Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. In an objectivist society, use of force IS moral if: 1. it would have been moral in "pre-society" for the individual to act so, 2. THAT particular moral ability to act so IS actively being delegated to the minimal Objectivist government "post-society" and thus IS moral for the Police to act so.


    The morality of the use of force does not depend here upon who does the forcing... if in a situation A) the police exerts the force on the "thief" or the victim exerts the force on the "thief" the morality of the use of force on the thief does not change, precisely because the police stand in as a proxy for what the individual could/should have done.



    If you see me using a new fishing rod I invented to catch more fish (3x as many in the same time) and you build your own:




    A: it is moral for me to confiscate and destroy that rod and any rod you build based on mine in perpetuity or moral for me to confiscate forcibly any and all fish you caught with it and forcibly take any and all monies you made from the sale of any fish and/or forcibly take your goats or vegetables to the tune of the amount of food you did not have to eat by virtue of the fish you caught.... AND it is also moral for the police acting on my behalf to do so, OR


    B: it is not moral for me or the police to use force in respect of anything related to the rod you build based on mine nor the fish you caught as a result.


    The question is whether IP is an "enforceable" property right according to Objectivism.



    IF we look at IP as a voluntarily adopted "custom" which is not one that is "enforceable", then I could try to persuade others, (by letting them know you saw what I was doing and that your fishing rod was not original), not to buy fish you caught, perhaps not to deal with you.  I would suggest to my IP loving friends not to sell (not at good prices anyway) their inventions to your friends who, if they deal with you, clearly don't respect IP.  Then on a voluntary basis, people who "chose to recognise" IP would participate and those who did not would not... although they would be doing a lot of copying.




    If situation A were to apply to two individuals in isolation , how or why would it be moral for you to act to keep me from sustainance? How would my copying of your design and utilising it be an action on my part that hinders your 'natural' freedom to act and catch fish? Would stopping me from copying by force, be an action by which you would gain or keep value ? I would say in that specific example that in isolation any force you would use to stop me from fishing, even with your design that I purposefully copied, would be an initiation of force, if not, against what are you retaliating?

  2. In a civilized society, when is violence ever the moral response(aside from emergency) to a rights violation? IP is based on the context of a civil society, IP is meaningless to a man in isolation, the context of a rational division of labor society is the only setting were IP 'makes any sense'.

    'Ownership of ideas, ..or ideas as such..' most of the discussion stemming from these types of ideas seem to me to be more along the lines of floating abstractions as concerns property rights , because the idea of commerce constantly seems to be dropped.

  3. There is no justification whatever for banging someone's head into the ground causing lacerations. Those lacerations are physical evidence of wrongdoing. If someone did that to me, I would kill them without the slightest compunction or feeling of remorse. They would deserve it, just as Trayvon Martin deserved to die. Good riddance to a worthless scum.

  4. This doesn't make sense. I presume you mean to say cultural and perhaps you can actually explain and support your statements instead of speaking in clichés.

    Um yeah, sometimes I should read and not post.


    Basically I doubt this case would receive the coverage it has, if Trevon was white. It was a local story until Sharpton and his ilk began his involvement and media attention. The attention is purely political.


    None of the evidence so far public, seems to me to indicate that the authorities acted incorrectly the night of the incident and assessing the situation as one of self defense.

  5. Hi tadmjones!


    I'd like to respond but I don't adequately understand the full context you intend for your statement and I would rather not misinterpret its meaning.



    1. If we are speaking of individual existent particles such as electrons... what you mean by "context of mathematics"? 

    2. We have not fully defined "extension" for the purposes of this discussion.  I note we likely will need to agree on an objective definition for purposes of a meaningful discussion (so we do not talk past one another).



    I meant that within the context of plenum, the idea of a point without extension is valid, as long as it  (an extension-less enitity) is considered within the context of mathematics.

    A 'point' can be considered extensionless as long as the concept is confined to a concept of method.

    There can be no existential entity(entities) without extension or perhaps 'force' or 'charge', but those qualifiers are beyond my layman pervue.

  6. speaking of a threat to the USA, where does stealth jihad fit into this? is it even a legitimate thing?

    Do you mean groups like The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and the like? I would consider those groups and their actions to be stealth jihad. Isn't Dearborn Michigan practically a muslim enclave? I think the city scholl districts have actually changed the practice schedule of its high school football teams to accomodate the observance of ramadon(sp?)

  7. in #39 harrison said

    Tadmjones-  I didn't quite catch that; would you be so kind as to phrase it as a syllogism?



    if you mean my comment as #32

    Dude not sure, but you may have at least a minor case of orifice disassociativeness



    That was a slight, I was suggesting that your post 'sounded' like someone talking out of the their ass, I apoligize for the snarkiness, but of course not for the content that precipitated it as it was yours.

  8.  Reread my response; I was specifically referring to hypocritical Muslims.


    I would not feel safe among self-consistent Muslims, at all; never once have I made an attempt to excuse them.  And yes, many Islamic scholars do advocate a worldwide Caliphate and THEY are evil; so is anyone else who expressly and knowingly advocates the same.

    I am not saying that it is not an evil ideology and I am not whitewashing the atrocities which are committed for it, each and every day.  All I'm saying is that the hypocritical ones (while still hypocritical and thusly immoral!) are not a direct threat to us.


    The peaceful Muslims aren't immediately dangerous any more than Conservatives are likely to start burning people alive, again.  Which isn't to say that it couldn't happen, someday- but not in our generation.


     Values are determined by your philosophy (whether explicit or implicit) and, while it doesn't 'make' anyone do a thing they don't want to, as a form of protophilosophy religion DETERMINES what its followers want to do.


    It is not magickal; it does move people to do good or evil.  Observe- Hell, observe 85% of human history.



     This statement. . .

    Your definition of 'terrorist' (which is already a conceptual stumbling block) would include American soldiers- who 'blindly' obey the chain of command and practically breathe violence.  Would you like to reconsider that and try again?


    . . . Have I introduced you to this author that I simply adore; Ayn Rand?

    Are you aware of the extent to which this directly contradicts the most fundamental Objectivist premises?  If not- I don't really know where to start, but I could suggest a few things for you to read.


    If you are aware and you think that she was wrong, that's fine; tell me why.  Let's not beat around the bush.




    Dude not sure, but you may have at least a minor case of orifice disassociativeness

  9. You say fraud here, so if I sell TadCoke as if it were Coke , that is fraud because I claimed to be selling Coke while in fact it was TadCoke, would Coke not have to be a recognised Real Thing in order for me to defraud the public by selling them TadCoke instead? So isn't Coke the Real THING?

  10. Harrison said #23

     I would feel SAFE in such a community.  I would not feel comfortable; frankly, I would probably spend most of my time trying to show them the irrationality of their religion



    Heh, a dhimmi publicly committing blasphemy, may as well convert and then try becoming a public apostate you chances would be about the same



    And did Mo ever say that the umma should not cover the globe? that is was Allah's will that Islam need not encompass the whole world? What Islamic scholars have said that a worldwide caliphate is not the goal for life on Earth?

  11. You do not make the idea public and then forbid its use, as much as you register your unique creation(your property) with an objective agency , or third party so to speak.


    The example of trademarks and such(Coca Cola) is not about the patentability of the secret formula as much as selling products of similar characteristics as one and the same product.

    If I were to figure out their recipe and manufacture my product for distribution, as long as I did not try and sell it as "Coke" by this I mean  using their logo and bottle design to intentionally make it appear to be their product , I would see this as kosher.


    It would violate their rights to their property if I were to sell my manufactered goods as theirs in order to take advantage of their product's prestige.


    The protection of their rights would have to come from the government( in the form of a recognised right to be compensated for theft) because otherwise what would stop a storeowner from selling my bogus Coke in place of the Real Thing, if I offered him a higher margin?


    Which I could do (most likely) given I would spend zero dollars on marketing because I am ripping off Coke by piggybaking on their established and hard won market share.

  12. What about 'artwork' would make it a special category?


    Is 'artwork' not produced a human mind?


    If an idea or a design is created by a human mind and can be objectively recognised as that particular individual's achievement, how or why would there be different principles concerning that individual's ownership?

  13. Harrison in #56 said



    Money is nothing but a symbol


    Believe me , I am not trying to nitpick here, but given what you may have gleaned from ITOE (and perhaps any other of Rand's nonfiction as it concerns politics/economics), re-evaluate this particullar statement word for word to see if it actually articulates an o'ist position.

  14. Exactly when does one become an extremist? Is it when guiding the aircraft into the building or before? Is it after detonating explosives strapped to your body or before?

    Aside from watching someone 'become' an extremist in the act as it were, how could you tell if they were prone to extremism? Wouldn't you look at the things they say they think, those principles and ideals that guide their actions, of course assuming the were being truthful of their motivation.

    In what way do the teachings or tenets of 'moderate' muslims differ from those of the 'extremist' kind? Acts of terror are one way to try and bring about the downfall of the West, infiltration by 'moderate' groups such as CAIR are another.

  • Create New...