Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Spiral Architect

Regulars
  • Content Count

    909
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by Spiral Architect

  1. Fighting Government control is part of a sense of life eroding from portions of our culture, although stubbornly if you watch the news. People fight but it is obvious that not everyone understands when they claim patriotism or other slogans to fight things like Obamacare (to use an American in process example) The basic problem is the same thing that makes people want security in other parts of their lives. Socialized Medicine is just part of a greater trend in what I would call "Living Insurance". It's the economic equivalent of Security Theater, brought to you by the same think spac
  2. Closer than we care to admit. We are running under Fascism Medicine right now. We have the government regulating who and how healthcare is used. It is only a simple switch from a government protected cartel of government regulated private companies to a bureaucracy that is the same thing. At this point your just changing who collects the money and pays kick backs for regulation privileges.
  3. I could have saved you a lot of work if you just said "huh? Double check your math." Because I did and realized I screwed up and reversed the numbers... Hey, I can admit an error. Reality is: 21 years ago: 35 cents = 1 peso so a 70 cent candy bar costs 2 pesos. Today: 5 cents equals = 1 peso so a 70 cent candy bar costs 14 pesos. So you are right, the peso is devalued extremely. I should actually have known better than to assume the Mexican Government wasn't debasing their currency worse than us. I just ran with your numbers as part of a larger point. To hel
  4. That is truly amazing and rocks. <-------- Adopted!
  5. Hello, What an interesting ethical question. Since it is an abstract statement and no emergencies are given to justify an extreme either-or situation, my response is why is this an either-or situation? Live life to the fullest, create many values as you can, then when your life is coming to an end do the act that perpetuates it into the future. Building win-win situations starts with the self. But this an abstract answer. JASKN gave the better concrete answer. I'm just adding food for thought.
  6. 1. Pointing out that the Peso has improved 700% against the dollar does not support the idea that Mexico has devalued the Peso. If anything it is an argument for US devaluation of the dollar. Now if you want to argue that the US Fed is causing malinvestment and economic issues, that is a reasonable argument and in line with free economic policy. Stopping the Fed from dollar devaluation would fix a lot of issues beyond this discussion. 2. Corn is not an argument against trade, but subsidies. I agree that US subsidies policy causes malinvestment and the ripple effect is distorting o
  7. Thank you! I'll come up with an image to try and help that
  8. I think the fundamental issue here as stated by another is equating sense perception with concept formation. Senses are proved by simply looking. It is basic awareness. What you see is what you see. It simply is. What you think can be right or wrong. Thinking requires work and choice. Civilization has spent 1000 of years overcoming errors of knowledge because we did not understand what we see. It doesn't make our senses invalid. It makes what we know invalid. We can fix the later and the purpose of science is to do just that. To link sense perception to understanding
  9. The reason Mexicans immigrates is: 1. The Mexican Government is corrupt to the point it makes Chicago Politics look like a Monte Python film, which is why their non-free economy is stagnate and quality of life in rural regions bad. If I lived in Mexico I would risk an American jail cell to get my family out, it is still an upgrade. 2. America has many generous public programs which is a problem with Welfare Policy and not immigration. Finally, the reason Americans choose to trade in Mexico is not foreign trade policy. When Communist China has lower Corporate T
  10. I do not get why people are linking free trade or currency manipulation to immigration. Free trade allows people to freely associate and deal with each other without paying a fee to do so. Malinvestment is caused by tax policy, not the lack thereof. At best, for immigration the trend would be inversed. People in our country being allowed to freely associate with people in a poorer country incentivizes those people to stay there to continue to receive the benefits of future transactions. They would not move here to be ignored since businesses will be trading with those still in the
  11. Reboot version 2.0. Been, years... Wow. Real life been a thing with family and work. In a much better place today and back to discuss ideas in a venue that actually appreciates discussing ideas. I like the changes. Nice clean look to things. Also good to see many familiar faces.
  12. Since I am not a patent expert this is merely an onion but I would say no one could patent an idea that is simply a riff on something already existing. That is why I said a spear is a bad example - By the time you get to an advanced society that has developed individual rights and has the need for species of property rights like IP simple designs are common (like forks). A fork was new in an age when the concept was not applicable. Today any interchange of parts is just playing with the same public domain material. You'd have to invent a sonic fork or an infrared knife for it to be considere
  13. But he did have the patent and was allowed to benefit first I fully expect that at some point the intellectual patent will run out and the same thing would happen.
  14. First - A spear is a poor example since no one would IP something so fundamentally simple and common place in an advanced society necessary for property rights in the first place. I know I started this example but that was to demonstrate why scarcity was not an issue - So I will apologize for setting up such a bad example. What we are talking about is IP. This requires a proper context of an advance society that has the need to demarcate different types of property rights into subcategories to protect people. A savage is still trying to discover fire and principles, let alone political rig
  15. Exactly! Now to bring this home, the essential factor is that I created it for my use. What it is does not matter. Only the fact I created it. It has value because of me. How it works in reality is really irrelevant at this point. To put it negatively, what it is or what others may think of it are not important. There is another science that deals with that.
  16. I know you're not talking about trade - I keep having to go back to it since you bring in an economic concept known as scarcity. I take issue with the whole tribal concept of IP as communal property and specifically you are using an economic concept to justify making this particular species of property communal. If it is that distracting however I'll delimit that point since I do not want to distract from the real point. Property as a moral concept.
  17. I am having copy/paste issue so I will just reiterate a comment from earlier that basically said you have taken nothing from a man if he invents a spear because the man can still use the spear. If I spend years inventing something new then yes - You have deprived me on the ROI for my time and money I spent inventing it. I have no reason to spend my life inventing something if it becomes communal property and I do not get a return for my time. This is the point. Just as taking someone's property is depriving them of the time they spent earning the object, so it taking a man's ideas deprivin
  18. Property is a response to the fact man needs to live and using his mind is his tool to do it. This is the crux of the issue.
  19. Toggle switch or no there is no physical aspect of an object that makes it of value as property unless you want to trade it, which comes much later in the process. Something is important to me because it in MINE. I am the source of it's value. Only in trade is it's value to others become important. I can be on a deserted island and the value in something I create is because I did it. The word "I" is what creates value - the "it" is irrelevant. Value assumes a valuer and I am the source of it's value when I create it. The tragedy of the commons is an event that demonstrates what happens w
  20. You're the one who made property dependent upon scarcity - I'm merely applying it to examples to demonstrate why it is irrelevant to property from an ethical standpoint. That is the point of objectivity - Pointing to reality. I keep trying to show that something being created by me and being mine has nothing to do with how scarce it is. What is important is that it is mine and I can dispose of it for me. Any kind of attempts to make property public is to sever that relationship. As for take a man's thoughts - That is what the attempt of making IP communal is - To take a man's thoughts you
  21. Something is property because I created it and will dispose of it for my own personal reasons. I think - I work to bring that thought into reality. The product of that thought is an object I plan to use to advance my life. I have property in the object since my ability to thrive is dependent on acting on my thoughts by disposing of that object. It can be unique or common, it doesn't matter. It's availability is not an issue ethically, only economic. Something is property because it is mine. It can be the only one in the world or I can craft a pebble like a billion others. It is mine. Of
  22. I think you are right in that today we discuss property in economic terms, which is what your argument is. The issue for me is that it is a moral issue. Thus the arithmetic comment. Even if binary, it is irrelevant as ethics is based upon man's need to thrive, not on whether something is plentiful or not. IP is like all property in that it is resolved as an ethical issue long before you advance to sciences like politics or economics. Property rights is a political right because it is a moral right not vice versa. This is the equivalent of suggesting freedom of speech is determined by eco
  23. I’m talking about the primal nature of man. There is no measurement since we are talking fundamental requirements. All animals have a method of survival. Man uses his mind and its capacity to reason to survive and it is this fact that allows him to thrive above the state of an animal. He thinks and then acts on that thinking. This ultimately ends in him bringing his thoughts into reality by creating objects that allow him to thrive according to his own individual ends. If he cannot have the product of his thinking, the property he has created, then you have nullified his mind and his abi
  24. We want property rights because it is a moral requirement to live and thrive as a human. Scarcity is irrelevant outside of later arguments involving pricing and like evaluations in the field of economics. Property is a moral issue that pre-empts all fields in the realm of ethics. The degree of one’s ability to live and thrive is dependent on this ethical issue. Air is a straw horse since it has nothing to do with property. Property is something you create (or in advance economics purchase by means of your work), which is what makes it a moral issue in the first place. A bagel is prope
  25. I think Trump is explain in two parts. One is the media's continual trying to turn everything from politics to the weather into reality TV has led to a realty TV showman getting the attention (for now) and second, he refreshingly doesn't play the typical politician, play nice, and act politically correct. Many people are responding to that. I don't think it will hold in the long run but it does at this early stage. People are decidedly over business as usual but when the campaign gets real and the party faithful really starts churning things will shake out. Remember Romney was behind ea
×
×
  • Create New...