Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About AlexL

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Fribourg, Switzerland

Previous Fields

  • Country Switzerland
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status Married
  • Sexual orientation Straight
  • Real Name Alex Leibovici
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • School or University M.Sc. Physics
  • Occupation Retired

Recent Profile Visitors

2921 profile views
  1. Oh, it is very generous of you to comment on a post-script! But what about: Also: A "thing" which exists but does not have existence? Must be a very special thing... These conclusions don't bother you at all?
  2. Surprizing... I am not surprized any more: I was immunized by Theorem 25 Look up "anti-concepts" (in the Ayn Rand Lexicon). Might be useful... PS: What do you call a "thing"? In such an axiomatic approach as yours you should have introduced the term - in some way.
  3. Yes, now it did :-( Thanks for the registry path.
  4. It works OK for me, I don't have to reenter the key, at least not in CD-less mode.
  5. As you said it should work, I tried harder... and it worked !!! I added the drive letter where the CD is to the "Target" path in the shortcut, and that was it! The program then asked for the license code - for the first time. It also worked in the CD-less mode. Many thanks, dream_weaver!! Thank you too, Nicky.
  6. Oliver Computing's "Objectivism Research CD-ROM" : has anyone succeeded in making it run under Windows 10? It still worked under Windows 7... TIA
  7. Here is Robert Tracinsk's approach to the "problem": http://tracinskiletter.com/2016/10/18/the-humanitarian-with-the-trolley/ He concludes:
  8. "Escape to the future fallacy"? Only if you omitted my explanation. But if you prefer to abandon, it is your right. The EU… has a mixed economic system. Switzerland does too. Switzerland denies its citizens' the right to …, to …, to … So let's keep things in perspective: the EU is no more toxic than your own country... Now the above is truly a fallacy! The country in which I live is no better than the EU, therefore I am wrong!! Forget Switzerland, it plays no role in the essence of my argument. And the essence is this: in exchange to allowing its own citizens to buy and sell in abroad, EU imposes to foreign countries obligation, including in completely unrelated domains. The plain word for this is blackmail. And EU holds hostage its own citizens. No, I don't consider integration as necessarily bad. I consider it bad e.g. when it is imposed as a prerequisite for the right of people to trade between countries. And I consider it bad precisely because this violates individual rights.
  9. No, Britain left TODAY'S EU, not an imaginary future EU. Britain left both, as the future EU was not at all "imaginary". The Forbes' article from which I quoted – this one - cites extensively from a Franco-German plan for further centralization and integration. (I now realize I forgot to give the link, but it was easy to find). This plan is titled "A strong Europe in a world of uncertainties", is signed by the respective Ministers of foreign affairs and presents the emblems of those Ministries. Here is the English version and here is the German version (this one is from the official site of the German Foreign Ministry.) What I find remarkable is that the text it is not dated. The PDF date of the English version is "created 24.06.2016 06:39, updated 27.06.2016". Or the creation date is only 2 hours after the referendum result was known. For me this means that a draft of this document, ten pages! containing the roadmap for a deeper integration, existed before the referendum, that they did not suddenly sprang out of nowhere in the hours after the referendum day. Besides, it was common knowledge in the last several years that a deeper integration was considered by the EU as the only way out of the problems created by the common currency – namely financial integration, taxation and banking. Therefore, the "future EU" Britain also left was in no way "imaginary". Would you explain this more? Based on the quote, it looks like it's a movement of paranoia. As though somehow a governmental union is by nature "oppressive". If there are LITERALLY laws that the UK is bound to that violate rights, that'd be different. But there are no such laws. Unfortunately, I omitted the link, but now I've explained it – see above. As to the question of laws that violate rights – yes, there are a lot of them. Everything which goes beyond recognizing the right to free trade among the signatories is a violation of rights. EU prescribes common standards for products (industrial and agricultural), for conditions of employment, environmental norms, etc., etc. as conditions for the right to trade within EU. Also, EU controls the trade of EU countries with non-EU countries: non-EU countries have to sign agreements with EU for this, and agreements with EU come with a thousand of obligations in completely unrelated fields. In general, I am not claiming UK will necessarily be better off outside the EU: it all depends on the philosophy (liberal or statist) of the UK negotiators and the goodwill of the EU. However, it seems for the moment that on the latter is not to be counted... I am not living in UK, I am Swiss citizen and I constantly voted against joining the EU. EU became a toxic organization which, in exchange to alowing ITS citizens to buy and sell in Switzerland, imposes to Switzerland to accept obligation in completely unrelated domains, the plain word for which is blackmail.
  10. Forbes: Brexit Isn't About Leaving Today's European Union: It's About Not Joining Tomorrow's
  11. I consider the following as the most terrible passage from 1984: We shall meet in a place where there is no darkness This is what O'Brien tells Winston Smith. Winston interprets it as a promise too meet again in a brighter future, but in fact O'Brien is a torturer of the Party and they will meet in a torture chamber where the lights are never switched off and Winston is deprived of sleep.
  12. In fact, in all situations the gravitational force is the same. In the presence of the air there is simply an additional force, which represents the interaction of the body with the air, and that one depends on the body's form, material, speed, as well as on the air characteristics', such as density, viscosity. The gravitational force is independent of any other forces: it is always proportional with the masses and inversely proportional with the square of their distance, in any environment, that is independent of any other additional forces. In fact, this is not unique to the gravity: it is the property of all fundamental forces like electromagnetic, etc. No, in fact it can be easily observed directly, for example if you let a body fall to the ground. If you are bothered by the fact that it also interacts with the air, there are other examples in which you may observe the action of gravity only: the celestial bodies, like the Moon, Sun, planets, comets and so on. You don't need for this to observe the graviton, as you don't need the photon to observe the effects of the electromagnetic forces (besides, neither play a role if the forces are static). No, quite the contrary: the idea is very natural. If you observe that a body doesn't move quite as it should, given the forces you know about, you will automatically assume the there should be one or more other forces which you didn't take into account. As the only force that act on galaxies is gravity, the unknown force comes from a mass one did not observe yet. It was provisionally called "dark mass", dark meaning invisible with telescopes; the visible masses are the stars, gases and dust. For a similar reason the cosmologists assume there is a "dark energy"; that one is assumed for explaining the accelerating expansion of the Universe.
  13. In general, I have difficulties understanding your commen… You wrote: I don't know what you mean here; what rights of yours was I insisting in violating?? I wrote: Let me clarify this. Take a citizen C1 of a country K1. As a citizen of the country K1, the government of that county should not prevent him of trading with whomever he wants, e.g. with a citizen C2 of a country K2. Of course, the trade will take place only if C2 is not prevented by his government to participate. [Trade means any trade, including goods, employment, housing, marriage, etc., essentially any kind of voluntary interaction between adults.] Clearly, the country K1 should not have the authority to prevent its citizen C1 doing all these even if the country K2does not reciprocate. An aside: In my view, the rights C1 should have in the foreign country K2 result from the rights K2effectively recognizes to its citizens. For example, C1 should have a right to a job in K2 if a C2 wishes and has the right to hire him. This is an aside only. Further, I am not sure if you argue against brexit also because you believe UK citizens will be worse off economically You also failed to acknowledge, or comment, on my observation that my being rather favorable to brexit (or to Switzerland staying outside the EU) is not based on nationalism. I insisted on this because of your – unproved and unprovable! - claim that one can be for brexit only if one is a nationalist. If you refer here to the freedom of immigration, than the fact is that the welfare-statism (so to speak) destroys not only the fabric of the individual right of its own citizens in their relationships among one another, but also in their relationships with foreigners. If there were no redistributive system in UK, it should depend only on a UK citizen's willingness to hire anyone from abroad, with no one having a say in this interaction.
  14. I meant the Welfare State flowing towards the member states from the European Union. The member states had already various degrees of WS. It is in the 80s that the EU itself started pushing towards a unified WS philosophy – level playing field, you know :-)