Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Socionomer

Regulars
  • Content Count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Socionomer

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Real Name
    Steven Pilotte
  • Occupation
    Commodity Trader

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Carlsbad, CA
  1. I did not like the trailer. It's difficult to articulate why , other than to say I sensed I was watching a video clip produced by www.theonion.com (with the same caliber actors). It contained all the proper ingredients; it just wasn't baked right.
  2. A rather ironic aspect to this situation is that by selecting a military recruitment office as the object of their anti-war/anti-Bush protest message, they apparently are unaware of the fact that the most anti-war presidential candidate in the 2008 election gets more support from active duty military members than all of the other democratic and republican candidates combined. I'm speaking of Ron Paul of course. And thet the largest employers of those who contribute to his campaign are the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
  3. People behave differently in areas of finance than they do when making daily economic decisions pertaing to the production or consumption of goods and services. In the economic realm, rational decisions are made based on accurate price information related to supply and demand. Financial markets appear to have a psychological component that distorts the supply/demand relationship because people are more likely to behave irrationally. This is seen when higher prices actuallyattract more buyers rather than less, or when buyers disappear in the face of collapsing prices. This occurs in markets for stocks, bonds, commodities, collectibles, and real estate.
  4. Good job. A picture often says a thousand words When it comes to areas of finance, often the most logical explanations for supposed relationships between various phenomena just don't reflect reality.
  5. Social prediction may be possible to some extent and has been done with some success for a few decades. A recent documentary titled "History's Hiden Engine" can be viewed free at www.socionomics.com. You be the judge. Forecasts and commentary can also be viewed at www.sociotimes.com
  6. About as much of an effect as Objectivists have had. Not much. Unfortunately DIM minds don't want to know. There appears to be an irresistible compulsion for some people to continually conflate "libertarianism" with the Libertarian Party. Not all LP members subscribe to the philosophy, just as not ALL Democrats or Republicans consciously proclaim secular or religious altruism as their ideal philosophy (most don't even know what the hell it means). There really is no point in continuing discussin of the subject until critics can distinguish between the two, the same way they make similar distinctions with other parties.
  7. Most HUMAN BEINGS lack this philosophical derivation and it is BEYOND the reach of minds not receptive to reason. I'm sure Libertarians appreciate your holding them to a higher standard than the rest of the global population, and since you continue to reside in a nation founded on their morally indefensible principles you must find them useful for something. (I,m just assuming you live in the USA).
  8. If you judge others based solely on their affiliation with a group, attributing every evil associated with that group to each and every individual that is a member, and fail to judge yourself by the same standard, then you are indeed a hippocrite. Who said anything about "particular political positions"? You've been speaking in generalities, content to judge without particulars, requiring merely a label and lumping every individual with that label in the same moral category, including Objectivists.
  9. Look, that first quote was someone else's. Also, I'm not trying to advocate any philosphies here other than Objectivism, and I don't see any point to comparing performance report cards of political parties based on what they do or don't advocate. THE point is that Objectivists should essentially be advocating the same things, regardless of what party they belong to, and based on the same Objectivist philosophic premises, not the mistaken premises of their parties. Cut your philosophic brothers some slack for god's sake.
  10. The philosophic basis for the libertarian party (though not by that name) existed before Objectivism and therefore cannot have been intended to be confused with it. There may be individuals who possess such intent now, and if so, they deserve the criticism they receive. The point is that well-intentioned Objectivists who support the LP deserve the same deference given to Objectivists of other parties when it comes to moral judgements regarding motive unless there is evidence to the contrary. Objectivists who seek similar ends should be free to debate the means used for attaining those ends and criticize each other based on facts stemming from those arguments, not for "being" libertarians, republicans or democrats when primarily they are Objectivists. Descent to that level implies everyone is "guilty by association" to some extent.
  11. Well, since nearly every terrible thing that has occured since this country's founding is the result of policies of both Democrats and Republicans, and since so many have either lost money, property, freedom, or their lives, I believe that perhaps a few of them, if they were still alive, would question your use of the term "worse" as well as your sense of proportion. I certainly do. But at least you are not a hippocrite.
  12. If the French goverment appears willing to make concessions this may be a good time for the elderly nursing home patients to join in with the rioters. Perhaps they can obtain some badly needed air conditioners for next summer (just in case).
  13. An Objectivist who is critical of the Libertarian Party because it's principles are not derived from the same philosophic premises as Objectivism is fully justified in that criticism. Objectivists who decide to ally themselves with the Libertarian Party which they see as the best means to realize a more free and capitalistic society are also justified in doing so, in the same way as those who support the Republican, Democratic, or other parties. Since the subject of this thread is "Libertarians" it should not be surprising that the majority of the comments in an Objectivist forum would be of a critical nature. I would also, however, expect that those who have been so vocal here against Libertarians would be just as vocal and critical of Democrats and Republicans if there were similar threads devoted to those parties, which, using the same standard of judgement, are similarly incompatible with Objectivist philosophic premises. Objectivists may argue with each other about which parties best serve ideal Objectivist ends, and wether or not an Objectivist should even support any of today's political parties, but the height of hippocracy would be a case where an Objectivist who is an active member of one of today's current political parties questions another Objectivist's party affiliation using the phiosophic premise argument I have witnessed here. One may argue it justifiably so long as one does not vote for any party candidates in elections. Doing so makes one a hippocrite.
  14. Back to the "gulag" Tom.
  15. And at least it has wheelchair access ramps to comply with today's standards.
×
×
  • Create New...