Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AlexL

Regulars
  • Content count

    195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

AlexL last won the day on May 13 2016

AlexL had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About AlexL

  • Rank
    Member

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

3180 profile views
  1. Please note that under the label “Objectivism” you will find in internet, including on this forum, a lot of claims which in fact have nothing to do with it. As you are new to Objectivism, you still cannot judge about what is what, so be very careful. It is quite easy to misunderstand a philosophy… OK. And what did she mean? Do you have a reference? I mean a primary reference. As I explained –and you did not address it - the appeal to the concept of a dept toward the victim is useless for your purpose. It is also dangerous, as I have mentionned. So no, sorry, I still do not think this is the Objectivism stand… unless you have a reference. PS: If you are interested, I can recommend you some sources, including in Bucharest. You may write me a Personal Message: put the cursor on my name, select "Message".
  2. Petru, Welcome to this forum (I am NOT a moderator and I am not even a frequent poster here)! I have not (yet) a firm opinion about whether your conclusion – the government should have the right to take action against people who are cruel towards animals – is correct. I’ll wait to hear other participants’ arguments. However, I don’t find your arguments convincing enough. The key assumption of your line of argument seems to be the following: What bothers me is the part “he becomes indebted towards you”. In fact, he is guilty of violating your rights and deserves punishment. Only in relatively few cases justice can be served just by a payment of damages. Moreover, even in such simple cases the intervention of the justice system is often required, for example when there is disagreement between the parties as to if and what right has been violated, and what exactly will “clear the debt”. For these and other considerations, the introduction of the concept of a dept toward the concerned person is useless. It is also dangerous because being indebted towards someone may mean that in all cases the victim has to agree with the punishment, and this excludes any objective system of justice. Să mergem mai departe. In case the victim is dead, you consider that the criminal is indebted toward the society (“your fellow citizens”). You even ascribe this view to Objectivism. This is certainly mistaken. The Objectivism’s view is that there is only one thing that a person owes apriori their fellow citizens: respecting their individual rights. The society is simply the ensemble of the individuals: it is not sentient, does not possess reason and therefore has no rights. While the idea that “the society” is a kind of super-organism to which individuals have obligation, or which has obligations toward individuals is prevalent, is has no basis in fact and logic. Prin urmare: Since the idea of “indebtedness” is untenable in this context, its application to the cruelty towards animals is improper, and the conclusion - govt. intervention is justified - is without base (but not necessarily false). (There are a few essays by Ayn Rand translated into Romanian – here http://ayn-ro.blogspot.ch/ . Traducerea este a mea, dar situl nu este al meu. De asemenea: au fost traduse în limba română Atlas Shrugged “Revolta lui Atlas” şi Anthem – “Imn”).
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. Yes, now it did :-( Thanks for the registry path.
  6. It works OK for me, I don't have to reenter the key, at least not in CD-less mode.
  7. 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.
  8. Oliver Computing's "Objectivism Research CD-ROM" : has anyone succeeded in making it run under Windows 10? It still worked under Windows 7... TIA
  9. The Trolley Problem

    Here is Robert Tracinsk's approach to the "problem": http://tracinskiletter.com/2016/10/18/the-humanitarian-with-the-trolley/ He concludes:
  10. "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.
  11. 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.
  12. Forbes: Brexit Isn't About Leaving Today's European Union: It's About Not Joining Tomorrow's
  13. The Most Evil Quote Ever

    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.
  14. 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.
×