Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. The editting suggestions do make the letter better, but is it possible to arrange a face to face to meeting with the person who interviewed you ? It seems they would have hired you for the position originally, and if other like positions are available and they are/were aware of your qualifications a year ago , it seems they would grant you the same chance at an interview, especially if you demonstrate any benefits from what training or orientation you may have experienced.

  2. moralist said

    I make money in the private sector by using public roads as a tool. The taxes I pay for my share of the use of those roads are all included in the price of products and services I sell. So I don't pay them... the cost is all passed on to the end users. They pay.

    Which is all well and good , until you meet a competitor that has enough political pull to be relieved of having to pay the taxes in the first place and then undercuts your price.

  3. I don't understand that either. Good thing that's not what we're arguing here, as I have explained to you at least 5 times now. At some point you have to stop ignoring responses and make an argument instead of asserting things.

    Actually I think the situation is just that your assertions are more verbose, you have not shown, at least 5 times, that markets can operate without the rule of law.

  4. Why the discussion about mind/brain dicothomy? In a philosophic sense it doesn't matter , unless you are trying to show that consciousness does not exist. If you agree that consciousness exists , than the scientific explanation of the phenomenon is tangential to consciousness as such. If it could be shown that the mind actually resides or emerges from the liver, how would that change or affect what consciousness is?

  5. 1) Ayn Rand misdefines value. She says a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. Here she confuses "value" (which is a place within a hierarchy) with possessions, priorities, and objects of pursuit.

    Do you mean Rand did not correctly recognize and describe an aspect of reality(the concept of living)? Or is this along your lines of setting Johnson straight? Did Rand use the wrong word? If so, what is the correct term for that thing(s) that living entities act to gain and or keep?

  6. Economist Hyman Minsky categorized borrowing. In "hedge-borrowing", the productiveness of the capital is enough to cover interest and repayment. Taken further, in "speculative borrowing" the capital can produce enough to cover interest payments, but it has to be constantly refinanced. Finally, one has "ponzi borrowing" where the only way the repayment can be made is if the asset purchased with the capital appreciates.

    Consumer debt is fine for large value purchases, as long as the borrower stays within safe limits. A house is a good example, as long as one puts enough money down and as long as one's income is enough to cover payments easily, it can be worth borrowing rather than renting for a few more years.

    I agree(I have a mortgage,one we can afford), my point was more toward to the op equating credit and debt, and how in a capitalistic division of labor society credit is a beneficial(to the parties directly involved and ultimately if successful to untold unintended beneficiaires) agreement between traders.

  7. SoftwareNerd is helping to make my point between consumer debt, accumulating and consuming goods in the present with a promise to pay in future, is different than using pre-existing wealth(credit) to develope future wealth. When men like Carnagie or Rockefeller used profits from year n to fund activity in year n+1 , they were using credit(albeit their own) to produce more wealth. The fact that they may not have received the capital in the form of credit from a seperate institution, does not alter the fact that the capital invested in their business ventures was at risk and that without that capital being invested there would not have been,could not have been creation of more wealth(capital).

  8. Moralist

    Do you not see a difference between credit/debt? In your posts it seems you disparage what I would call legitimate credit with debt and that both concepts are equally immoral, am I reading you right?

    By legitimate credit , I mean things like funding Ted Turner to build CNN, as opposed to consumer credit card debt.

  9. Knowledge of an event of the Sun expanding to a red giant and vaporizing the Earth can only be validated and integrated similarly by differentiating other observations and integrating them into a new causal understanding of those observations. At that point, the sun will continue to appear cyclically in the sky until then, or unless another phenomena is discovered that would alter that understanding.

    Given, at least implicitly, that one recognizes that new "facts" are possible.

  10. In other words, what is the equivalent to this knowledge in philosophy?

    Is there some sort of knowledge hierarchy you need to get down pat before you can understand how to work through these questions with absolute certainty?

    I think the answer is a proper understanding of epistemology, and using that understanding as it applies to particulars. If one follows reason and logic when generalizing one can can be certain(in their context of knowledge) about particulars. Check your premises.

  11. Yeah, of course. I just wanted to post that data to back up the author's point that on average, Americans truly aren't abject to (or even around) extreme poverty.

    Exactly the author fails to realize that the "natural" state of mankind would be poverty, these types of critisisms seem to ignore why the other parts of the world aren't in the same state of poverty. Freedom and the societies that try and protect it are the most prosperous, they never seem to start from that standpoint, it's usually more of a why aren't you helping more kinda thing.

  12. Hey Dennis,

    I'm going to try not to be either "long-winded" or "ambiguous," though I've started to give some thought to the matters being discussed here, and I have questions... so I hope you don't mind?

    Suppose within a traditional ("monopoly") government, I decide to offer my own services of law and order, in order to effect justice in society where perhaps I believe there is ordinarily failure. I do so according to what you and I agree are objective principles, and let us stipulate that I observe whatever procedural features the traditional government likewise grants (i.e. trial by jury; habeas corpus; etc.).

    You would contend that the government should act to preserve its "monopoly" by shutting my efforts down, and that it would be right to do so -- is that correct?

    But if the government is to use force against me -- and to do so, itself, with justice -- then we are contending that I have somehow initiated the use of force. Yes?

    How so, and against whom? If I find a murderer and put him on trial and do everything that we would also have a proper government do, then am I not acting properly? -- which is to say, I am not initiating force, but acting in response to an initiation of the use of force, just as any other proper governmental action?

    Is there a difference between government and dispensers of justice? If individuals are in the right to 'dispense' justice , as long as they follow correct procedures, then there is no need for government?
  13. Moralist said

    Sorry, but I didn't dispute the fact that you regard gas tax as an injustice. I was curious as to what you actually did about that injustice and you've made it clear that you do nothing.

    He clearly recognizes it, and by evidence argrues against. If the gasoline taxes are acceptable in a capitalist society, what taxes are not?

  14. I've often thought there should be voting qualifications, most of the things on your list have been the types of things I would like to see included, along with perhaps landed property ownership.

    But in a true constitutional republic would universal sufferage be potentially harmful to continued protection of individual rights?, which I assume is the need to qualify voting rights.

  15. Even if they don't notice a difference, the question is: will they spend a little less each week? People who spend on something like a cash basis (i.e. looking at their current cash/bank account and when they'll get their next paycheck) will cut back by not spending that 2% that they otherwise would have had. Others, who are more aware and have more forward-looking budgets will realize that they are going to have $1000 - $2000 less for the year, and may well cut something out of their budget. Overall, there is likely to be some reduction in aggregate demand.

    I didn't mean to suggest any or no effect on aggregate spending. I was more pointing to the idea that most wage earners more likely than not ,will not understand that the rate changed(back).

  • Create New...