Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Andreas

Regulars
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Andreas

  • Rank
    Novice
  • Birthday 02/24/1987

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Norway
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Andreas
  • School or University
    Lillestrøm VGS, Lillestrøm, Norway
  • Occupation
    Student

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oslo, Norway
  • Interests
    Politics, philosophy, physics, maths....
  1. I believe you are right when you say that the difference is how we define rights. When I am talking about rights, I am talking about something which is and will be and has always been, regardless of the government's or anyone else's opinion. Thus I don't think plantation owners had any more right to own slaves in the 17th century than they have today. Do you think that if just enough people decides to make something a right, it is a right? What if those "powerful enough to protect the rights" decides that everyone has the right to take money from you? Would you consider that a right? Would it be to take away their freedom to steal you money, if you resisted? This is surley not my opinion of what a right is...
  2. This was indeed what the discussion was about, and thank you for the good answers. Can you explain this a little more? I don't see how taking one man's freedom can be a good thing in any case. I may have misunderstood your post, but it seems to me that you claim power to distribute other men's freedom, and that means they have no freedom at all. Forcing someone can never, in my opinion, create freedom.
  3. One of my friends and I were discussing a problem the other day. The situation was this: You and another man discover a third man lying by the side of the road. The third man needs help to survive. What is the worst you can do of theese two: -Not helping the man at all (just walk on) -Not help the man yourself, but force the other man to help My friend was sure that not helping the man at all was the worst thing to do, I was leaning a bit to the other side. Any thoughs? Andreas
  4. It seems to me that the man driving the car gets something back for helping the kids, so for all I know he is doing it just as much for himself as for the kids. Thus, I do not think he is making a sacrifice. I though the story was silly, making no point at all. And why the brick? Last time I checked, waving worked perfectly. The story actually says that the man was slowing down, watching out for kids. At the top of this God is dragged into the story, and this is the part of the story where I had to puke a little. I don't know wheter to laugh or cry when I read this. But with this one I am sure.
  5. I can understand this, but what are the connection betwen the two? How do a bunch of random neural process convert into consciousness and free will?
  6. I am trying to learn as much as i can about Objectivism, and just wondered if anyone know of any litterature describing Objectivism's view of Anarchism. Anything will do. Thank you.
  7. Thank you very much for the answers. I can see clearly what you mean, and it was my bad asking such broad questions in this forum. But on the other hand I didn't know where to start investigate the issue, and I am very interested in finding the answer. Suggestions to litterature though were maybe the best answers you could have given me, and I agree that reading about Objectivism on my own, and then discuss it, is better than you giving me your understandings only. And from now on I will spell Objectivism the way it shall be spelled: Objectivism. Any other versions of the word coming from me should be ignored as they are just spelling-mistakes.
  8. According to "Whole Math", this joke is not valid. I have discovered my own way of calculating the coordinates, and my answer is almost like yours, but not quite, and you are not in the area under the my curves. This topic made me sad. (good joke though)
  9. I was dicussing rights a few days ago with one of my friends. We both agreed on that one has the right to live, the right to not be stolen from, and so on...but neither of us could really find an answar to what rights really are. Where do they come from? Who decides what rights one should have and not have? Does one really have the right to live, an if so, according to whom? Is rights decided by the law of the state you live in, or is rights independent of the opinions of human beeings? And: If one give a right to someone (for example: you have the right to have food), the one who gives the right must provide food for everyone, and nobody else has any obligation to make sure the right to food is followed. The question is: Who has to make sure everybodys rights is followed? If there was a god, or some other superior power, watching over the earth, many of theese questions could have been answered easily, but since i assume (as i think most people on this forum does) that there is no such power, i can find no good answers to theese questions. I am trying to learn about objectivism, and don't know that much about it yet, so if I have said something really stupid in this post, please be nice
  10. Thanks for welcoming me. I did know (through my dad) that there were not so few objectivists in Norway. It was a long time ago though, but i will try to search them out . Concerning the conference in london I would have loved to join, but I am afraid I dont'n have the money. (we could try though, to pass a law making the private companies of norway pay the journey for me, or force the airliners to let me travel just because i don't have the money to pay them. I think it will be fairly easy) Anyway, i was wondering what one does at such a conference, how long it lasts, the form of the conference, and so on. Could anyone be so kind to enlighten me? And Oldsalt: I can express myself fairly good in english, but as you may have discovered already, there are quite a lot spelling and grammar-mistakes. Please excuse them. Btw, I will gladdly teach you norwegian .
  11. I can't really why a law like this is even though of. If a woman wants to pierce her genitalia, why not? It does not affect anyone else (at least not many), and very few people will ever know about it. Why should it then be illeagal? This is a "we know best what is best for you"-law.
  12. Well then, here I am. Finally I found a forum for objectivists. I were actually looking for a forum such as this one when I found it, and it has looked promising so far. I'm a student and live in Norway. Though I am new to objectivism my father has been an objectivist for quite a long time, and thus I have learned some of the priciples through discussions with him. I am now reading Atlas Shrugged, and I'm hoping to learn much about objectivism while lurking around in this forum. Andreas
  13. I can't believe he wrote Quantem mechanics? How in mighty shit is that possible. (I'm just trying to point out something other ridiculous than rediculus, so that Capitalism Forever is pleased. But if I was to be serious, this is a rather good topic.)
  14. That almost did it for me to, but due to the irritation of having used several minutes already on taking the test, i continued, and ended up in the same direction as Toolboxnj.
  15. We resently got a flyer at school demanding that the capitalists (meaning anyone with a fair amount og money) ought to pay for the schoolbooks of all the students in Norway. The flyer was sent out by some partly communistic, partly sosialistic organization. That made us laught for a while.
×
×
  • Create New...