StrictlyLogical

The big issue with corporations is that bad actors get into power, boards of directors CEOs etc. and pursue causes which lose money or dilute shareholder value. So called woke corporations chasing ESG are directly stealing from public shareholders through weird voting proxy procedures… enabling those with pull to populate the boards, officers, and benefit themselves and their causes at the price of the shareholders and if it comes to it the taxpayers.

There is no general "duty" to do business with anyone in a proper society. The duty a CEO owes to the shareholders is to make a profit, and if they, in discharging to the best of their abilities that duty decide that Alice and Bob are financial risks they should not deal with Alice and Bob. Libel is very specific and generally requires a publication of falsehoods. One of the defences to libel is that what is claimed is true. IF Alice and Bob represent economic risks the corporation is not willing to take (i.e. the CEO has reasons not to deal with them) then the facts constituting those risks do not in any way create libel. Documentation within a corporation should never knowingly be false, as that would be a breach of the duty or loyalty owed the corporation by its officers and employees. An internal memo may not qualify as a publication, although it might depend upon the circumstances.

Indeed individuals directing or managing the corporation should never be shielded from responsibility … after all they are the decision makers directly responsible for the corporation’s actions.

Shareholder rights via ownership should be paramount. The obligation of the company is to make a profit for the shareholder… not to waste resources on anyone else or for any other cause.

Combing this for some semblance of substance... do I take it you are in support of central banking, the existence of the FED as well as fiat money... that these should exist in a proper Republic? and are you suggesting that Jon build his own... .. .. Republic?

I'm staggered by the pitchfork holding witch-hunters who are completely self-unaware of it.

Great video. Thank you. The directness and intellectual honesty of Dershowitz is magnificent. Bravo!

Link to: because this is an important precedent setting case on the merits... well, at least laying out the allegations for all to see is instructive. ...and yet, I am reminded, never a whiff of "political activism" from the likes of Roark, Frisco, or Galt.

“Paid” paternity leave is slavery of those who “pay” for it. Pharos accumulated riches by force, they did not create wealth by trade. Certainly many workers, managers, foremen, whip wielders, and others who were only enslaved mentally (by the fraud of the Cosmic order of things and perhaps the promise of a hereafter) were treated well (if from the right families or of the right race etc) and paid from the i’ll gotten coffers of their ruler, but for every so called “free” man I have no doubt there was ample supply of work oxen, dogs, and slaves to work with them. I don’t know what the statistics were. I see nothing but fraud and slavery/tax and conquest there.

I would include voluntary endeavors even when not for a profit. I could imagine people with integrity, volunteering their time and resources to some common cause or aim without ulterior motive, coercion, or corruption, because they simply want to see some goal achieved.

The pyramids of Egypt perhaps are a greater monument of sorts… a headstone clearly marking the price, the involuntary sacrifice of other lives with greater transparency, a testament to the glory to the vision of the few who wielded power, physical and mental, over the many. For all the promise of what America could and should one day be, the Apollo program is a grim illustration of how man’s development of technology (even perhaps if necessary with the backdrop of a cold war) has outpaced man’s progress in wisdom and morality, in politics and ethics. I for one would rather that technological advances only follow our social and political progress towards individualism … I am sure our voluntary funding of such ventures would have been all the more spiritually pure and clean even if delayed by the decades or perhaps centuries it would have taken us to deserve the pride proper to such an untainted achievement.

Now now...Don't get so cheeky you start to sound like your trolling. physics dark web... lol People like him have been around forever...and you know it.

He could be smart as all heck, but that won't do him any good if, when it comes to philosophy or mysticism, he's out to lunch. He'll just use his knowledge to rationalize his unprovable claims.... I'm not saying that he actually is doing that, only that being smart in Math or Theoretical physics, even VERY smart, is no defense against the kinds of rationalistic, idealism, and reification, type pitfalls can which assail many specialists in those fields. Escaping those pitfalls often requires much more broader vision and ability to make wider integrations than is associated with super specialist smartness... in fact sometimes being incredibly narrowly smart can be a hindrance... and with mathematicians ... they swim in it so much every day, everything can start to look like math.

As soon as he can come up with a prediction which is independently verifiable via experiment (assuming he understands the importance of such in science) which comes out of his theories and contradicts the present models… I will look into his theory of the universe. Until then, I cannot take him seriously.

Have you watched this? Is it worth my time or is he, like Pythagoras, just a Mathematician who has lost it and is claiming the universe IS... well Math?

Can you post a link? Sometimes a TOE (theory of everything) from certain quarters looks more like a TFA ... (Theory For ANYTHING). I can come up with one: Things don't have properties... things do not have location or occupy space, in fact there are no things, there is only space , and space has latent fluctuating properties which we see as things. Space can have density, color, electromagnetic fields, weight, etc. these, many more, and in fact all of the other properties and attributes we see in nature. We mistakenly associate them with entities. But, the fluctuations of these properties OF space, in the coincidental combinations which we associate with objects, is an illusion. There are NO things, just properties of space.... All is space whose aspects are simply turned on and off and at various amplitudes at various positions, and which interact and change over time... See? SOLVED it!

I think we all understood your smile that way. I do wonder to what level of anatomical detail, a classical statue of a woman bearing full frontal "nether regional" nudity (in a natural candid stance, sans any purposeful demure or modest crossing of the legs) would have to rise to in order to receive the same outrage, embarrassment, and/or the same level of praise and adulation... and whether that would indicate an equal standard (or unequal standards) being applied from various sides.

To all appearances our exchange, to the extent there was one, morphed into taking turns presenting new and separate quite personal and long held observations… when things get into a I show you mine … replied with you showing me yours… I have found that keeping a respectful distance between yours is yours and mine is mine… leads to fewer “difficulties”. I learned this from a woman (with whom I am no longer) who adamantly pushed back at attempts of mine to analyze “hers” as though it were “ours” … and so although I was a little disappointed in the indirectness or non-response to my (albeit poetic and rambling) post, I nonetheless saw no common speaking points and decided to retain a respectful distance from your personal observations … adding only a note to clarify/conclude my own, which up to now may have been overly sprinkled with metaphor for third parties to directly understand. Other readers no doubt will take what they may from our separate musings, and I bear no ill will towards your choosing to respond in the way you did… it just did not appear to be a conversational response.

Platonic idealism was truly my second religion, and it has taken a very long time for me to entirely step away from both and fully accept all that entails.

@Boydstun and as we no longer despair at the terrifyingly silent and sublimely blind universe... at the thought that there are no supernatural third parties, cosmic parents, approving or protective stellar clergy or teachers... to protect or guide or approve or in any way give us meaning... at the realization that life has no intrinsic meaning.. nor can be any value or cherished thing to an unimaginably infinite roaring silent unthinking universe... as we come to understand that meaning and value in life and existence are ours and ours alone, no matter how small we may seem, that we make these things in their entirety, in spite of their not being made for us, and indeed because they are not out there... we can find greater meaning in our meanings. We do so precisely because they are in us, for us, of us. so too, we no longer despair that the crashing, crushing, silent, blinding, bewildering and magnificent universe is not a perfect Platonic ideal creation of a supernatural perfect consciousness... awaiting discovery by remembrance... and is not of us, and is outside of our experiences, our values, our thoughts, our meanings.. it is not our possession or controlled by anything we can conceive... only our subject... we paint him or her with loving or despairing strokes, we find beauty and horror, perplexity and simplicity in our re-creations, and yes we make pattern and meaning, and sometimes we relate by seeing ourselves out there... even in the stars... the Great Bear, Draco,.... and Orion...and yes the abstractions, the operators, the probabilities, the differentials, the integrals, the sine functions, the vectors, ...we see them too. Yet, we can find greater love of ourselves in seeing that the beauty, the pattern, the simplicity and even the perplexity... all sublime and full of meaning... are all OF us, and OF our relating that great whirling vastness that IS, to ourselves.

Certainly there is a spectrum between pure "that" and a complete "what". I am reminded of Peikoff speaking of disembodied sensations (or attributes?) in the context of a cigarette or something... the light, the heat, and that they are not received or processed separately ... we could add motion and touch and sound and smell (not the best of senses for a human but)... In my own thinking, the number and nature of these correlated "Thats" can sometimes mean an impressively developed "What" is formed pre-cognitively as a kind of complex familiar "Those/That" kind of "Whatness".

Language, concept, number, these we are possessed of and are all part of our grasping of and our relating ourselves to entities. Entities themselves, however, are not in any way possessed of any of language, concept, or number. That we "find" them poetic or majestic, of a kind or a phenotype, or multitudinous or stochastic, although somethings of them, something about their identity, is touchable and accessible by our various abstraction apparatuses, those somethings of them are not themselves linguistic, conceptual, or mathematical. For those, are only us, as they only ever could and should be.

Given the specific formalization of QM as accepted I would suspect other kinds of numbers as operators or coefficients to the so-called “states” would be improper somehow. I played around with quaternions, more specifically a sort of Mandelbrot generalization to render fractals on a … believe it or not… Amiga computer back in the day. I believe there are multiple imaginary bases i j and k, each squared is -1 but the product of any two is the other (positive or negative depending on the order of multiplication)

Did you learn anything from this video?

Ah yes, this is the convention of using a complex refractive index in calculations to take into account absorption. Quite a convenient use of complex numbers, relating incident light to absorption of light in the material as a function of depth.