Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

Showing all content posted in for the last 365 days.

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. The British royal family is not exactly a family business, but business writer Suzanne Lucas found similarities relevant to anybody running one. The most important one is this: "Your children aren't obligated [to] remain in the family business." Building on this, and the family business-like nature of the royal family, Lucas notes the following: Image by Mark Jones, via Wikimedia Commons, license. In this case, the family business is set up explicitly for one person to be in charge, and all the other family members get to support that person. Prince William had the advantage of being able to say to Catherine Middleton, "One day, all this will be ours." Prince Harry could only say to Meghan Markle, "One day, this will all be my brother's, and we'll be doing the same thing we do today for the rest of our lives."And this isn't just any family business -- it's the royal family, and I agree with Lucas that there was probably no good way for Megan Markle to have truly figured out what she was getting into. I wish the ex-royals well, and salute them for making the difficult -- and admirably selfish -- decision that they did. -- CAV Link to Original
  3. Last week
  4. Yes, I am including you when I said most people. Yeah. I disagree with the example she gave about Nazi Germany, because I would argue that it was implemented by force. "It's only a matter of time" is a pretty empty thing to say, because entirely depends on how you respond. It says nothing about how threatening a particular socialist is. You are very authoritarian in your desired response to socialism, which is much the same as the authoritarian governments in South America in the recent past. By the way, you are confirming what I said when I said people vote for narratives. At the very least, you are showing that you don't vote for the person, you vote for the narrative. I'm saying that even Joe Rogan does this. I do this. You'd have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't.
  5. New York City is set to ban cashless stores. In other words, it is going to violate the right of a merchant to set acceptable terms for making a sale, allegedly to aid minorities and the "underbanked:" It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg for someone else to ask me to use this. (Image by flyerwerk, via Pixabay, license.) "When you open a dollar bill, it reads 'This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private,'" said Councilman Ritchie Torres, the sponsor of the bill. "Cash ought to command universal acceptance." [Really? On what basis? --ed] Once signed, businesses would have nine months to adjust before the law takes effect. Torres said the bill would protect the most vulnerable New Yorkers, such as seniors, homeless people and undocumented residents.Given that that this will incur higher operating expenses and security risks, some businesses will "adjust" by closing altogether, as I and others have noted before. And I have also already discussed how this will likely do more harm than good (even setting aside the further erosion of government respect for individual rights, which is much worse): ... Have these "consumer advocates" not heard of "food deserts" -- poor areas in cities that lack grocery stores? Cashless stores alone would not solve the problem, but it's conceivable that the ability to operate without mounds of cash on hand might make it safer enough for at least a few businesses to enter or start in such potential markets. And as for "the unbanked" not being able to pay, I am sure some enterprising soul could come up with a pre-paid way for many of them to use such stores, if that hasn't been implemented already. But that's not even the half of how ludicrous such proposals are... ... [G]uess who loses when their employer's costs increase? Or is it "elitist" to make entry-level employees accustomed to higher pay levels?And as if that doesn't show how short-sighted and self-congratulatory this bill is, its own backers don't bat an eye at the following double standard: The law would not apply to online transactions.But what do I know? New York is already considering a law to ban independent contracting, so maybe Amazon is already in the crosshairs, too. No new idea is too effective or promising in the realm of liberating the common man these days, that some kleptocrat won't manufacture a flimsy excuse for banning it. Perhaps, to show solidarity with those "oppressed" by the mere existence of technological alternatives to cash, Mayor de Blasio could start insisting on receiving his quarter million-plus salary in cash, and walk it home each payday after work. My calling de Blasio a hypocrite is no endorsement of his professed views: It may not be obvious, but it is just as ridiculous to demand de Blasio do this as it is for him to demand that a shopkeeper accept cash whether he deems it wise or not. There is a far better course of action he could follow, but it would take deliberation and courage because both go against the grain of today's political trends. He should think about something other than looking like a defender of the downtrodden in the eyes of the ignorant, and being a defender of them (and, in the process, everyone else) in actual fact. In other words, de Blasio could make a stand, rare in this day and age, for the inalienable rights of the individual to conduct his life according to his best judgment. De Blasio should refuse to sign this measure into law because it violates those rights. -- CAV Link to Original
  6. Rather than make a new thread I thought I would tack this entry onto this existing thread. quantamagazine.org: Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time nature.com Letter: To catch and reverse a quantum jump mid-flight
  7. Yes, and I'll add that the difference between a socialist revolution and a socialist reformation is that we should fear the latter more, because it indicates the widespread popularity of socialism, as when Germany voted in Hitler. And this means little or no hope for significant resistance.
  8. Are you taking Sanders for somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about? Or are you trying to argue that I don't know? Also, you sound like you disagree with Rand here.
  9. You have no idea what I'm thinking about. That much is clear.
  10. The Knowledge Illusion #5 The Knowledge Illusion #6
  11. Easy to understand is one thing. Easy to discern what you mean by socialism is still not the case. Not that I disagree, but isn't what we already have some sort of fascism? The phrase "participatory fascism" is gaining more traction. https://blog.independent.org/2012/10/30/once-more-with-feeling-our-system-is-not-socialism-but-participatory-fascism/ But ultimately, Socialism can be considered to be some form or subset of fascism. Bernie basically promotes "more" fascism. But then Trump also has some fascist tendencies too. The unfortunate thing is that fascism and socialism get power and support through democratic means and there is so much pride in that "we are a democracy" aka. mob rule.
  12. But that article was easy to understand. It makes very clear the difference between saying someone is a communist versus saying they are a socialist, right in the communism as a goal portion. That is correct. The revolutions you are thinking about are either communist or anarchist.
  13. Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but more accurately he is a fascist. Like described here fascism permits private ownership of the means of production, but subject to extensive control by government. "As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer." "Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms." State control is paramount. This captures BS's proposal for health insurance. He wants to eliminate private health insurance by the state taking over all health insurance, akin to Stalin taking over agriculture in the Soviet Union. If BS gets his way, the planning board, which already exists -- it's called Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services -- will have much greater power. As I recall, the Wikipedia article on fascism only weeks ago had more about its economic policy akin to the above. However, apparently somebody removed it.
  14. Sure enough, it means multiple things, some of them contradictory. That would be one explanation for why people don't understand it. But there is a common thread in most of the definitions. It is the opposite of respecting individual rights. Looking at Wikipedia under Socialism, there seems to be 5 or more types. Collectivization, Communism as a goal, Democratic socialism, Social democracy, Socialism with Chinese characteristics. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism They include "social democracy" in the topic but they indicate that "social democracy" is capitalism. Then the definition of Democratic socialism (seemingly the Bernie type): Democratic socialism is a type of socialism achieved through democracy. The main method of democratic socialism is changing society through slow reform rather than a quick revolution. Democratic socialism usually wants to gradually reform capitalism, similarly to social democracy, but these reforms won't stop until there is no more capitalism. Democratic socialism also usually entails all businesses being operated as worker-owned cooperatives. This Bernie type Socialism, is the actual monster that we claim it is, there is no misunderstanding or misinformation causing that condemnation. Pure democracy is socialism in the sense that if you can vote yourself free food, a house, a car, why not vote for it. Any individual's rights can be voted away. Pure Democracy does not exonerate socialism, it is a main ingredient of the poison. Maybe some people think that they can allow Bernie to win and after many years, similar to Sweden when the Taxes go up to 130 percent, the system can be voted down. Bernie's popularity seems to be due to the crony capitalism that exists and which, as a nation, we don't seem to dislodge.
  15. Can you elaborate on that. What is your definition of Socialism and its difference with Communism.
  16. Is that because there's no basis in factual history to fear a socialist revolution?
  17. I was talking in the past tense, I wouldn't vote for him anymore; so far this time around, I don't plan to vote for anyone.
  18. Do you really think it would be likely to remain that way if Bernie became President Sanders? What kind of federal judiciary and Supreme Court nominations would he make? Do you think it would be worth it to have America endure an avowed socialist as President if it gets Trump out of office?
  19. Put the social media down for your own benefit. Seriously. Mouse Utopia experiments
  20. You are demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. I mean, you've constructed a fear of socialists, which is blown out of proportion, but nevertheless, it is silly to say that you aren't voting for some kind of narrative. Not really, mostly people just don't understand what socialism is, very often confusing it with communism and treating as the same. To say more about why I would have voted for him back then, it was because he offered some kind of narrative about power structure and could get people to question that more, especially with regard to social policy.
  21. Those are the people you need to be the most careful about, in practice.
  22. Voting for Sanders is plain wrong for a principled capitalist. It's not even worth debating. If Sanders wins, we are in big trouble. I don't see Republicans going quietly into that dark, socialist nightmare. And if Trump declares martial law and tries to put the boot to Democratic Socialists, who could blame him? Are we supposed to watch peacefully while socialists gain federal power in America?
  23. If we are talking narratives, would you agree that Bernie is working with a changed definition of Socialism? There has to be some respect for what words mean. The problem is that in twenty years, we will have "Jewish Nazi's". We ask them well, what is that? and we will hear "I a good kind of Nazi. Ones who don't believe in killing Jews, we believe in social security and a booming economy and cool black uniforms".
  24. In the case of "personal morality", distinguishing it from "social morality", the concept of "prudent" and "moral" seem to have a strong connection. In fact "imprudent" does not carry the baggage of "immorality" and the shame and guilt that is associated with it. This is in the context of "personal morality", as in good and evil where others are not involved at all. It would be imprudent to put your hand is scalding water as it would also be "immoral" to do so. But most would not think of immorality in that situation, just simply "wrong" or "imprudent". Another example would be: "I imprudently left my front door open, when there were warnings of a burglar in the area" vs. "I immorally left" of "I was immoral when I left my front door open, when there were warnings of a burglar in the area". To take it further "It was an evil thing for me to do, to leave the door open in those circumstances". But trying to incorporate "prudence" as part of "social morality", as in "a prudent social structure" becomes confusing and controversial for many reasons.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...