Yaniv

When designing an amplifier should the engineer test it's performance by electronically comparing the input and output waves (i.e the distorsion proportion), or by conducting blind tests on a listening group? Assume that both tests compare one design with another, in order to decide which one goes for production. "Better sound" means sound that is more similar to whatever was recorded. What if the engineer conducts both tests and gets contradicting results? should he trust the electronic test or the listening test?

Here's a great article from CapMag titled "Mars: Who Should Own It": http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3462

Why can US troops retaliate against any random peasant while a producer cannot retaliate against any random US citizen? Both the peasant and the US citizen are responsible for initiation of force by a collective to which they belong - A peasant is responsible for the establishment of a terrorist regime just as any US citizen is responsible for his state regulators. Regardless of whether the actions desribed are initiatory or retaliatory, what sets them apart?

In the scope of initiation vs. retaliation, can a person be hold responsible for initiation of force by a collective to which he belongs? 1. Consider a peasant living under an islamic tyranny. He is clearly a victim, supposing he had no oppurtunity to overthrow his tyrant. Should such a man get killed by US troops, would you consider that killing an initiation of force or retaliation? Surely the US led attack is a retaliation against terrorist attacks, but who exactly is responsible for the terrorist attack? 2. Consider a producer living in the US, under the tyranny of the anti-trust regulators. Such regulation is clearly an initiation of force and thus immoral. Whom can the producer morally retaliate against? The regulator itself? the Congress? any US citizen?

The theory shows how short-term monopolies are created, such monopolies don`t use coercive force nor offer a superior product and thus remain monopolies for a short time. 'short time' is the time period required to create a new firm and start production. ("enter the market"). 'short time' may be several years, it depends on the scale of investment,construction,training etc. I`ll elaborate using this example: All agreed, but there`s more to it: Suppose a market with 10 identical firms producing and selling X. All X`s are identical, to the extent that the customer would not pay more for a specific X but rather buy the cheapest X available. No firm may sell X for a price higher than 100$ since it`s competitors sell X for 100$. hence, 100$ is the competitive price level. Now suppose my firm has 1 billion spare dollars and the other firms don`t. I`m going to sell X for 80$, thus "forcing" all other firms to do the same. we would all operate at a loss, firms would slowly shut down until my firm remains the only X producing firm, an X monopoly. That process is called "crushing the competition". What I`m gonna do next is raise the price to 150$, since no competition is available. As long as there`s no competition (and it`s not for long) I can make great profits. By the end of the day I MAY have gained from the entire process. It depends on how long I can operate as a monopoly, how long it takes to "crush the competition" and how much the customers are willing to pay for X.

The role of every business is to make profits, The best method for doing so depends on the market structure. Let`s assume that the competing firms are equal in technology - they have the same production costs and quality, otherwise it`s natural and beneficial that one firm takes over due to it`s superiority (see microsoft). A market with only a few competitors is subject to "crushing the competition" if one of the competitors has loads of spare money. "crushing" means temporarily reducing prices and operating at a loss, this forces all other competing firms to operate at a loss or go out of business. Since the "crushing" firm has larger reserves it will eventually become a monopoly, as all other firms are gone. As a monopoly, the firm can raise it`s price above competitive level and maximize it`s profits. Notes: 1. A "crush the competition" monopoly cannot last, as the high market price invites new competitors. the market will eventually stabilize. 2. "crush the competition" is not always profitable - in order to monopolize, the firm has to operate at a loss for some time. Rather than crushing the competition, a firm can establish a monopoly by offering a superior product for a lower price. such a monopoly can last as long as superiority is maintained. (see microsoft)

If rights are conditions for one`s survival, I see no reason why animals have no right to life - being slaughtered is surely incompatible with survival. using that definition, the claim "rights only pertain to man" is arbitrary. I believe animals have no rights whatsoever, but that claim lacks formal basis.

My name is Yaniv and I live in a medieval town in southern Israel. My neighbourhood has slogans sprayed demanding that "all children's afternoon courses be subsidized". I'm a victim of Israel's "progressive" tax system with over 50% of my labour (and thus my life) forced down the toilet, and a former victim of Israel's mandatory forcefully-coerced military service. Iv`e been fighting collectivism since elementary school, when my teacher demanded that we do volunteer work. I`m now 25 years old and getting my philosophy integrated and debugged. I was introduced to AR reading a book by Dr. Moshe Kroy, the only objectivist teacher to ever work for an Israeli university. his book titled "Living by the means of your brain" was the rational equivalent of a holy enlightment to me.

Hello everyone, I'm the one who started the debate on BGU forum, I`d like to present the full context in which the question "can a human being be owned" arises. My basic claim is that ownership is an objective concept and it is not a "social agreement". I've defined ownership in a way that derives from reality and thus is objective. definition: "Ownership" is a binary relation (i.e a relation between exactly two entities) between man and another entity: any man M and entity E satisfy the relation if and only if M has produced E. definition: "Production" is transformation of matter by an intelligent being the proposed definition set has two errors: 1. "man" is not defined. 2. man can be owned, since it has been produced my man. since the set is already flawed, I have left out ownership over items aquired by trade, which requires a consistent definition set of ownership over items produced. please propose a formal definition set that overcomes those flaws. Also, does anyone know any work done to mathematically formalize objectivism?