ropoctl2

It seems you forgot to provide a link to r/Objectivism

Ron Paul's op-ed on extrajudicial killing

Over here in chat-land, we are actually quite nice and friendly. But there are a couple guidelines that the newer generation of internet users ought to know about internet chat rooms. The first is, that you may not necessarily be walking into an interesting conversation. The second is, that you may not necessarily receive a greeting or response within the first few minutes. This isn't because we don't like you, it's because we have other tabs open. So I humbly entreat you, please stay at least 5 minutes before X'ing out the oochat window. (18:27:48) ObjectiBot: [some new guy] logs into the Chat. (18:28:58) 2046: sup (18:29:44) Bogomilist: hey newblood (18:30:46) ObjectiBot: [some new guy] has been logged out (Timeout). [/CODE] In this example, the new user closed the window almost as quickly as it was opened, and the connection timed out some time after messages were sent to him.

He needs to learn to become a more respectful communicator. Dale Carnegie's famous book is a good start.

Eugen Weber's Western Tradition lecture series is the best material I have found: http://www.learner.o...s/series58.html

That's surprising that the curriculum in Singapore focuses on Chinese and Indian civilization, when Singapore owes much more to the Western tradition. I would definitely learn about the Greeks. Eugen Weber's Western civilization course is a good intro: http://www.learner.org/resources/series58.html

I think those would more accurately be called "Beatitudes." Nice prayer

With Kokesh making headlines recently, I expect he will get a decent viewership bump, making an even better publicity opportunity for Brook.

The real core issue is whether or not it is proper for the government to require a permit to demonstrate on public property.

It is not a categorical imperative to identify the consequence of the ethical standard that the objective morality for everyone is to cheat strangers when they can get away with. Saying "if everyone cheated, this would happen" is not in itself an imperative statement. It is only a categorical imperative if you use that naked principle to assert an arbitrary ought. Do you agree that an untrusting society would result from cheating being in everyone's self-interest? As you said before, this would make life difficult for you. If this difficulty costs you more than you gain from cheating people, then the principle that it is in everyone's self-interest to cheat strangers contradicts itself.

Would it be in my self-interest to pay you in tungsten rounds plated to look like gold ducats for the house you want to sell me that has a major flaw that you are concealing from me?

I'm going to take West's advice and slightly break the rules I gave earlier. By accepting the principle that one ought to deceive others, you would advocate a society in which there could never be trust. Would you want to live in a society where you had to double-check that each stick of butter you bought is not adulterated by margarine? Think of the cost in your time that this would result in. You would basically have to become an expert in every industry to be able to verify every trade you take for granted in a trusting society.

We have a lot of newbies coming here asking questions about application of Objectivism, and I don't think the status quo way of dealing with them is very effective. Generally, the experienced members will lecture the new guy without any real participation by the newbie after he starts the thread. I am afraid that the newbies are simply acquiescing to what seem to them like intimidating arguments by authority. I have started an experiment in the debate forum http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21794 where I am trying a different approach with one such student. I don't claim to be a very good teacher, but I think a style where the teacher asks more questions might help the student think through something for himself.

Should not everyone follow this ethical principle?

Would you want every trade you make with someone to be more difficult to evaluate?

If you are intentionally falsifying the information he is basing his decision on, does that make it impossible for him to act in his self-interest?

This is an experiment in a different way to help answer newbies' questions about Objectivism and its application. Instead of telling someone in proof form why one should not lie, for instance, the more knowledgeable forum members will guide the newbie through the inductive thought process to arrive at the Objectivist principle. I posit that this will give the learner a better understanding of Objectivism if he has to think it though himself. The format for these discussions is not set in stone yet, but here are my thoughts on the initial rules: The student posts a claim in the first post, giving his premises as a starting point of the discussion. Teachers and student will alternate posts; the teacher will ask the student a Socratic style question to penetrate to the fundamental principles, and the student will respond. Teachers are allowed to state concretes if necessary, but not give any statement of principle, only asking questions. Any teacher may jump in at any time to ask a question, as long as the last post in the thread is from the student -- Only one question on the stack at a time I will start the questioning: Does deceiving someone to gain a value allow the deceived to act in his own self-interest?

Sure, why not? He's gone more hostile places to get his message out. Glenn Beck, for one.

Some of you may have heard of Adam Kokesh, a libertarian anti-war activist who got a talk show picked up by Russia Today. I think getting Yaron Brook on his show might be a good venue for Brook to get the word out. AVTM has a suggestion box, so let's give Brook some votes: http://www.adamvstheman.com/suggestions

Is the sale worth tarnishing your name over and potentially burning bridges with people who you might want to transact with in the future?

AL-BAQARA (THE COW) 106 An "interpretation" that ignores this would be no more Islamic than an "interpretation" of the Quran claiming that one ought to pray to Baal Peor.

Not to threadjack, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Reductio ad Absurdum is not a logical fallacy.

In a broad sense, Romer's idea of a charter city in Honduras seems pretty sound. In current events, Honduras war under fire by progressives worldwide for _adhering_ to the letter of their constitutional law when their supreme court removed their president for violating the constitution. It seems that there is at least the desire there not to be a banana republic. Romer seems to be looking for a foreign country to guarantee the independence of such a charter city in Honduras, but I'm not sure if that would even be necessary. Plenty of oil companies continue to go back in to South American countries to build new oil rigs after their previous oil claims have been repeatedly nationalized. I don't think it would be inconceivable for a multinational to build up infrastructure in a Honduran charter city without a foreign guarantor. Rather than looking at Africa, there is a lot more opportunity for development in the New World. On the same hemisphere as America, it would be easier to integrate into its economic sphere. Another significant reason I would discourage you from looking at Africa is that sub-Saharan Africa has yet to prove to the world that it has gotten past tribalism. The conflicts in that continent, of course, don't make every country guilty, but it would not be rational for any investor to ignore that risk either. One mercy of Catholicism was that it unified the culture of South America, and there have not been recent tribal genocides. My suggestion is for you to try to work with Romer on his project and see if you can try to influence it from within. From the TED lecture I saw, he seemed un-ideological, so it might be good for someone to provide his idea with a rational basis.