tadmjones

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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).

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

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?

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.

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.

I meant his philosophy of life, not philosophy in the technical sense, which though as you suggest is distinction without a difference oismly

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?

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?

Using the device could have been more metaphoric, the motor was his philosophy but embodied in literary form as an actual(fictional) device.

I also wasn't aware of o'ism 'enjoining' one to anything, so I doubt the implication of understanding o'ism is correct in the first place

Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.(but it's not a textbook, more a collection of short essays, you may also try the writings of Frederic Bastiat) Without sounding like a dick, I can't answer the second question because I doubt all economists have been asked and provided answers. Added to that I am not sure if what they may have thought is or would be consistent with what they themselves think they mean.( well ok afeter reading that bit it does dickish, but not purposely:)

I never liked any theory or idea that treats time as an existenial force or entity, it is a concept describing a relation between entities. Another concept in physicis I have trouble fully wrapping my head around is gravity, I do though think it is a force(existentially), but thought experiment-wise , if one could calculate the exact center of say the earth and measure the effectsd of gravity relativr to that point, when 'passing' this point would the attractive force change vector(? sorry not sure how to ask this in conherent scientific way). The example came up in a movie I saw recently, the most recent Total Recall flick.

Why don't you have to calculate drop zones in say increments of 25k miles, doesn't the earth rotate at roughly this speed? If a skydiver is not experiencing the same accelaration as the observer on the ground, would not he 'zoom' by pretty quick?

From a rights recognition/defense position is this act of physically causing the immediate death of an infant , the same as not providing an infant with sustenance? I am not here advocating the grissly act of infanticide , I just do not believe it is justifiable from a position of recognition of individual rights. Rights properly,imho, are the recognition of freedom of actions, dependent children are not able to enjoy rights in this sense because they can not provide for themselves. I honestly do not see how this arguement can be based strictly on 'rights' as understood and enjoyed by independent individuals and then applied to infants. I do not see how a rights violation is the justification against (or for the crime of) infanticide , and if so how this same arguemnet can not be the same justification for the protection of a fetus from abortion.

It seems to me if you look at humankind and its history in a meta-view, you can see periods of progress and regress and specially in the developements of culture. Those cultures that work toward embracing reason and its application tend to progress, commerce developes and populations tend to expand. Does the expansion of the population bring unfortunate 'unintended' consequences? The theme of AS expresses this , I think. The moochers and the looters are only possible because of the productiveness of the rational. The 'better' the rational are at what they 'do', ultimately the more unintended moochers will be possible to try and devour the 'goods'. This can apply to different segments of the culture eg the academic world . 'Modern' philosophies come from more rational philosophies generating the environments that crackpots and the like( along with the actual malevolent types) can then invade and flourish.

"you can not own an idea" is a meaningless phrase outside of commerce.

IP violations can only occur in a commercial setting. If an idea or method or product is offered for sale without the permission of the original owner a violation has occured. The only context in which IP and all its derivatives are relevant, are in a division of labor society.(.)

get out ,ex monks, amongst us whodathought

"Others" cause constrination. How does it follow that "others" can elivate same? Wax on Wax off

tad is as charged, mars any thing?