're using it above, contains the assumption that it's possible to be "recreational" while NOT being productive. Any activity that is not "productive" (increasing a value of yours) is not a "re- creation" of your values,.. It is a merely a waste of time. (( You might try defining what you mean by particular words, like "recreation", to yourself, and then in your questioning to others, as that usually makes the "answer" either obvious or at least easier for others to deal with [answer]. The goal is to find a way to question YOURSELF, with the last resort being the questioning of others, about things that you don't understand. )) -Iakeo

You said that the rightful patent holder sells "the product" to the government, not rights (license) to the patent, which implies that no transfer of the right to manufacture the item has changed hands. How does the government have the right to allow a non-licensee to manufacture the item? Your statement that "the government doesn't have to follow patents when the item is being purchased for use by the government" is either total nonsense, or a mistatement of what you think you meant. And "competition" is not an entity. It can't be a "looter" any more than the "color blue" can be a looter. So,.. once again,.. would somebody PLEASE pose statements (or questions) that make sense..! -Iakeo

OK,.. I see one (1) question from you: "Can anyone think of any worthwhile goal and associated competitive situation for which the competition is anything but an imperfect method for motivating people to strive for the goal?" Your question is muddled and confusing, if you mean it seriously. It's a clever "open ended question" which seeks to elicit some sort of "fight or flight response" otherwise (if it's NOT a serious question). So,.. what is your REAL question? Is it, "Is any and every competitive situation anything but an excuse to use an imperfect (undefined) method ('fighting'/competition) to motivate people?" Please state your question as a sensible question. Thanks much buckeroo..!! -Iakeo

Good observation of a piece, an aspect, of what I said. Some portion of our happiness COULD be dependent on seeing our "agenda" forwarded, which in this case would be for more people to see the wisdom of objectism. That (personally) would increase my "happiness quotient". I imagine (possibly hallucinatorially) that it would increase yours as well. In fact I would be somewhat concerned if it DIDN'T up your "happiness quotient". So,.. any comments on the "tractor" analogy..? -Iakeo

We'll have to agree to disagree as to the "correctness" of using anything but the capital version of the letter "o" for the word "objectivist". I consider "objectivism" a discovery, not an invention, and therefore don't consider it necessary to capitalize it anymore than I would capitalize the words "cat" or "sulfur". -Iakeo

Isn't snow to an objectivist the equivalent of Kryptonite to Superman ? What rational person would live where frozen water fell from the skies on a regularly recurrent basis, as it does in the (mythical) land of Minnesota? And as all objectivists are rational, wouldn't it be ludicrous to try to find objectivists in said (mythical) land of Minnesota? Then again, perhaps the ever wonderous products of capitalism have somehow made the (mythical) land of Minnesota somehow LIVABLE..!! Ah,.. if so,.. it's yet another example of the superiority of capitalism, and it's little brothers,.. central heating and pointy roofs! -Iakeo

As Sun Tsu (or was it Genghis Khan?) probably said, "Always approach obliquely walking backwards while admiring the lovely green color of the leaves in the trees in the immediate vicinity. This will quarantee that your 'adversary' will come to your rescue and feel kindly toward you when you stumble over the fallen treelimb that you didn't see because you weren't looking where you were walking while in reverie of nature's loveliness." I interpret this to mean that that which finds YOU in the course of your seeking beauty in the world is more likely to be that which you find beauty in. -Iakeo

There is a marked temporary increase in "happiness" when you see the sense that objectivism makes about your relationship with reality. But that increase in happiness is short lived, because even though YOU now see things more clearly, you rapidly realize that the only reason you COULD see the clarity that objectivism gives is because you were READY to understand it, and the vast masses of people that surround you are NOT READY to understand it. The HUGE amount of work that would be required to "convert" even ONE other person is enough to take away your initial flush of happiness. But,.. you don't actually LOSE any happiness either, because you at least have the consolation of knowing that you understand things a bit better than you did before. I imagine the reason that Branden was "astonished" at the question was similar to asking a farmer if his tractor made him "happier". "My tractor is a great tool, but farming is my work, and my happiness comes in doing my work, not being 'happier' that I'm using a tractor as opposed to a horseplow." -Iakeo Edited by TomL to remove unnecessary quoting of entire original post

Well POO..!! Why don't "constitution writers" simply copy constitutions that work (or should work if followed), such as the US constitution..? Oh,.. they "have to be unique creations of the indigenous peoples" to be valid, according to "world opinion". Silly me,.. how "imperialistic" of me to consider using "best practices" as a base for new creation..! Pardon my extreme "self-righteousness". May world opinion bitch and yell at me interminably for my arrogance. Mea culpa... -Iakeo

Anything with "consciousness" is alive, and if it has human-like "consciousness" then it inherently has the rights of any other human. But, could you please define "consciousness" (and "human consciousness") in this context? A machine is merely a crystalization of concepts of a conscious being in utter service to some conscious being. NO machine can be conscious, because if it were it would no longer be a machine. It would be a being. Does "programming consciousness" mean you know what consciousness is, and can instill it into some "thing" that can use this quality? What if you tried to instill full human consciousness into a ludicrously inadequate "machine"? Would this be the equivalent of torture? Creating beings sounds like a wonderfully exciting occupation. Let's see what you can come up with..!! -Iakeo

The young are generally HIGHLY irrational, in my opinion. Much more so than the old. The old are irrational about fewer things, but are more "practiced" in their "chosen" irrationalities, so they appear, to the young, as more irrational because they're better at their "specialties" than the young are. The young HATE effective "inferiors" to themselves. From what I've observed, "objectivism" is not a "phase", as it's to obscure to be widely "used" as a phase (unlike stupid haircuts, bizarre clothing or creating new topological features in one's flesh to loop ornaments through). NOTHNG in any culture actively promotes objectivism, because it's the essence of being effectively human, and as such is a closely guarded secret of those who know that having a real objectivist society would look "too weird" to "the masses" and would cause no end of trouble to the "secret keepers". So,.. at this point in societal evolution, it's better to be effective, and run things in an orderly manner, than to be overly generous with our "pearls" and make trouble for ourselves by casting them before the "swine". Was that too cynical,.. or just realistic? I'll report,.. you decide.. -Iakeo

I've GOT to get that book..! ((All of my exposure to objectivism thus far has been through the internet and audio-books. "Capitalism: TUI" is difficult for me to get in audio.)) I am guilty of that sin that I complain about probably more than anyone else here,.. that of not conversing for understanding but to promote or denounce an agenda. Mea culpa..!! Thanks so much to both you (Bold Standard) and AisA (whom I rather dislexically always see as "Asia") for not making me look any more silly than I need to have. To add some actual intellectual capital to this post, I'd like to say that it would be lovely if an actual objectivist government could come to power somewhere, but I don't think that is possible. An objectivist population will always be a minority population in any nation, because it calls for too much "seeming sacrifice" from individuals. The comforts that irrationality gives to so much of a population are too "dear" to them to part with. Luckily, all that a society needs to be overall successful is a small minority of objectivists, or intuitive objectivists. But I think the only way that an actual objectivist government could come to power is for a larger society to fragment into MUCH smaller groupings, each with full sovereignty, where the objectivists could come to power by (I hate to say it) force. (Force to drive out the irrational into the "irrational sovereignties", where these "irrational sovereignties" would be dealt with as the eventual criminals they would have to evolve into when they actually commit crime. Then, perhaps, in this "post apocalyptic" world (where the apocalypse is not a "battle" but a "realization of the irrationality of irrationality") the rational sovereignties could get on with the business of human advancement of happiness. But I don't see this happening for QUITE some time..! -Iakeo

LISTEN THE FNERK UP..!!!! To an objectivist, the "existential dilemma" is non existent..!! Not that we have no interest in it. And NOT that it is not a problem..!! Therefore, the only possible "interest" in it that we could have is as a pathological condition brought on by belief in irrational assumptions. Now, the enumeration of those irrationalities is a possibly useful activity, because it could ward off the temptations to fall prey to those irrationalities. Which, I believe, is what people have been saying on this thread. Existentialism is founded on irrationality, and is therefore not to be taken as anything but a pathologically irrational way of thinking, and is therefore harmful to the individual. -Iakeo

What is the purpose of studying philosophy? The REASON why you study philosophy will essentially tell you which philosophy you will adopt as the philosophy you use. And YES, you do USE philosophy, otherwise it's not "philosophy" but comparative psychology. I suspect you study philosophy because you've found the interaction with others in arguing the meanings of various things to be a stimulating activity. That's good..! I also suspect that you actually consider the study of philosophy to be of no REAL use, and simply as a very cool intellectual game where you can be very impressive. That's cool too. But the reason that (most?) objectivists have studied philosophy is to find a way of thinking that will improve their lives. That is a very REAL value to them. You're schoolboy perspective ("doing it for the grade and the chicks", assuming your male ) is what it is, and people are free to judge the value to them of your perspective. -Iakeo

If you take that premise as "REALITY", then you will deal with "the world" that way. As a jumble of nonsense that will eventually kill you, making you a mass of existential angst, and highly susceptible to the various degrees of personal and societal suicide. Some people have more sense than to become obsessed with schoolbook irrationality passed off as "wisdom". -Iakeo