Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Chris.S

Regulars
  • Posts

    304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chris.S

  1. Right. So they should be in Washington, protesting the source of the corruption: power over the economy and business through use of force. Corporations certainly aren't blameless and some definitely contribute money and favours in order to get unfair advantages, but with the ability of Washington and other governments to decimate whole industries with a few pen strokes, is it any wonder they want to get in on the corruption to protect themselves? Think about it: if the OWS folk get their way, governments would have even more power and corruption would be worse. The middle and lower class would be worse off in terms of freedom and wealth, meanwhile rich people will still afford to buy off local, state and federal lackeys for favours. Take away that power, and all business can do is try and convince you of the benefits of their products and services. Banks would be far more conservative and make fewer risky loans and investments. No business would be able to legislate against other market actors.
  2. It sounds interesting to read. How much of a background in these men (Rousseau, Foucoult, etc) would someone need to have a decent grip on the material? Wikipedia-ish or in-depth study?
  3. Canada: pretty much the same as ya'll down south, but there's less ability to get a critical mass of angry lefties in one spot outside of universities and the larger cities. But the media is almost completely left; the only exception being Sun Media/Quebecor (possibly CTV as well, but I don't have cable). On the other hand, rural areas tend to be more traditional conservatives that still favour leftist policies, ie health care and social programs, just less of it. That's really the only sort of main stream political debate: how much money to throw away to government social programs.
  4. From the comments, I like the idea of giving everyone on the plane wooden clubs to beat down potential hijackers.
  5. I know what you mean. I'm top 10 in a Gold league right now just messing around with various things in 4v4. To get better I'd have to study other matches etc, as well as get a new right hand! (limited movement abilities with it). Mostly just a lot of work and time that I'm not willing go put into a game anymore (previously I played WoW - yikes!). Watching pros would be really exciting though.
  6. I saw it in theatres and thought it was odd. Enjoyable, but not exciting. The closest film I can think of to compare it to is "Taken", and "Taken" is much better. I'd have to watch it again to be able to comment more though.
  7. I guess I'll give it a try once it's solidly out there. It's just another online thing to take time away from other stuff. Facebook will probably start to get more competitive and offer similar features soon enough though.
  8. I haven't heard much about it. What makes it better than Facebook?
  9. Everyone in that area knows the risks. Flooding happens every year, and major floods maybe every decade, and then extreme floods maybe once a century. I don't think the government has a role to play there (except enforcement of law obviously when and if the shit hits the fan), especially not sending in military to help out. However, in your scenario, the "maximum social utility" B.S. would be to sacrifice the property of those 5000 people for the safety of the city - which is what they're planning to do anyway. Hopefully the Manitoba government will be honest enough to at least pay the residents back for any damage caused by breaching the dike. I don't think insurance companies would cover flooding from an intentional breach, so the government would have to cover the cost. But we'll see.
  10. It continues to boggle my mind that these people could be so open in espousing an ideology that is responsible for killing millions of people throughout the last century. Even if one isn't into philosophy, just the plain facts would suggest that "hey, maybe communism isn't so great if all these people died while it was in practice". What is their explanation for the collapse of the USSR, or China moving towards freer markets, or the hundreds of thousands of starving and dying in N. Korea?
  11. Overall it provides a general relaxation and depending on the amount used, also affects concentration. In those ways it's similar to alcohol, but I find alcohol has worse side-effects: headache, stuffy sinuses, blurry vision, very decreased motor control, as well as the hangover symptoms the next day depending on the amount ingested (which marijuana does not have). My motor control is slightly affected by marijuana, but not as much as alcohol. About the only bad physical side-effect is the itchy, scratchy throat immediately after smoking. Also in contrast to alcohol, there isn't a decreased inhibition, so one isn't as likely to do stupid stuff, unless already prone to do stupid stuff anyway. The other positive I think is the increased sexual sensitivity. I have a very bad spinal condition that(I assume)has caused decreased sensitivity from the norm, and marijuana gives this an extremely positive boost. As mentioned above, the first few times may not have any effect, but this depends on frequency of use and quality of the plant. Seeing as this is an ethics question, you'd have to ask yourself: what is the purpose of ingesting this drug? You would need to do some more research about marijuana, then see if that fits your purpose.
  12. McKeever on a national network would be awesome.
  13. I agree with your analysis. It's unfortunate that May got a seat; is this going to be an uphill trend for them? I hope not. As for the Cons., I doubt they'll do anything really capitalist. They're state-ists all the way.
  14. Pretty much. Allison is not a debater, and he let Klein dance around with pragmatic facts without pinning him down on the moral issues. And about Klein: is it just me, or is he an arrogant, sniveling douche? As an aside, I do really enjoy Allison's lectures. He's just not debater. I think they should've sent Epstein - he's quick thinking and gets everything down to the morality of a situation. 2nd aside: what was with the crowd? People on both sides were very rude.
  15. Just wondering what the fellow Canadians here think of the election polls. Layton and the NDP are coming pretty close to Harper and the Cons. I wasn't planning on voting, but now that the NDP is getting steamed up, I think I might have to cast my ballot for the Cons. to vote against the NDP. The Cons. are bad, but they're less bad than the others. Iggy and the Libs are getting their butts handed to them, so they don't seem like much right now. And there are no other parties worth speaking of, unless there are any Freedom Party candidates running, which I'm doubtful of (they'll get my vote this fall though in the provincial elections). What say you?
  16. Getting it this weekend. Very excited! Just wish I had a multiple monitor setup.
  17. Aren't these ideas already covered under how the brain is physically built so that certain groups of brain cells have evolved to handle certain types of sensory input and shapes, together? This is from a few years ago in a cognitive psych class, but from what I remember, there are cells that better handle "round" shapes. So although the concept "apple" isn't there, the ability to integrate and form the concept from combinations of sensory data is. Then, after a kid has formed the "apple" concept from feel, attributing the sight of an apple to the same cells is very fast, just a matter of attributing new data under an old concept. More interesting might be a kid with only the ability to smell an apple and not see or feel it, then see how fast the association works upon correction of the deaf or blindness. I think it would work the same as above, but it might rule out the "round" cells' previous activation. But I could be very mistaken; that class was a long time ago.
  18. Wow, that's a great review. He actually knows what he's talking about.
  19. If only they would have a showing in Toronto, I could agree or disagree. But there isn't one theatre above the border that has it.
  20. I was hoping Binswanger would be able to do this himself, but Barber stuck his foot in the trap on his own. My jaw dropped when he said that so explicitly (that "all citizens should be forced to share in the sacrifice of war" or something to that effect), and yet hardly anyone in the audience noticed (it seemed, at least from the Livestream). Overall a disappointing debate in terms of charisma from the Objectivist side. Binswanger did make great points, but he wasn't able be as on his toes as Brook - mostly I think because Brook has had tons of practice speaking extemporaneously. Even when Binswanger made a pretty good joke about investing in the stock market, he didn't have anyone with him in the audience. But the point of the debate is the ideas argued, and Binswanger won in that regard against the blowhard Barber. Can't wait for John Allison, I love his talks.
  21. Brook posted this link from his Facebook feed last night. Contains the full debate, audio only.
  22. I didn't go too deep into your link, but from skimming, it seems like he's using the fact that wealthy people are able to buy off government officials in order to protect their wealth to argue that they are or will take control of the country, or have an unreasonable influence on "democracy". They also have a "disproportionate" share of the entire wealth of the country, and can use this to keep the less wealthy in the lower brackets. You would have to ask a few questions: How was the wealth earned by the wealthy? Should government be able to use force to take that wealth away? What actions are moral to keep one's wealth if the government should be or is able to take that wealth? How much value is being offered to the average consumer by the wealthy? When the author brings up the fact that most Americans don't have a good idea of the actual wealth distribution in the country, I would argue that that's probably due to the value they're receiving from the goods and services provided by the businesses of those wealthy people, as well as how "easy" it is to buy high-value or luxury goods [Did you notice how they define wealth in order to devalue how well the average person lives?]. From my understanding of the general American culture (which I would expand to include Canada and of which I could be entirely wrong about), people are able to work enough to get almost anything they want, and they don't care that another guy works harder to get more. And if they do care, they generally do two things: call for government action against the wealthy (I'd say this is a vocal minority) or work harder themselves (quiet majority). I don't want to go further because this is just a rehashed argument for sacrificial wealth re-distribution based on perceived power to influence government with money.
×
×
  • Create New...