Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    2008
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

Everything posted by tadmjones

  1. To clarify my post, in all honesty I was probably unfairly bringing in(perhaps) misremembered arguments from other threads re polylegal , market based legal systems. I think differences of opinion is that area tend toward whether or not those types of systems can ever be objective in implimentation, which is probably beyond the scope of this thread. As to the above , I would say I agree with your position re rights, with maybe a few diagreements with either connotation of terms or just semantics. Inalienable does mean( or I understand as) not having the ability to be 'stripped away', but even one step further, not only can they not stripped away from any indivdual by another's say-so , but they can not by their nature be forfeited either. I also do not believe rights can be granted, so even office holders in a constitutional system acting in that capacity do not 'have' rights, other than those they have by their human nature. The office would have certain powers granted by the governed, but ideally those powers would be precisely defined and highly constrained.
  2. I would say that a lion can not 'murder' a trainer. The lion may not not kill the trainer, but I do not think the lion makes a conscious 'decision' not to kill, apart from reacting to its training. Coersion is the act of consciously taking actions to 'force' other agents to act in a certain way, there has to be conscious recognition of the possibilities , I do not see the type of consciousness that 'lower' animals possess as being able to operate at that level.
  3. DA I'm confused , are you saying anti-productive would be more apt than non-productive? Value qua concept 'means' those things which agents act to gain and or keep, I do not recognize a strictly normative connotation within the concept, though contextually it is hard to avoid it, perhaps I am being too literal.
  4. As long as we approach the ultimate understanding in a way that keeps in mind, we are descrbing that which is, and constantly checking and keeping in mind they we are looking at and describing reality and not trying to 'understand' reality based on what the 'maths' say it is or can't be. IT IS, regardless.
  5. And I am fine with your choosing to see that polylegalism would necessarily concede the premise that groups of individuls would in fact(perhaps de facto as opposed de jure)enjoy the rights you deny to 'government'.
  6. DonAthos in #98 said By asserting that, when one man "owns an idea," then another man does not have the right to use that same idea without permission. So: if I own the piano, or a particular style of piano, or however we're framing my "intellectual property" over pianos for the purpose of this example, you are not within your rights to build one. No you misinterpret my position. I say anyone can manufacture a piano(Franz's piano) but if Franz has had his design duly recognized as being his design then no one else can expect to offer Franz's idea inhe marketplace for profit. It is Franz's right to enforce the protection of his rights in property in the marketplace as it concerns his duly recognized and protected right to own his design. I do not think this means that Franz has any right to stop Joseph from making a physical copy that embodies his(Franz's) idea, just that if Joseph then tries to profit from Franz's design, that Franz would have the ability to restrict that action on Joseph's part either by being compensated for the profit, or even that Franz may decide to not seek restitution, I am only here concerned with protecting Franz's objective moral right to his property joseph's actions have to be judged as after effects of the origination of Franz's ideas being expressed. I am way pro franz and ambiviolent to Joseph the usurpar.
  7. Dormin111 said #31 By theoretically successful coercion, I mean the typical Objectivist standard of flourishing qua man. In the case of predatory animals, they do flourish with their maximum potential through coercion because that is in there nature Coercion implies intent is this equatible on the animal/predatory level?
  8. I agree that there is no such thing as group rights, the concept of rights is only applicable to individuals. Given LFC , government is instituted to protect rights held by individuals. But I see government as a principled statement of appropriate interactions between individuals, a way to conduct relations governed by principles expressed in laws. Government in this sense is more the ideas , the actual people that facilitate the practical applications of carrying out the functions of various offices are not a recognized 'group' as having powers above and beyond any other citizen. .
  9. I think 'value' groups those things which one acts to gain and or keep, should implies something other than that which is saught , what purpose would be served by a concept that groups those things which are not saught? Plants 'value' co2 , but not a whole host of other things, what would you refer to by forming the concept of all the things plants do not seek , I do not think there could be a 'group' such as all the things plants do not value(act to gain or keep) that would be available to perception to integrate into a concept, its more like a confusing form of semantics and playin' with epistemologic terms eg the example of anti-warm
  10. Again assuming a Gulch-like society, how could IP be anything other than marketplace restrictions? I see no other context outside of a rational division of labor society where IP has any relevance. Franz's ability to restrict Joseph's actions as it concerns Franz's duly recognized and protected idea is I think easily understandable. Rand gave capitalism its moral justification, what is immoral within the context of a rational society about protecting commercial property, eg ideas that are duly recognized as original and unique(not discoveries and/or explanations of natural phenomenon)? I can see how attention would need to be focused on how these procedures were implimented, but not why the principles on which they are based are on face .. what immoral, unnecessary, invalid? Just as Franz's right to be free of harm caused intentionally by another can only be recognized and protected when that freedom can be violated (living in a society), so too can his right to gain from his ideas(property) only be protected when faced with possible violation. Freedom from intentionally caused physical violence and IP infringement are only possible in a societal context. On a desert island Franz may be said to 'have' those same rights, but it is only when it is possible to have his rights violated that a need for their 'protection' is relevant. Oh and not sure if it will muddy or clarify my stance but I see Franz as an originator, Joseph as a copycat(whether from not filing timely, or intent) and Sergei as a commie( I don't like commies)
  11. I like non better than anti, anti is too specific. Rand said value implies to whom, for what. Would cold be anti-hot, or visa versa? Could there be antiwarm? Or rather what purpose would the concept serve?
  12. DonAthos said # 36 Governments only exist as particular, actual groups of individuals. What do you mean by this? The US constitution is a particular actual group of individuals? Or do you mean the functions of government are carried out by particular actualr individuals , and that they may or may not adhere to the principles of a 'governemnt'? Is it not possible to have a 'government', a principled moral foundation for the conduct of human interaction, adhered to be individuals? Earlier in the same post you stated that 'government' should be seen as a collection of individuals in the same why 'society' refers to individuals. I think this a non sequitor, in that society as a concept has no referent other than the relation of individuals to individuals( those who live in geographic proximity and follow similar cultures and customs), but government refers to (at least in LFC) to a set of principles that conduct interactions between individuals. The fact in reality individuals will have to function within the dictates of government to facilitate its role , does not mean the individuals have the legitimate right to change or alter those dictates, the fact that individuals may at times abuse or ignore those strictures does not mean they do not exist , or that government does not have a referent other than that which 'society' has akin to individuals.
  13. Assuming an LFC society, under consideration of IP ( and derivatives copyrights, brands, trademarks ect) why would Franz own Joseph's piano? I would say he has the recognized right to enforce his registration of his idea ( an implied 'ubercontract' ) in the marketplace. Franz should not be able to claim as his property any piano Joseph builds, whether Joseph created the design independently or reversed engineered Franz's idea. But since Franz has his piano idea duly recognized as the first instance of an original idea, Franz should then have the ability to restrict Joseph from using this same piano idea for profit.
  14. I think Rand's epistemology is at base so radically different from other various schools of thought (though they use the same words, terms but in essence 'mean' other things) that to try and assimilate would be almost fruitless. Better to fully understand O'ist epistemology and go from there.
  15. This thread reminds me of one earlier concerning the 'walled-in neighbor'. And Eiuol's post above is hitting on the line of reasoning that I think causes the sides in these arguements to come to loggerheads(?). In this thread *Idea* is sometimes used as a floating abstraction coupled with connotations of *property* used also as floating abstractions. The arguement then devovles into a rationalistic semantic contest over quoted phrases. Trade , commerce or marketplace in a division of labor society is the only context where the idea of IP 'makes sense'. The epistemologic understanding of the concept *idea* is not what IP protects, ouside of trade or human interaction the concept of protecting an idea has no referents. So in one sense ideas can not be owned is the same way love, saddness, or hostility can not be owned as an economic value. But certain ideas in certain ways can be owned and should be protected and treated as property in certain contexts.
  16. "Oy" is right ,what a topic. Rand made comments on a Donahue interview along the lines , and in the context of public funding of education, where she spoke to her views that handicapped childrens' needs for education should not be seen as a priority in spending if it meant that children with perhaps above average intelligence would lose out in a bidding war of public funds. As a parent of a public school child I agree with that stance. But as the parent (and taxpayer) of a handicapped child I (we, my wife and I) had to take a different tact as it concerned our daughter. Here's the odd part: in contemporary educational systems/districts(not based on O'ist principles) we had to bring court action to have our child 'placed' in an enviroment we thought was the most appropriate to her situation, that being one in which she was situated among peers. The problem with the current educational philosophy is that peers are defined as those most nearly related as it concerns chronologic age. We felt any advantage she may gain from peer exposure would be from peers in the truer sense eg those with similar limitations. If she observed that peers could accomplish certain things while being 'like' her, it may help to motivate her to doing likewise. Briefly, if public funding of education is going to be a mainstay of society, handicapped children should be segregated but not to 'protect' others, more to create and ensure enviros(cliche term) to facilitate actual peer mentoring(again cliche, but more pointed).
  17. hmm just noticed the OP, company queue? I would not take an apartment 'before' a coworker or especially a superior, if you mean that tenants of the building are in the same company, bad mojo
  18. The man with the gold makes all the rules. It's the owner's building, why can he not do with it what he pleases, appearently renting to you is what he wants to do, who are you to stand in his way?
  19. Nice post , it shows the point I had in mind. Without using any 'numbers' you showed how the 'maths' define or explain the phenomenon, and by implication that the 'maths' do not give rise to it, maths describe the science, they do not invent the what. It seems to me alot of modern physics throws out the what if their maths say it just can't be, forgetting the maths are derivative in the first place. Just because the math shows string theories to be possible doesn't really mean much as to the existence of the things they describe.
  20. I'm under the impression that the idea of supply and demand are recognized by most, but isn't there contention as to which causes what? I don't think they have ironed out the 'laws' yet as a group.
  21. I meant his philosophy of life, not philosophy in the technical sense, which though as you suggest is distinction without a difference oismly
  22. Harrison said Well, to be exact, if you were sitting at the exact center of the Earth then you'd still be gravitationally attracted to the Earth; but instead of being beneath you it would surround you. (I didn't think of this last night) So you would be pulled outwards in every direction, which can't be a pleasant experience. You would probably begin to notice this as you were passing through See this is the part I find tricky, if I were at the center and surronded by the earth every point on and in my body should experience attractive forces from the rest of the earth, but those forces would be exerted on every point and in all vectors , so would they not cancel each other out leaving no net attractive force in any direction?
  23. Actually I think you missed my overall point , if the vector would change and the pull would reverse realtive to that specific point, does that mean that the atoms of matter that occupy that specific space ( the 'actual' center) have/possess/exert more 'gravity' than atoms at the surface which I 'passed by or thru' without measurable notice, on my way to 'passing by or thru' the same type of atoms which happened to be situated at the center of planet ? And if so ,how?
×
×
  • Create New...