Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tanaka

Regulars
  • Posts

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Tanaka

  1. The line is the initiation of physical force. There are no gray or blurred areas, it's a very clear line that you either cross or not.
  2. Under communism, the official currency was mostly useless. While officially it was tied to gold (a ruble was worth around a gram of gold), no one would've actually sold you any gold if you had rubles. Not a gram for a ruble, and not a gram for 1000 rubles (not because it was forbidden, but because the rubles had very little value)/ So, if let's say someone in the Soviet Union suddenly got paid a trillion rubles/month, that would've made almost no difference in his life. The goods he could "buy" were his food and clothing rations, and possibly an apartment and a car after ordering one of each and spending five to ten years on the waiting list for them. In reality, what got people all these items was not the actual payment in rubles, but the ration card the local party official had to stamp (and official approval, in the case of the car and apartment, contingent on good behavior). Other items were not bought for rubles. They were purchased either through political connections, or, for regular people, on the black market. But the currency on the black market wasn't rubles, it was cartons of cigarettes, whiskey, or western currency (German Marks, usually). So the ruble had no actual value, the banknotes were merely colorful paper handed over as a symbolic gesture, when you went over to the store (and waited in line for hours) to pick up your rations. Once the Soviet Union and the rationing system ended, Russians simply discovered that their rubles had no value. The currency didn't suddenly lose its value, it never had any. It took a while for the government to realize this, and start from scratch (by issuing a new currency, and actually backing it up).
  3. I'm not going to think about a fully rational answer to that. Instead, I'll go with my intuition, which is saying the answer is "No.". If you think through the logic of it, you'll find that this is the one instance where my intuition actually logically proves that the answer (at least as far as I am concerned) is indeed "No.".
  4. Does anyone else find that "If you double cross me, I will destroy you." line more fit for an Oliver Stone villain than an AR hero?
  5. I wouldn't back Trump (he's a statist and a pragmatist through and through, not even a hint of any support for the principle of individual rights). I do like Bolton's foreign policy, but that's all I know about him. What are his views on reducing the size of government (is he hawkish or moderate) and the role of religion in government (is he part of the religious right, or more of a secular)?
  6. Of course I don't support Mubarak. But I do support the American involvement in the region, and our collaboration with Egypt's military. Mubarak was the President of Egypt for 30 years, so there's absolutely no reason to put that in quotation marks. And the US didn't give him any money, nor did it put him in power. The US gave Egypt money, for military development. Objectivism is opposed to taxation of any kind, on principle. And you haven't presented any arguments against the use of tax money for this particular cause either, you just presented arguments against taxation in general. You're right, the US government doesn't have the right to use force to take our money. The act of initiating force against someone is irrational. But that doesn't say anything about whether supporting the Egyptian military was a better use of tax money than any of the other uses. If you want to argue that spending tax money on helping a friendly military in Egypt or Israel is particularly bad, you shouldn't rely on the argument that force was used to take that money from you. Force was used to take all tax money, not just that one. You should instead try to argue the merits of the decision to spend the money on this cause, instead of some other one. Why? Jefferson being an isolationist doesn't make it automatically right, that would be an argument from authority. Do you have actual arguments as to why ignoring the Middle East would be a good idea?
  7. My response on why liberating a country isn't altruism was pretty short. Why not read it instead of going on repeating the same meme over and over again.
  8. No they may not. The purpose of government is to have the use of force delegated to it and placed under objective control. Whenever individuals are justified in using force (like in the case of securing the right to trade with willing individuals living in a dictatorship), it becomes the government's job to do that for them. Individuals who have a responsible government, which acts to secure their rights in an objective way, should not use force themselves. They should contribute to their government and let it act on their behalf. Liberating a country doesn't ensure profits for anyone. It ensures that the country is open for trade. That alone is a reason to use force to liberate it, or to support its liberation by sponsoring the pro-capitalist opposition withing the country. The purpose of government is to secure all our rights, including the right to freely trade with people under dictatorial rule. Doing that doesn't "ensure profits" anymore that protecting Walmart from robbers ensures their profits.
  9. So, just to summarize: you admit that your previous observation, about having to meet and get to know someone before making a judgment about their psychology is nonsense. You can in fact judge them based on their actions, statements or preferences alone. And now you're changing your argument to an ad hominem against Miss Rand: she was psychologizing because she wasn't well read on the subject. You're also going in circles (all ad hominem arguments are circular): You know she was ignorant of the subject because what she said about it is wrong, and she was wrong because she was ignorant. Sorry, but the only way you're going to convince anyone of the value of something, is by explaining what its value is in a logical fashion. No amount of bashing those who disagree with you will accomplish that, it will only shed light on your own irrationality and psychology. So, what's good about abstract art? How exactly is it an expression of a focused mind?
  10. Ok, just checking. What if they think the Pink Panther planned 9/11. Still focused and ready to go?
  11. Is this an example of me psychologizing: "People who think 9/11 was an inside job have an unfocused mind."? Keep in mind, I haven't met these people.
  12. Alright, I didn't know about that. This raises the question: why doesn't anyone lend and borrow in gold instead of US currency? (my guess is that it might have to do with the Treasury propping up financial institutions which deal in $US, but I'm not familiar enough with the system to make that assumption)
  13. It's not altruistic. Liberating others from tyranny, and allowing them to become trading partners, is a perfectly selfish endeavor. Why, what's wrong with removing a tyrant by force? Individuals have the right to oppose tyranny and fight for justice, on principle. The government is merely the tool individuals use to exercise that right. If I didn't have a government to do this for me, I would have the right to go over to North Korea right now, and put a bullet in Kim Jong Il's head. I would have that right even if he's not a direct threat to me, simply because he deserves it. As it stands, I have a representative government to enact justice on my behalf, so that right is delegated to it.
  14. I'm not 100% certain but, as far as I know, there are no laws that require businesses and individuals to accept legal tender (US coins and currency) for goods and services, in the US. It is in fact legal to open up a store and only accept gold, or potatoes, or whatever else you want as payment. The "legal tender" designation simply means that creditors in the US must accept that currency, and that all public charges and taxes can be payed in it. (obviously, Gresham's Law still applies to the credit markets, I'm not disputing your main point that the government is using force to support the dollar) If I am wrong, please enlighten me by linking to specific legislation.
  15. You're wrong, that's not why she didn't like collectivism and religion. The actual reason is that those things are anti-reason and anti-individualism. Between fighting for evil and fighting for good? Everything. When destroying a dictatorial government, we aren't forcing anything on other countries, we're preventing that government from forcing themselves on individuals in that country.
  16. If you can prove that you are able to support yourself (i.e. you have a job that makes you self-sufficient), you can seek emancipation before the age of 18, in Court. If that's not the case, but you can prove that your parents are abusive, you can be placed in the custody of the State. If that's not the case either, you must obey your parents until you are 18. Those are your legal options. If you're still a minor, you do not have the legal right to just leave. Your parents/legal guardians do have the right to find you and make you obey. Whether it's right or not for them to do so, that's another question, but it's their decision. You don't have to agree with their decision, or be happy about it, but you have no choice but to conform to it, for now. Unless you are in physical danger, you should not break the law by running away. That is most definitely not in your long term interest.
  17. That argument would make a little more sense if there were no communist countries on Earth. But there are, and they would welcome Michael Moore with open arms. All he would have to do, to renounce capitalism and experience his supposed ideal, is move there.
  18. As of the past couple of years, Somalia's official judicial system is Shari'a. And it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon. That is a problem in itself. There are some areas still not under government control, but most of the country, including most of Mogadishu, is now subject to the Shari'a court system.
  19. I disagree. I think you talked past everyone until most people decided to just ignore you. Then you chose to pretend that meant we don't have answers for your questions.
  20. As long as dissenters have prison and torture to look forward to in these countries, the only honest voice that will ever be heard is the voice of the subversive fanatics preaching radical Islam on the street corners. Everyone else is too afraid to speak up. The government propaganda in the state controlled classrooms and media, be it true or false, is dismissed by pretty much everyone for what it is: an attempt to enforce the state ideology, not to convince people of a truth. Under these supposedly pro-western dictatorships, Arab societies have in fact become more irrational and anti-western. Continued western support for these delusional tyrants, out of fear of a possible Islamist theocracy does nothing except ensure that outcome in the long run. Mubarak has no plans to westernize and free Egypt. His big plan was to rule forever and have his sons rule once he's dead. That's delusional: tyrants always fall. Besides, an immediate Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt, in the event of Mubarak's ouster, is not all that plausible. The military doesn't support the Brotherhood, and it has the power to prevent them from imposing a theocracy. It would take decades for that status quo to change, and those are decades which can either be used to open up Egyptian society and change the culture, or wasted by keeping the dictatorship and letting it fester until the Islamists become strong enough to just roll over the government.
  21. Sure. Doesn't mean you should just stay home and die, though, if you need emergency care. You should just make sure to pay them back for whatever care you receive.
  22. That meteorite contains strong evidence of bacterial life on Mars 3.6 billion years ago. It's not proof though. The other problem is that actual living bacteria could've taken the same route to Earth, 3.7 million years ago, that those fossils took just recently. That is a very plausible scenario (because of how recently this meteorite came to Earth, we can conclude that these events are frequent), and it means we still don't have two sources for life, just one: Mars. To dismiss the hypothesis that life is not unique, we need proof. Only then can we safely assume that life is abundant in the Universe. As for intelligent life, I think many generations will pass before humanity comes close to determining whether it's unique to Earth or not. Europa and Enceladus seem to have hidden oceans, but aside from those two unknowns we can safely state that there's no other complex, let alone intelligent, life in the solar system.
  23. Mathematical probability is a method of figuring out probabilities based on evidence. You didn't use it to figure out that the chance of life developing on a planed is one in ten billion, you just asserted that it is. Where did you get that number? It's also not wrong to hypothesize that life is a unique phenomenon. "There is nothing mystical about Earth" is not an argument against that hypothesis. If we were to find a second source for life, independent of Earth, then that would be grounds to dismiss my hypothesis, and we'd be left with yours. Until then, both are valid.
×
×
  • Create New...