Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Kate87

  1. http://www.hulu.com/watch/563008 Thought this was worth posting. Jony Ive definitely shares the same aesthetic ideals as Objectivism. Its good to see that one of the biggest companies in the world has such a good design philosophy. I'm just at the part where he's describing the design of the space shuttle window - how it's design is amazing and how the function dictates the form and the result is such a beautiful object. Love it.
  2. We delegate our use of defensive force to the police. I agree if its the heat of the moment, i.e. someone attacks you on the street, then you have to do it yourself. But generally its smarter for the police to do it. And if they aren't doing it because they're overwhelmed, then you have insurance.Why defend a business that is located in a crappy area? Relocate the business with the insurance monies. Don't risk injuring yourself.
  3. Of course the rioting isn't justified. I've not heard anyone here say it is. And those people defending their businesses with rifles? They are morons. The use of force is monopolised by the state in a free society. Those guys should buy insurance, sit it out at home, and plan the relocation of their business out of the area.
  4. That's not fair, I added the gun point because it was relevant, my main point is regarding police militarisation as per the thread title. Rereading some of my posts above I think I exaggerated on America being broken by the way. I don't in fact think its that bad yet.
  5. This feels like a language deconstruction exercise. Militarised is militarised. To give you a visual representation: Here is a video of the kind of looting in the English riots that was going on where I lived: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14474393 They were 15 years olds mostly, and note that the police did not target journalists. Note also that their riot gear is somewhere between the two extremes shown in the photo above.
  6. Bad source I agree, but the video footage stands on its own merits.
  7. See that Youtube video you posted and murders you quote? Stuff like that happens at a greater rate in America than in the UK. The important thing is that the two thieves are behind bars - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17232636 That is how you do policing and justice. No guns needed by the police. Let alone military equipment. During the London riots in 2011 I was angry. I even called for more to be done by the police. But you know what scares me more than rioters? Police with military equipment. The army on the streets should be a last resort. Normal riot gear combined with mass arrests and overnight court sessions were what stopped the London riots. No ridiculous military weapons needed. How can you not see the danger presented by militarised civilian law enforcers?
  8. “While the [London riots] were at their worst, people were calling for rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons to be used against the rioters, Ferguson is a living example of why we should be immensely grateful that those tactics were never used during the U.K. riots."[115] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/18/how-the-rest-of-the-world-sees-ferguson/
  9. Witness the police deliberately firing tear gas at journalists: America has broken down, if you don't think this is coming to a town near you soon then I have a poem for you:
  10. As I say, if any of those points are violated you get a spiral of violence. Witness the events in Ferguson as evidence where both citizens and police can own military grade weapons. Witness the arms race between citizens and the police as evidence.
  11. In a free society where the use of force is minimised: Citizens should be arrested for owning weapons like military grade guns and molotov cocktails. Citizens should have the right to peacefully protest without hassle from the police. Police should not carry guns in normal use. If citizens become violent, special police forces with weapons should be used sparingly and those weapons should not be military grade. All of the above is common sense and if any of them is violated you get a spiral of violence. Witness the events in Ferguson as evidence where both citizens and police can own military grade weapons. Ferguson is for all purposes a mini police state; if there isn't radical reform and demilitarisation across the USA (of both police and citizens) then your US town will be next. This leads into the debate on gun laws in the US. Police militarisation is a direct result of having an armed citizenry, where a literal arms race has occured.
  12. I agree. He speaks of enlisting them onto "electoral polls" which also doesn't make sense to my British ear. Surely this should be "electoral rolls"? In the same way he says the word "racists" but the way he slurs his speech he probably meant to say "races". The sentence doesn't make sense to enlist "racists from any country" but enlisting "races from any country" does make sense. So it's not just racist/races it's polls/rolls. Peikoff is definitely too old for this stuff and doesn't speak clearly enough. They're minor errors but can have huge differences to meaning as is demonstrated in this thread. How does "racists from any country" make more sense than "races from any country"? Especially in the context of his stated views of the Democrats deliberately letting in foreigners that vote Democratic?
  13. Is it immoral to make a fortune from bootlegging illegal alcohol? Surely the immorality lies with the government for making it illegal. He definitely values the wrong thing, ie Daisy. That's the tragedy of the story. But it still affirms Gatsby as being a great man. As Nick says "You are worth 10 of them" (paraphrase)
  14. *spoilers below* Not sure how you got that from the story! I took from it that Gatsby's ambition, vision, wealth, and love were basically wasted on the wretches surrounding him. The rest of the characters (apart from Nick) were leading careless lives having been born into wealth. Gatsby earned his wealth and so it can be seen as promoting the idea that people who earn their wealth are better than spoilt frivolous people with inherited wealth. The fact that Gatsby loses in the end, while the wretches walk off to more carelessness, is a sad ending but renders a powerful emotion at the injustice of it all. This serves to reinforce the worthlessness of everyone else and the worthiness of Gatsby. One thing that may interest people here is the Art Deco style of the movie which I have noticed feature in a lot of Ayn Rand literature eg the covers of FH and AS etc. Also I loved that the party music was modern pop and rap interspersed with jazz which conveyed some of the "bling" culture of the 1920s to a modern audience.
  15. I think racism is worse than socialism. France could be said to be more socialist than capitalist in that government spending makes up over 56% of the economy. Yet would you rather live in a racist society than France? France: Racist society: I do agree that France is like it is despite its socialism. Also that many other socialist societies don't look like France. However segregation and lynchings and such things happen in ALL racist societies. Therefore since some socialist societies can still protect a majority of a person's rights (like France), socialism is better than racist societies which trample on most of a person's rights.
  16. Both. If the first (unfree because so many actual criminals) then this shows how much violence is happening in the US (violence is not conducive to freedom). If the second, then that shows how much state sponsored threats play a part in life in the USA (not conducive to freedom). The mixture of the two is why I am saying the US is not free when compared with other countries.
  17. What's the point of debating these stats? Any measure will give you a shocking picture like this one: Incarceration is a legal use of state force to protect people from criminals using force. America is one of the most unfree countries on the planet because it has the most illegal criminal and legal state use of force. America is the society where force and violence rules (both legal and illegal).
  18. There are lots of great things about Japan but lots of negative things too: It's geriatric - it's the oldest population on the planet, which is growing older at the fastest rate. Apparently no one is having babies and the population is in freefall - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24638188 This means most of your taxes as a young person are being spent on the elderly. It's heavily indebted - government debt is 200% of GDP compared to 70-100% for most western countries. It's inward looking - ie. immigration is severely curtailed. It has a high suicide rate, indicating that people may find it more difficult to be happy in their culture. There is a crazy work culture - the Japanese earn about the same level of money as Europeans but work many more hours to get the same income.
  19. I still don't see this as a rational strategy. The way to get spending cuts is for the Republicans to win people over to their argument about debt levels, thereby winning elections and to pass normal legislation that cuts spending. If you are negotiating with someone who thinks spending shouldn't be cut, then offering not to shutdown or default in return for those spending cuts is offering nothing and will always lose.
  20. A deal has been struck with the Republicans gaining no substantial concessions. Great job in pointless grandstanding Republicans. You offered nothing, you got nothing. Meanwhile the country suffered.
  21. The Democrats offered nothing too! The difference is that they didn't tie nothing to a government shutdown and debt default. Duh. Here is what happened: Dems: Offered nothing in exchange for nothing. (they already had their bill passed so of course they are going to offer nothing duh) Reps: Rejected Dems offer and offered nothing in exchange for not shutting down the government. Dems: Rejected Reps offer and offered nothing. Again a rational response. Now which was the dumbest and most idiotic and irresponsible offer here? (Clue I have underlined it.) So why on Earth do you think that this underlined offer is rational? I really hope Obama continues to offer nothing because the Republicans really don't have anything to offer him as you guys have acknowledged.
  22. If the Republicans didn't know this, whose fault is that? Its the most obvious thing in the world that the Dems are not going to give up the ACA in return for the Republicans not destroying the economy. You'd have to be a moron to agree to that, and a double moron to think your opponent would agree to it. If you disagree with me, then tell me what the Republicans were offering in return for not funding the ACA? The fact is that they are offering to not destroy the economy. Which is the dumbest offer I ever heard. Please reply with what you think the Republicans are offering.
  23. Yes they did. As soon as they tied passing a budget to defunding of the ACA.
  24. Threatening to shutdown the government unless you get your concessions is just another form of negotiation? Just as a person who threatens with a pistol is identical to a person who threatens to blow up a nuke? That is what a debt default would be - its the nuclear option. There are no higher stakes. You mention that the Dems are just as much at fault because they can concede a couple of things and the whole thing would be over. Well if I threaten you with a nuke and you refuse to negotiate under such a threat then the possibility of nuclear annihilation is your fault for not conceding things to me?! Is it just that you don't see a default as having disastrous consequences and therefore see it as a viable negotiating chip?
  • Create New...