tadmjones

Well apparently the poster does have a website, so...

I liked this essay, it touched on many of the points I made in questioning one's stance against IP and the like. I too have had a problem with being comfortable with a simple utilitarian basis for such protection, it smacks too much of what was uncomfortable with Mills. I would like to see property protected for the individual and not base a moral justification for such protection on a standard measured by collective results, eg for the greater good.

I did not mean I did not know what the term innate connotes. The point I was trying to speak to was whether innate is or should be a qualifier of 'idea'. Perhaps speaking of 'ideas' as entities is what leads to my confusion. The concept of idea is highly abstract an ideal as seen a part of a mental process is to isolate a part, though the part can not operate separate from the mental process in toto, we speak of it at times as though we can.

The main dispute sames to have boiled down(up?)to whether or not a patent equals monopoly granted by government fiat. Coke has every right to let competitors offer the same recipe with identical packaging. In what way is that a monopoly?

Or maybe Toilers' in homage to Rand's fondness for Hugo and the whole nautical thingy. ps Please do not let any of the Inuit catch go to affiliations or concerns of the Pelosis'

Is digestion 'innate'? I would suggest that it is not, because either the capacity exists in a 'system' or it doesn't. All animate matter has the capacity for digestion , if it does not it is not animate, if a 'broken' unit of animate matter has nonfunctional digestive processes it will not thrive, the phenotypical entity will perish. I think innate ideas or those things considered instinctual are beyond the scope of volition. I am trying to suggest that the term or connotation of innate is the problem I am having, and I am not sure how to articulate what I mean.

If I could copy or offer the same recipe and trademark, why would there be a Coke? I doubt that particular company started because they felt the need to supply soft drinks, they probably reasoned more along the lines that what was theirs would be protected and planned accordingly.

Would not having axiomatic concepts hardwired be an example of innate ideas?

DonAthos in #109 said A mind has "products," in a sense, which are ideas. And the possessor of such a mind absolutely has the right to profit from those ideas insofar as he is able. But I do not believe that the "products of mind" are sufficient to constitute "property," which relates specifically to "material values," and not for no reason, but because the "right to life" needs to be implemented through those material values. In reality, material values are not created through mental effort alone, but through a combination of mental and physical labor. That combination of effort, and only that combination, is what actually creates property and answers the question of "HOW any object came to exist"; it thus "determines WHOM it belongs to," which is not simply the innovator of an idea, but the creator who applies the mental and physical labor necessary to bring a material value into actual being. So in LFC, there would be no Coke and Pepsi only cola, no Windows just operating systems, no IE just browser programs, no Fords just cars, no Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintainence just books, no Like a Virgin just recorded music? How in practical terms, is this any different from a 'perfect' system of socialism?

I noticed recently that you stated you are almost through ITOE, reading about a subject and integrating the subject matter are different, and take time, 'chew' on these new ideas and come back to discussing these ideas. Other than capacity , there ain't no 'hardwired' it's a floating abstraction or stolen concept. That is really the only bone of contention; whether or not it is a floating abstraction or a misused or invalid concept. Mechanisms as per the connotation you invoke are fallicious.

I am not sure if I agree with Rand's ideals as they concern things psychologic , that being said, she and NB obviously were sensitive to the ideal of honesty. Their respective spouses had every oppotunity to respond in any manner they wished. I am not sure , but my reactions may have been different than those of their spouses.

you?

i think its orgasm, but i am not aware of the o'ist stance on masterbation

secondhander said #66 So how does that apply to sex? Just like any other action in your life, and any other relationship in your life, sex must not be "cut off from your code of values." Since you value life, you should be aware of STIs and practice safe sex. It would be unwise to have sex with some person with low value, like a moocher, or thief, or violent person, or mentally unstable person. Just like you might refrain from forming close friendships with those sorts of people, even more so should you refrain from sexual relationships from those sorts of people, because they may very well bring death to you, even if by matter of degree. You should apply rationality to your relationships, sexual or otherwise. In the same way that you should practice safe sex, and utilize your rationality to know which methods of safe sex are best, you should also manage pregnancy (using the technology available) so that you do not become or get someone pregnant without meaning to. You may also decide not to have sex with someone who is anti-abortion, if you are in favor of abortion, just in case an accidental pregnancy happens. These are not strict rules. But the principles should be heeded: Seek good life for yourself, and use your brain. I understand why thought should be given to action with recognition of the possibilities of outcomes, but my question is why(or how) does the inclusion of term 'sex' change the dynamic of the process? What is there about 'sex' that makes it a separate category from all other forms of human interactions?

Given you think it may be less controversial, how would you define a logical mechanism? (Without implying innate knowledge and or dismissing the tabla rosa stance)

Most of the principles on which the above statements rest, would work well for purchasing an automobile. Yes/No ?

Neuroscientific experiments have shown that all infants are born with some logical mechanism already hardwired into their brains. Or rather neuroscientific experimenters have attributed their results to suggest logical mechanisms that are hardwired, how do they define 'logical mechanisms'? Are they like synaptic golgi apparati(sp?)?

According to O'ism , what is 'sex'? Is there an explicit definition of what is considered 'sex'? Is this thing that is important anything other the experience of orgasm? Is it the relationship between individuals that includes actions that lead to each experiencing orgasm, what exactly is the conceptual/emotional/ value response that takes place that must be recognized and evaluated before engaging in such a relationship? Casual intercourse between adults is immoral or amoral?

I will wait with bated breath to read the ultimate thread on the 'true' basis of morally acceptible sexual desire, especially when espoused by those who consider themselves individualists.

This was an amazing story I heard on the radio today. Unfortunately(reminiscent of the Objectivist Horror files), the editors of the story felt it necessary to mention that only after permission was granted by the FDA was the procedure used, thank goodness the doctors didn't have to rely solely on their own judgement and expertise and that we were all reminded that they acted with government permission.

Just as timely side note, on the Kim Komando show she highlighted a device her in her gadget section, it was a pet exerciser using a laser pointer and some kind of integrated webcam , go figger

heh ambiviolent first a left and then a right both of course indescriminate

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.

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.

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.