Dairdo

Proper prior planning and preparation would minimize or obviate the need for drastic emergency measures. The question is are the people and their government foresighted enough keep their peace by preparing for war in peacetime?

I've read a few of the books noted above, and they're great from a modern historical perspective. If you're looking for a more anthropological review, Guns, Germs and Steel was a very entertaining and informative read. Takes a 15,000 year perspective, proposing a comprehensive theory about the factors that, in the author's opinion, contributed to the rise of modern civilization in some places, and not in others.

JeffS is under the impression that one can set any terms in a contract and that the police must enforce those terms, he expresses that here:

This is clearly not true and my rejoinder to his assertion was this:


Contracts, like the law in general, are meant to protect rational actors. So the mafia's "contract" to kill someone is legally unenforceable. Even less absurdly, most courts will not enforce an outrageous interest rate on a loan, it must be considered "reasonable".

I wanted to raise this issue also with an eye toward Ayn Rand's proposed "contract fees" as a way of voluntarily funding a proper government as this issue has been raised before on the Forum. The reason why contract fees would be legitimate and not an infringement of one's right to contract is because you can't pass on the cost of fulfilling the terms of your contract to everyone else in society. One has the right to contract but one doesn't have the right to have everyone else pay for any dispute that arises because one made a poor contract.

This applies to roads also. If you own a highway and set the speed limit at 50 mph and say that you are going to pull over anyone going 52 mph and up and fine them $200 each, you have no right to force the rest of us to pay for the thousands of police and hours in court it is going to take to enforce your contract. You can hire your own security force and pay for it yourself and see how long you stay in business.

There will always be stupid and bigoted people doing stupid and bigoted things.
It is very important when one gets angry at such as this that you can't just be against something.. it is much more powerful to be for something.

If you're looking to counteract or negate the effects of people like this, I'd say the first step to take is to stop thinking in terms of fighting against religion and to begin thinking in terms of being for individual rights and reason.

I think this type of analysis (e.g. today's price is only justified if people were expecting alternative returns of 50% in 2010 and zero now) tells us that something different is happening in gold, but I don't think that one can extrapolate to the conclusion that gold is over-valued, nor that it will be lower (say) a year from now. I'm not making this point about gold alone, but this type of analysis in general. It is extremely useful analysis, but consider the form it takes:

1. Prices we saw at time T1 can be rationally explained if we assume A1
2. Prices we saw at time T2 can be rationally explained if we assume A2
3. A1 and A2 are incompatible by any rational analysis
4. Therefore... the market is mis-priced at time T2

As you see, #4 does not follow, because the market might just as well have been mis-priced at time T1. In fact, the market may have been partly mis-priced (in opposite directions) at both T1 and T2.

It is pretty clear that the people's demand for gold has increased. The fact that people hold gold is not inconsistent with their expecting deflation. Expectations are something of an average viewpoint, of where people think things are going. However, human beings actually think of the future more like it is a set of possible outcomes, rather than some average outcome. There are a fair number of people who think the medium-term (5 year) outlook is credit-deflation, yet, they simultaneously think that the 'tail risk" of crazy political action have increased as well. So, they are buying gold even though they do not think it is going to be their killer investment. The possibility of alternative returns does play into it too: an Krugman is right in the broad sense that the lower the possibility of returns from elsewhere, the more comfortable people are to put some of their money into gold.

It is not clear to me that the demand from gold is coming mostly from people who have inflation expectations, rather than from people who see an increased probability of inflation while continuing to hold a fairly neutral or deflationary expectation.

People get lost in the woods every day. That is not unusual. Those who are lost alone...die much more often than those who are lost in groups. The fact remains...these things do happen. To say they don't is incorrect...and to say they don't happen often is also incorrect. You should Google it. Don't try to pretend situations like this are fictional, just to win an argument. They are actually very common. Not just in AMERICA but around the world. Furthermore, without civilization, we would all be living like this.

"Not putting other people's needs and interests above your own" does not mean the same thing as "paying no regard to them."

"Not putting other people's needs and interests above your own," logically means that you can regard those needs to some degree, or disregard them, but you just cant place them above your own."

HAHA

You see how that works right? I hope for your sake you do.

"Disregard" is the equivalent of "paying no regard," because NO regard, means the absence of all regard.

Disregard: to pay no attention to : treat as unworthy of regard or notice (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Since selfishness is defined as having concern for yourself with NO REGARD FOR OTHERS, then it must be concluded that this is what Rand meant by Selfishness. She defined it herself in "The Virtue of Selfishness."

She also said "you are not required to give in order to exist."

The assertions that I used in my post, were straight from Rand. I did not alter them at all. All I did was put the definitions in place of the terms. She said those things not me. Those statements are hers.

You are calling me foolish, but you are contradicting her statements in your argument. The statements are set in stone. Sorry.

RAND SAID "THE ONLY RATIONAL ACTION IS THE ACTION THAT SERVES YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST.

Define SELF-INTEREST...and you will finally understand that term.

SHE ALSO SAID "ALL RATIONAL BEINGS ARE SELFISH," meaning all rational beings ONLY THINK ABOUT THEIR OWN WELL-BEING AND PAY NO REGARD TO OTHERS, IF YOU PAY REGARD, YOU ARE IRRATIONAL

Now to address your statements about sacrifice:

If you believe that one should not sacrifice,

and you believe that not feeding my friend is the same as sacrifice, then you must believe that not paying taxes so the poor to can have health care is also sacrifice. Right? Same concept. Having the means to help some one, but not helping them. "AYN RAND SAID YOU HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO SHARE."
SHE DIDN"T SAY "YOU HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO SHARE< EXCEPT WHEN NOT SHARING RESULTS IN SACRIFICE" Right?

AND DON'T INSULT ME.

THANKS

In logic, we can discount certain ideas immediately because they commit the fallacy of self-exclusion. This idea, no doubt having good intentions, after all you are only trying to preserve freedom and the prevalence of liberal ideas, excludes itself because you are advocating violating rights in the name of protecting rights. Expropriating property in the name of ensuring that property is protected doesn't make any sense, and therefore abandons the use of reason it was supposed to instill in the populace.

But there are further problems. The main idea itself seems to stem from a mistrust that the market can provide education or that market education will lack in liberal ideas. But if the market can't provide a populace educated in the use of reason and instilled with a liberal culture, why is it assumed that engaging in a policy that explicitly flouts the laws of logic and the consistency very liberal ideas it is supposed to protect is going to result in the very liberal culture that was otherwise assumed to be impossible? If the populace doesn't embrace liberal ideas, it's hard to see why engaging in explicitly anti-liberal ideas is going to change their minds. Are we to believe that the public would be entirely unable to "use their consciousness to reason" unless you take their money from them and spend it for them? If the public is incapable of making rational choices, then how this same public is expected to suddently be able to make the right choices in running a public education system is unclear.

In addition to the false assumption that engaging in illogical and anti-liberal policies would fix these perceived defects, the original assumption itself that (1) we would all be stupid, irrational, and incapable of making choices without public education, and that (2) the public will embrace anti-liberal ideas without public education, is not justified. It comes from the Marxian doctrine of historical development of capitalism, in which there is a growing number of poor, uneducated, unemployed proletariat, continually pushing against the verge of starvation as wages fall lower and lower, and all wealth is centralized into the hands of fewer and fewer capitalists. The dissatisfaction with the capitalist mode of production increases as "class consciousness" develops until such a level is reached that the working class demands social change. But this is nonsensical pseudo-science, as it is based on the fallacious economics, such as the "iron law of wages," and incoherent philosophical mumbo-jumbo, such as dialectical materialism. There is no reason to believe either (1) or (2), nor that the market is incapable of providing education services, nor that this in itself would result in more anti-liberal ideas being prevalent.

Not to stop there, we can further criticize its method. You say that school choice is necessary, that privately owned schools are a necessary, and that the current curriculum is unacceptable. Well, if you plan on retaining choice in competition between producers, then how are you going to allocate your tax funds? You can't give it to any of the producers of education services, because that would be choosing for the consumers, and favoring one producer over another. Suppose, you say, let's give it to the consumers of education instead, and let them use it as a voucher to choose. But this doesn't make any sense. You are taxing the people, i.e. taking money away from them, then giving them the tax money back in order to spend it on education. What is the point in that? Why not just let them keep it in the first place and spend it themselves?

But they might not spend it on education, or they might not spend it on education in liberal ideas, you say. But, you say choice is a must. This, again, contradicts itself. They are free to choose, but not to choose something you don't like. Suppose some Muslims send their children to strict Islamic schooling. Suppose some Christians send their children to orthodox schools. No, in the name of liberalism and freedom of choice, I am going to forcibly redirect your values and choices to where I want them to go. There will be less money for each individual's values, and instead the money will be taxed and redirected towards Nigel's values. But I only want to ensure liberal ideas! You say. "We are for free enterprise!" Dr. Ferris screams. But this amounts to saying that you want to seize money that doesn't belong to you, in order to dragoon the children in government run, or government approved schools, for the sake of instilling in them liberal ideas. I'm going to brainwash your children to be free, damn it! Whether you like it or not! In the name of freedom! Pay up or go to jail! The manifest incoherence and self-contradictory nature of this idea, should be readily apparent.

Parents, in their role as consumers, are as sovereign as they are in the software and computer industries. A system in which families decide the best educational vehicle for each of their children and in which entrepreneurs, eager to earn profits, compete to best satisfy the demands on them is the only kind of education system compatible with the liberal ideas of freedom and choice.

I have a couple of separate points:

1. There are two branches of Objectivism which relate to homosexuality:

One is Politics. In Capitalism, the state has no right to interfere with any kind of sex, or any kind of personal relationships, between consenting adults. End of story.

The other is Ethics. First off, there's the question of sexual orientation. Since it is very clear that homosexuality is not consciously chosen (but is determined from birth or during early childhood), it falls outside of the realm of Ethics. Beyond that, the morality of homosexuality depends on the particulars, just like in the case of straight sex and relationships. Sex and relationships based in people sharing the right values are good.

2. As for the opinions of self-proclaimed Objectivists, they shouldn't matter. Objectivism isn't a cult (or even a single "community"). At most, it's comprised of circles of friends, loosely connected or independent of each other. There is no reason why some self-proclaimed Objectivists' opinions should ever interfere with your life, or your choice of a philosophy, unless you expressly invite them to do so.

In my experience, most Objectivists are not anti-gay in any way. In fact there is an unusually high percentage of Objectivists who actually are gay. And if someone insults gay people, he is quickly refuted in Objectivist circles, just like any other bigot would be.

You shouldn't have any problem finding Objectivists who don't mind your sexuality to hang out with. So being gay should not keep you from seeking out Objectivism as a philosophy, or Objectivists to associate with.

Did you plan on commenting, or just rehashing the news cycle?

Am I alone in thinking that the Stock Market is immoral and irrational? The reason I believe it is, is because a company should grow as far as it can by the individual instead of a group that makes money for doing nothing and allowing a company to grow only if they feel like it. The group can also make the creator of the company leave if he doesn't bow down to their will.

I disagree strongly. The comparison that I would make is that of city and county police jurisdictions. A city's police force is funded for a single reason: to protect the rights of individuals within that city. They do not have jurisdiction outside of that region, and they shouldn't. To say that such an entity shouldn't step outside of its bounds is not to say that people in the next county over don't deserve rights, but rather that a different body is supposed to be protecting them, and keeping jurisdiction clear is vitally important to the rule of law. You can argue that the borders are arbitrary, and that's true, but not really a refutation. We still need clear lines of jurisdiction and responsibilities in order for rights enforcement to work, even if we have to arbitrarily draw such lines. The fact is, our country's military exists to protect people within the borders of this country from foreign attack. The issue is slightly complicated by the question of U.S. citizens in other countries, and whose job it is to protect them exactly, but one thing is sure: our national military is not the world police, and it shouldn't be.

He claimed not that Iran was justified, but rather that American military nosiness was the primary catalyst behind this whole cluster of nonsense in the first place, so it is reasonable to assume that even more American military nosiness will only lead to more of the same. He is right in thinking this.


It was a failed mess the second it began; the only justice the entire endeavor ended up bringing was Bin Laden's battlefield execution, and that was at the cost of a decade of war and thousands of American lives.


He's not a pacifist, he's just simply not an interventionist either. He (rightfully) expects a legitimate war, not declared on "terrorism" or "radical Islam", but on an opponent country to be the sole reason for deploying American troops in a foreign land.


This is his greatest flaw. I agree with you one hundred percent; this is an example of Libertardianism at its most ridiculous.


So were our Founding Fathers, if you'd care to check out the Declaration of Independence. I still don't understand why this is such an issue for you people.


Actually, his pro-free market (not pro-Capitalism though; you are correct in that) ideas and policies, however poorly founded, would provide Americans the breathing room they need to start being prosperous again, his fiscal responsibility would allow America to begin to pay off her debts, and his "bring our troops home" conviction would save the government billions. America could begin to enjoy prosperity and productivity like she hasn't seen in thirty years, and all would know that it was because of our slight (however slight, indeed) return to liberty.


I don't even know why I have to say this, but fuck Israel. And your fear for the U.S.'s safety from Iran is a bit phobic; first, Iran will have to actually demonstrate a motive and capability to harm the U.S. (as in, acquire an Air Force or Navy), then we can begin to consider military action against them.


All in all, Ron Paul is not an Objectivist candidate, and I'd never claim that he is. What he is, however, is an Objectivist-friendly candidate, in that he will be very eager to step out of the way of the free market and all of its productive individuals as they make better lives for themselves and bring America back from the brink in the process.

I will be more exact and precise in my expression. Please be literal in trying to understand what I write.


You claimed it was possible to download a copyrighted song and then not make money off of it. I dispute that is at all possible if the song was only otherwise available by purchase. You have the benefit of possessing the song without making the appropriate trade of value for value, in other words you have accomplished a petty theft. You have more money than if you had paid for the song.


No, I shifted to patents. The topic of the thread is both patents and copyrights. The property right is in the invention, and if you have it without permission you are infringing the patent. It does not matter in the least if you invented it independently if you did so after the patent holder. The publication of the patent is official notice of the property claim fully equivalent in function to a deed registered with the local government, and after that time you are bound to respect the inventor's right to exclude others from his property. (There is an exception granted in patent law for prior inventions held as a trade secret, continued use of the trade secret is not infringing.)

The continued reference to "idea" is inexact and misleading. It is not mere ideas that are property. Only inventions in specifically claimed forms can be patented and only specific original works can be copyrighted.

Any and all rights only pertain to a social context. If disclosure of the patent or exhibition or sale of the copyrighted work constituted permission for all comers to reuse and resale that property that would be the immediate negation of any property right because one attempted to use it in a social interaction. So, this criterion you propose "if you tell people about it you give it away" is simply assuming there is no such thing as a property right, not proving there is no property right.



No, you got it totally wrong. Control is the only thing that matters. I was drawing a distinction between possession and control. One of the important conveniences of living with a government that defines property rights by means of formal titles such as deeds to land, copyrights, and patents is that continuous possession and self-defense of your own property is not required. You can lend your car and still own it and control it. "Control it" does not mean you can still drive it remotely, it means you can delegate authority to drive it to someone else without forfeiting your right and title to the car.


Again this is imprecise thinking, it is not mere "ideas" that are at issue. Only certain kinds of products of mental effort are potentially intellectual property. By constantly using "ideas" you cast the net far too widely. Most thoughts referred to by the concept of an idea are not eligible to become property.




If a patent can be unpredictably shortened by someone else inventing it, then that is indefiniteness on the too-short side. Indefiniteness does not only mean 'indefinably too-long'.


Now it is my turn to ask where are you getting this from? That is not the law, nor is it desirable that it should become the law.



What makes property property is the acquisition or creation, use and disposal of it. In a land with no government, "the fountainhead of property is possession" (stealing a phrase from Adam Mossof). In the social context of civil society it is logically necessary to have the right to exclude others in order to preserve the original right to acquire, use and dispose of property in relations with other people.

Denying the right to exclude makes property socially nonexistent, and the consequence would be that the only property anyone could ever have is what could be immediately physically possessed and defended. In this case, the very concept of property would be completely redundant and have no different meaning than possession.

This line of thinking that no one should have control of anything except immediate possessions dovetails nicely with the anarchist desire to breakdown all social abstractions into mere concretes, but it has nothing to do with freedom from the encroachments of other men on one's own efforts. By destroying the ability to own anything beyond what is at hand, this would effectively destroy capitalism and make the communists and other forms of egalitarian utopians happy that everyone is now equally poor and no one can ever be rich. This idea is just vile.

Many of the questions people post here, including this one, are actually not very philosophical but are primarily about the philosophy of law. There are new legal problems with extending intellectual property into digital media, and the ability of big media companies to purchase congressmen and unfairly extend their copyrights beyond all bound of reason is unjustifiable. It is an impractical and immoral solution to these problems to destroy the very idea of property and the right to exclude.

Here is more detailed writing on these specific problems:

What is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together
Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law
Arizona Law Review, Vol. 45, p. 371, 2003
Abstract:
This article offers an alternative to twentieth-century theories of property, which have eviscerated the concept of property and thereby undermined the policy foundations of property doctrines ranging from eminent domain to intellectual property. The result is that legislators and judges lack the ability to define properly the purpose or the boundaries of the legal doctrines that they are enacting into law or ruling on from the bench. The complaints are omnipresent - from the expansion of legal entitlements afforded to owners of intellectual property to the indeterminacy that plagues the takings jurisprudence. As a solution, this article advances an "integrated" theory that combines the exclusive rights to acquire, use and dispose of one's possessions into a broad concept of property. The integrated theory of property provides a descriptive account of past and present property doctrines, and justifies or critiques the evolution of these doctrines into the twenty-first century.

Is Copyright Property?
Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law
San Diego Law Review, Vol. 42, p. 29, 2005
Abstract:
This essay is based on commentary on Richard Epstein's article, Liberty vs. Property: Cracks in the Foundation, which was delivered at a 2003 conference. The essay suggests that the opponents of Epstein's position that copyright entitlements are derived from similar policy concerns as tangible property rights would reject his thesis at the conceptual level, maintaining that copyright is not property, especially in the context of digital media. By assuming their rallying cry that "copyright is policy, not property," this essay reveals that opponents of digital copyright are caught in a dilemma of their own making. In one sense, their claim that "copyright is policy, not property," is an uninformative truism about all legal entitlements, and in another sense, represents a fundamental misconception of the history and concept of copyright. The concept and historical development of copyright are more substantial than its representation today as merely a monopoly privilege issued to authors according to the government's utility calculus. The essay concludes with the observation that those who wish to see copyright eliminated or largely restricted in digital media are in fact driven by an impoverished concept of property that has dominated twentieth-century discourse on property generally. As a doctrine in transition - we are still in the midst of the digital revolution - copyright may be criticized for various fits and starts in its application to new areas, but the transition itself does not change copyright's status as a property entitlement.

I'm an Objectivist. One of my sons is gay. I don't view him as being immoral, first because it was never a choice for him. Morality is based on the chosen, not some arbitrary attribute. Second, even if he did choose his sexual preferences, as long as no one is forced or coerced, it's a free choice, and as such if it makes him happy, then it's still moral.

Having said that, I think some Objectivists don't care for homosexuality, and may even by repulsed by it. I don't think that's immoral, either, as long as they don't end up using force as a result of that view. In fact, in my son's case, he finds women to be sexually repulsive. So what? Really.

"Rational" is the word you keep missing when Objectivists talk about self interest. The self interest of a plant is less than the self interest of an animal, the self interest of an animal is less than the self interest of a human. When Ayn Rand talks about a man she is talking about a rational consciousness. The self interest necessary for the “Rational” to survive.

A human being is not a natural resource, he is not coal to be mined, he is not a crop to be harvested, he is not to be taken out of context of his nature. His nature requires freedom in order to live up to his highest potential, his mind can not function as a slave. The concept of slavery has only been eradicated in the last hundred years. The concept of being egomaniacal and the concept of altruism are remnants of that slave mentality. A man who is interested in himself does not need to enslave, he does not need to allow anyone else to enslave him. Why should Objectivists leave the word self interest in the custody of slave drivers?

Objectivism is not for those who wish to be slaves, nor for those who wish to enslave. It reveals to a Rational Man that unearned guilt, unjustified fear, and his consent are the only things a parasite needs to keep him a slave. It teaches man that he is not a helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, he is responsible for feeding his own destroyers.

What you may be wondering is if it is worth your time to read about Objectivism. An Objectivist doesn't want you to take anything from any authority but the rationality of your own mind. I could tell you that the 64 pages of “This Is John Gault Speaking” in Atlas Shrugged are 64 of the most important pages written in human history, but why should you take it on my authority?

I am wondering if it is worth my time to encourage you to read one book, no one can read the book for you, and no Objectivist wants to waste their time on someone who doesn't want to invest their own time on Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand said it so eloquently, and thoroughly, and she already spent her time saying it, it seems redundant to spend our time saying it.

The six books I have read of hers over and over again have expanded my consciousness. I am so much more powerful and alive, it is tragic to me to remember the time before I had them. No one can give that to you, it is something you have to earn.