Gweg

It allows all the users to up and down vote posts and comments and this mechanism does a pretty great job of filtering out uninteresting content. The reddit community is a bit on the liberal side but not hugely. I would say it is far more atheist than it is liberal which is the thing i was most pleasantly surprised by. here are the top 20 most subscribed subreddits: (atheism is #17!) Most Subscribed Subreddits - as of January 15, 2012 1: funny bio - 1285640 subs, 1095 days old, 21p //\\ 2: pics bio - 1266664 subs, 1095 days old, 50p //\\ 3: announcements bio - 1247287 subs, 730 days old, 19p \\// 4: blog bio - 1178926 subs, 1095 days old, 16p \\// 5: AskReddit bio - 1136363 subs, 1095 days old, 250p //\\ 6: worldnews bio - 1114133 subs, 1095 days old, 24p //\\ 7: gaming bio - 1035944 subs, 1460 days old, 34p //\\ 8: politics bio - 1017605 subs, 1460 days old, 21p //\\ 9: reddit.com bio - 912429 subs, 1825 days old, 24p \\// 10: WTF bio - 908832 subs, 1095 days old, 14p //\\ 11: todayilearned bio - 905944 subs, 1095 days old, 44p //\\ 12: science bio - 882236 subs, 1825 days old, 44p //\\ 13: IAmA bio - 875486 subs, 730 days old, 56p //\\ 14: videos bio - 842251 subs, 1095 days old, 13p //\\ 15: technology bio - 641127 subs, 1095 days old, 16p //\\ 16: Music bio - 456453 subs, 1095 days old, 18p //\\ 17: atheism bio - 403043 subs, 1095 days old, 43p //\\ 18: aww bio - 362143 subs, 1095 days old, 13p //\\ 19: fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu bio - 354905 subs, 1095 days old, 43p //\\ 20: programming bio - 352981 subs, 1825 days old, 22p - Libertarian has 43,000 and Objectivism only has 1,000 . 43 to 1 is way too high of a ratio.

I"ve read a whole bunch of this thread and I will say that nimble and y feldblums arguments for 100% gold system are very convincing. But, I have a couple more questions which I don't think have been addressed ( i havent read everything in this thread). The first which was almost adressed in my last post: Gold has inherent value in that it can be used for certain things. These values can change due to a number of factors. So if the value of gold changes then the value of the currency it is tied to would change. If banks should be expect to keep gold reserves to validate the value of its notes or cd's, what is to be said of the costs of hauling tons of gold from one place to another? Is this neccessary? Is this the best way to prevent inflation? Maybe we could think of others. I don't know. Maybe at least the standard of value should be something that isn't so damn dense.

I am not sure what i think about this issue. But, I have one question. Suppose that someone was able to discover a very large source of gold and a cheaper than usual way to extract it. In a system 100% tied to gold would this not lead to inflation.

Inpector somehow i missed your last post and i wanted to address a few things. First i want to clarify my apple example. It was stupid. I meant the apple to be a metaphor for a goal they were trying to achieve and both trying to earn. this is just for the sake of clarifying the argument i intended to make even though i now hold it to be false. Being the best in the context of the discussion of the means "achieveing a goal which only one of the two can achieve." its not true that one can either achieve it if you possess the ability and put forth the effort required to earn the achievement. If ithe goals is in line with everything the that he rational understands, then being "the best" under the condition that he will have earned it is in his interest. But, there is NO CONFLICT in interests because his competitor will have the same context integrated in his desire for the achievement or being the best.

I just wanted to concede that I was wrong about many things i said. My friend mala explained it pretty well to me personally. I think my main confusions were i didnt know about concept of integration and also the difference between what is a whim and a desire. Thanks for your inputs to all who replied. My new stance is that even a perfectly rational man does not have complete control over his emotions and it his possible for him to feel desires or whims that are not integrated with his concept of reality. But, a truely rational man will quickly dismiss the desire or modify/clarify the desire so that it fits with his concept of reality.

I might not be overjoyed but i would be satisfied that i had not trampled over others and that i had lived by the values which i held to be true.

A man most certainly has some control over who is the best man. He controls how much effort he puts forth. In somecases no matter how much effort he will not be the best, but in many it will determine whether or not he is the best. Rational men will not always put forth a maximum effort to obtain something he desires since naturally there are multiple desires amoung which he must divide his effort. Its not basing anything on a coin flip. One should judge what ventures one most wants to succeed at and is most likely to succed at. Likewise one should never be fraught with dissappointment and frustration. If one succeed he will be happy for having succeeded. If one fails or is not completely successful he will be happy knowing that he has not recieved anything undeserved.

So, it is not possible to desire something before you are certain whether or not it is you or another who deserves it? Is this not something that enters a rational mans mind before he discovers whether or not he does deserve it? If you desire to reach an achievement before you have actually reached it are you irrational? What goals do you want to achieve in your life? would you like to have a Ferrari? You would want those goals you would like that Ferrari.... if you deserve them. You cannot know whether you will deserve these things. Yet you still feel a desire for them. Just because you have the noblest of desires which can override all others does not disprove their existence. Its a matter of the present versus the future. The present exists before the future. Such desires as i have described exists in the minds of rational men.

1) Man "A's" interest is for man "A" to win 2) Man "B's" interest is for man "B" to win 3) Man "A's" best interest is for Man "A" to be "The Best Man" 4) Man "B's" best interest is for Man "A" to be "The Best Man" 5) It is in boths' best interest for "The Best Man" to win These things are not conflicting. When a rational man desires something or is interested in it, neither thinking about whether he is going to deserve it most, nor being willing to violate the rights of the most deserving are prequisites for him to feel such a desire. Say for example, i want an apple. There is only one apple and fred wants this apple also. I come to realize that fred has earned this apple and i no longer desire it. that does not change the fact that i wanted it, he wanted it and a conflict of interests existed. Also you completely oversimplified the market share situation. If A and B start with 1% and end up with 51 and 49% respectively, who has failed? No one. So they both desire more marketshare (conflict of interests) but neither is required to fail what so ever.

I agree with this statement completely. But them hoping that the best man should win does not preclude them from hoping that they gain the market share. it does not preclude either from hoping that he be the best man in this given situatioun. they still have a conflict in interests. You can't know who is the better man before they compete so going into the situation they are in conflict regardless of whether they might be in perfect harmony at they end (maybe they move to a different industry or retire." This is really semantics in my opinion but i will say i think i'm right.

Church of Reality = funniest church ever.

I've read this whole thread this morning. The issue of perpetual IP is quite a perplexing and interesting. I think Dave's made the best arguments and that IP should definitely not be perpetual. What I have to say is basically an elaboration on what Dave said here: Intellectual property, especially patents, enable men to pursue the use of their minds and to pursue greater achievements and happiness would not be possible. If someone creates an idea or metal or device (IP of such value) it seems they should rightly benefit from the product of their mind. But, who is to prove that I would not have come up with it a year later? Moreover what if somebody creates the same idea, metal, or device a day after the original creator applies for his patent, without any knowledge of the original creator’s achievement? Are they not entitled do benefit from the product of their mind? These dilemma's, I think, make the issue of IP (especially in the form of patents not so much in copyrights) questionable in terms of someone having based purely on the principle of the right to own the non material creations of ones mind (owning the idea of the wheel really puts into perspective). And that really the right to such ownership ironically would have to be based on its pragmatic effects on another principle. The principle that man should be able to live by and receive benefits from the creations of his mind. If this reasoning is followed then it becomes a question of what policy best promotes this principle. There are several options I could think of. 1. The patent exists for an amount of time after its creation which could be cut short by the creator’s death. 2. It exists for the span of the creator’s lifetime. 3. It exists for an amount of time after its creation regardless of the creator’s death. 4. It exists for an amount of time after the creator’s death. Dave, Do you have any opinions on what the patent policy should be?

[Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. - sN] The quote (p798 in hardcover) is " 'Did it ever occur to you Miss Taggart,' said Galt,... 'that there is no conflict of interests among men, neither in business nor in trade nor in their most personal desires--if they omit the irrational from their view of the possible and destruction from their view of the practical...' " I agree with what i think she is trying to say but to say that people don't have rational non-destructive conflicts of interests i think is an oversight. Businesses competing for market share is the best example but really any two or more parties competing for something have a conflict of interests. I think that maybe she is using a more narrow definition of the phrase but if this is the case i think she should have explained it better. Am i misinterpreting anything or what do you guys think about the quote? P.S. i still have like 200 pages left so please dont refer to anything specific in your answer