coirecfox

Let us look at the issue of wage regulation from the standpoint of individuals. You have two people who are concerned with their own well-being and able to think for themselves. One man has a need for the other man's labor, lets say, to clean up his yard so he can hone his skills as a brain surgeon. Now, the brain surgeon offers the man $3.50 an hour to the laborer to clean his yard. The laborer says, actually I'd like $4.50 and hour. They will reach a compromise and the laborer will be paid $4 an hour. Both come away happy. A beneficial mutual exchage has taken place between two men who are rational and capable of providing for their own survival. (If either one is not happy with what the other one offers, there will be no exchange.) There is a third person off to the side who says, "That's not fair." Why isnt is fair? Both parties have agreed to a mutually beneficial exchange. What is not fair about it? And what right would the third person have to get involved in the transaction?

I just wanted to point out to a few people that infinity is not a number. It is a concept. It is used to represent the fact that the number series is non-terminating. You cannot count to infinity. If you say to yourself I am going to count to infinity, and then begin: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7--you have stopped at seven. In essence infinity has become seven. Not to say that infinity=seven, but that is where you stopped. "Infinity" is the potential number to which you could have gotten and "seven" is the actual. The concept 'infinity' bears no relation to things that exist, because everything that exists is finite.

Allow me to say this: Before I started reading Objectivist literature, fiction and non-fiction, I was a very different person than I am now. Though I was always actively searching for a standard by which to live my life(morality), the content to which I was ascribing cause many problems for me rationally and emotionally, so much so that I went through a time of depression. I was being treated for it with Prozac when I first picked up Atlas Shrugged. By the time I was done with the book, my depression had begun to fade away because I knew I had found the object of my searching. I never took another Prozac again. People I knew asked me what had changed in me. I was generally happier. I started to get along with my parents. Granted, it has still taken me a long time to CONSCIOUSLY integrate the proper concepts into my daily life, but I had found a sense of deeper peace and understanding that everything would be okay if I just kept working on it. That is the short story of how Objectivism made my life better. I'll write the longer version in my memoirs after my two terms in the White House are over.

Cole: ...I'm speechless. This: Accompanied with a picture of a Jewish internment camp from the Holocaust?!?!?

Necessary: I know what you mean. I actually found the lack of philosophical discourse interesting. I do not think it detracts from the movie at all. I saw the movie almost as a piece of artwork: you cant have a lengthy philosophical discourse in a painting, it revolves around one theme. The movie takes the pleasure of ones own life and asserts it as GOOD, something I find lacking in our culture in general, except as almost a dirty secret between friends("Yeah we are going to help lots of people( and make a world of profit doing it, but shhhhhhhh).") Like I said, it also shows, though subtley, in the story of Bud's sister that a rational life of values yields more happiness than that of a slut obsessed with pleasure(note that SHE changes colors only after she does NOT have sex w/ that guy). I think that some things that are said in the movie can be taken as irrational, but any talk of emotions and feelings isolated from a full disscussion of their origins can be taken as irrational, and like I said before, that was not ultimately the point of the movie. Does that make sense?

Hal, I have to disagree with you here. I would say that it is possible that SOME academic philosophers may use such questions in the manner you suggest. It has been my experience thusfar however that MOST philosophers do not use such questions in this manner. They do indeed use them to "undermine [rational and intelligent peoples'] self-confidence, and induce in them exactly the kind of uncertainty [he's] experiencing now." My current philosophy professor derives extreme pleasure from introducing such questions, watching students fumble around trying to answer it(because they have never been taught the proper method of analyzing the question) and then giving them a "possible" answer, to which if you dont immediately ascribe, you will be given a sternly disapproving look from the professor and a statement that your position is "interesting."

That would be "Philosophy: Who needs it?" in...Philosophy: Who needs it?

I have not. I will now though.

The first time I saw this movie (before I discovered philosophy) I didnt think much of it. I just finished watching it this evening and I must say that I was 'pleasantly' suprised. ... But seriously--this movie may be one of my new favorites. The way it depicts human pleasure as good seemed a refreshing change from some other movies of its day. And while the movie emphasizes the idea that pleasure is good, it does not do so in a hedonist manner. The girls dont become whores, and there are no orgys in the streets. Not only that but it has the classic story of Government oppression and a peoples' strugle against injustice. One of my favorite parts of this movie had to be the story of David/Bud's sister(played by Reese Witherspoon). She starts off as a slutty, dim angry young girl. By the end of the movie she is happy and studious, going off to college. The only element of the movie that may get in the way of enjoyment is how the kids get into their predicament in the first place, but once you get past that, the movie is a joy.

I had never heard anything else by him except Claire de Lune. Thanks for the info!

Does anyone here have an opinion of Debussy? I really like Claire de Lune.

I agree with EdwhoiscalledEd, here.

Has anyone seen this movie? It's out in selected cities, and the reviews look promising. I was wondering if it's worth the ten bucks to go see it.

Hal, who is Robert Nozick and where did he disprove that such a suggestion is impossible?

And people say Objectivists don't have a sense of humor...

This is the same problem I had in my initial argument--the definition of life. Is it biological only, or does it have a philosophical influence as well? I contend that human life is defined both biologically and philosophically, and the philosophical part is what gives meaning to life. "Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death" Thus, if the attainment of values is not possible, human life no longer has value. For a rational person to realize this, suicide would be an affirmation of ones own life because you would be affirming that the attainment of (proper) values is good, and the inability to attain values is bad. Keep in mind that such an analysis may only be done by the possessor of the life in question, as only he has a right to take his own life.

1. Ayn Rand (100%) 2. Aristotle (96%) 3. David Hume (91%) 4. Cynics (84%) 5. Aquinas (82%) 6. Nietzsche (81%) 7. Thomas Hobbes (81%) 8. John Stuart Mill (79%) 9. St. Augustine (77%) 10. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%) 11. Plato (74%) 12. Jeremy Bentham (71%) 13. Spinoza (67%) 14. Stoics (64%) 15. Epicureans (63%) 16. Nel Noddings (46%) 17. Kant (42%) 18. Ockham (30%) 19. Prescriptivism (19%) 1. a high 2. d high 3. e medium 4. d high 5. b high 6. a high 7. c medium 8. d high 9. a high 10. c high 11. c high 12. b high

He also often uses the principle of eminent domain to "acquire" others' property. Not to heroic if you ask me.

He wrote a book called "The Myth of the Robber Barons" in which he articulates the difference between market monopolists and coercive monopolists. Excellent read and full of great information.

I'm glad to hear that he still believes his own essay. My question is still: Why is he the Fed chair? Why didn't he refuse?

LOL...okay McGroarty you win that one. To be honest, I had no idea that precious metals had achieved the type of market that you guys are talking about. I would definitely agree that some of these other solutions are more sound than the Liberty Dollar. I still want to stick it to the Fed though...to the mints I shall go...

Thanks for that definition. I think the reason his mark-up is so great is that there are not a great deal of people offering the kind of product he offers. And he does a decent job marketing it. I'm sure if he had some more vocal competitors his prices would fall. To be honest, this is the first I have heard of people attempting to return to a precious metal standard (though relative to most of you probably, I haven't been around all that long). I was excited just to see that. The initial appeal to me was the effectiveness with which Bernard claims the currency can be used. My problem is, I don't have the kind of money I would need to buy gold bars, or even coins for that matter. Anyone want to make predictions on the fall date of the USD?

McGroarty: I wasn't saying that you had done any banking in any of those places. And I was not suggesting that you must exchange your money in that Marx house. The way you presented that information however made it seem like you were objecting to the currency merely because people of objectionable moral standing utilized it. I was not able to find where the NORFED sote said they had only two paid employees. If you could point me in the right direction I would be much obliged. Why is that so objectionable? The costs of minting currency must be absorbed somewhere. They don't just dissapear. I don't see how a precious metal backed currency could work any other way. This is how it was done when there was a backed currency earlier in America's history. Not to say that there isnt a better way. I'm only asserting that this system has been utilized in the past and has worked efficiently. And many times more so than this absurd fiat money system. Addtionally the means of exchange are not supposed to be an investment. They are the means for making investments. You wouldnt have to pay the storage and minting costs, but try getting a store to accept a lump of silver, the quality and weight of which they may not be able to verify on hand. What you are esentially paying for is the ease of use that minting provides. Try paying for a $200 grocery bill in silver bullion. You wouldn't. You would use warehouse certificates representing $200 of silver. You are paying for the ease of use of storage. I don't understand from where your objection stems. Is a non-value backed...I take that back...a DEBT backed currency worth more to you than a commodity backed currency? Are you for a commodity backed currency at all?

You can buy the Liberty Dollar as $10 silver coins. As to all of this: You are not buying just the silver, you are buying the silver plus minting costs plus storage costs. You don't get angry when you have to buy bread for much more than the cost of wheat do you? Silver bullion and silver coins are two different commodities. The change over does not work the way McGroarty says it does. If you have a ten $ certificate when the change over happens, you can exchange it for a 20 $ certificate right away. That is because your old $10 certificate is backed by one ounce of silver, and that is written on the certificate. As to this, you should probably stop using the USD then, because Marxists, Christians, Libertarians, hedonists, Kantians, etc. all use it too. What a ridiculous objection. The Liberty Dollar is not a multi-level marketing program. It is a single tier referral program. The company that offers the Liberty Dollar is a nonprofit as well, so I don't see how it could be a MLM. There was a local news station that did a story on the Liberty Dollar. It's on the Liberty Dollar site and it shows people using the currency in everyday situations.