tadmjones

But you can?

My recollection was the primacy of existence being the fundamental attribute of her system, but not wanting the connotations of other philosophic schools associated with the term existentialism, so she named it Objectivism. Is your use of her first name intended to display a familiar relationship? Did she relate to you that the name emphasized material objects , was that the reason for the name? The primacy of atomistic composition, then?

Not necessarily insane, but does this argument come from a concrete bound, nonintegrated , unprincipled view, yes I belive it does. In what sense could the retalitory use of force ever be a rights violation? Other than from a view that does not or can not integrate concepts like: retalitory, aggressor , and rights. Which is the same view that can not see property as anything but a material object.

If property has to be made of atoms, what if I were an employee of a courier company that delivers organs for transplanting. And I fail to deliver, heck never even pick up a needed organ. Never had physical contact with package, would a loss be suffered ?

I dropped the context of the govt use of force ,because I thought you were making a blanket statement about monopoly as such. But.. "A gang calling themselves..." I see where you are coming from, so yeah ok, I had the idea your beef was with such a gang and the discussion on IP was just a vehicle to get there, so have fun with that.

My monopoly control of my possessions is a violation of whose rights?

howardofsi #65 said Your life is filled with the benefits of the thinking of other people, which you received for free. That is one of the wonders of being human. We learn from others and humanity progresses. Referring to learning as "stealing" so as to excuse the desire to get rich by means of a coercive monopoly is not rational or moral. This is one of the wonders of living in a societal context and being able to enjoy such benefits ie accumulation and communication of knowledge, culture, division of labor ect. Not of 'merely' being human. That is a huge context to 'blank out' on. Ideas as property are rational and moral in the 'arificial' context of living in a society. The govt guslingers having a monolpoly on the use of force in retaliation against aggressors is a rational principle when used to thwart rights violations.

The only way a foreigner 'gets' the right to be in the US is if the government 'gives' it to him? Rights come from the government?

If there is nothing to lose, what does imitation gain?

Anathem is for philosophy nerds, Stephenson is quite the writer.

Of the Baroque Cycle novels I've only read Quicksilver a few years ago and mean to read the rest soon. Anathem is very interesting. Stephenson is the man. Actually I think I learned in Cryptonomicon why generating a true random is so difficult.

Newton was a character in a novel by Neal Stephenson : Quicksilver, I wonder how much liberty he played with his real life events.

BH You are saying that personal freedom leads to irrational outcomes. So how do we know the philosopher-kings? How do we determine who should think?

If the destroyer of America is not the progressive welfare state-ism funded by government debt and taxes, what is the optimum number of individuals that should be allowed to reside in its borders? And how to handle the excess?

Why bother with announcements, she could just hire a random quarry worker and she what that gets her.

bill eva andie and I suspect a few other names, is in the habit of this type of posting and is making the rounds of O'ist forums and generally getting banned

I agree , Obama's argument , the implications of the stance that 'you didn't build that' is that that stance 'blanks out' on how a division of labor society best fosters production in the aggregate, by recognizing individual rights as a foundation. I do not mean here to justify capitalism on utilitarian grounds, btw.

To be fair BH added a conclusion, if strict control doesn't work ,complete control would. Although how to get the agent of control in place was a little glossed over.

DA So diversification is not a case of nonmotivated trade, yes? Individual valuation has little to do with pricing, and all to do with trading. Given the universal rule of no backsies, the refundee is at the complete mercy of the refunder.

How is the minimization of risk post trade(presumably of financial/investment instruments) not a value to be gained? The price in dollars of any given cheeseburger is set (transacted) by buyer and seller, that most other similiar transactions involving cheeseburgers are similiarly 'priced' is a result of other acts of buying and selling cheeseburgers. Sellers of cheeseburgers rarely sell a burger for $5 and stop there. Price in dollars flucuate continually , the only time they are 'set' is at a particular instance of a transaction.

What would motivate a 'swapping' of equally valued assets? If neither party in a trade thought they were to gain, acquire a value, why do it? Are you saying that price and value are the same concept?

But how could other people 'teach' you love, if emotions aren't part of what it means to be human, if they(emotions) aren't already 'there' to sense or experience, how do other people 'put it in you '? Isn't the capacity to experience emotion just as much part of being human as is the capacity for sight? Isn't the integrated whole of these and other 'systems' the discrete 'self'? Describing them as systems separate from the whole , doesn't make it so.

So ie mom's class explains your kindred affinity for the K- man, I think they (20ishers) like 'whatever' too ,regardless how whould raising the min wage help? (and what)

How was posting fraudulent profile photos involved with 'her' project?, in some settings(contexts) that would make he/she the provoker, just saying, she should consider that in evaluating her data. Btw are you family friends because you are both from Georgia, or just happy coincedence? Did you become aquainted with her family because of the geographic proximity, or is it that that helps explain the proximity, not sure which is more believable. I read one post on this thread ('amerika') , and guessed you two were' acquainted. Funny, that

harris, nee matthews? How would raising the min wage 'help'? Do you mean that if employees earned more nominal dollars , they would have more to spend and drive up production ? 'What' would it help? Do you mean that wage earners spending more means 'boat lifting tides' that benefit 'all'? 'How' would/should it be raised? The help afforded to the 'economy' is to be directed by the government forcing employers to pay their employees what the govt deems necessary?