Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. I always took the real danger in a central banking system , aside from legal tender laws as rights violations along with others, to be that if the government were the institution to run the banking system it would give them near unlimited ability to create credit, not only the disastruous effects of currency manipulation.

  2. That is true. I took the reference as how the critics that smear Rand see her as the boogyman in political enemies (see Ryan) when it is clear they are not full formed products of her ideas. Close enough scares them so you can imagine the heart attack they would have if someone closer to the mark ran for office.

    Or perhaps worse yet for them , a Foxesque network from an O'ist perspective.

  3. The Sparrowhawk series(imho) is fantastic. I remember having to painfully await the publication of the individual books. Mr. Cline is 'the man.'

    In the genre of historic fiction I also very much enjoyed Patrick O'Brian , his "Master and Commander" series, and the Hornblower series of C.S. Forester.

  4. Being honest means not faking any aspect of reality. If one lies to those perceived to be a threat to his values it would be a moral action. In the extreme case of living under a totalitarian regime an honest man may indeed conclude his family could pose a threat to his values and lying to them would be protecting himself. The recognition of values and the acts of obtaining and keeping them are moral actions.

  5. Trust is an estimation in some ways like an automated emotional response on some level, a prejudice in other words. The estimation is based on the observance of a man's or entity's actions and whether or not those actions adhere to, or are consistent with what is believed to be the motivating factor behind those actions. If an action is motivated by ideas, than trust is the estimation or judgement of the level of fidelity to the motivating factors of the entity. Does this person act in fidelity to what are the perceived principles he holds, either explicitly stated principles or principles that may be deduced by his actions in the past.

    There are different levels of trust and different colloquial uses of the term. To say one trusts 'gravity' , would be better said to have an understanding of the scientific explanation of the laws of physics if even on a very vague level.

    To say you trust the oncoming driver will maintain his lane is to say you assume that other drivers are operating on the principle of self preservation. The rule of law in this case is which side of the road is the appropiate one.

  6. I would assume that the Objectivist position is that any land which has not been owned or used by anyone is available to anyone who wishes to homestead it.


    So the owner of the ring section could bar any homesteading? Would that not be the same as acquiring by default? I am not trying to find a chink in the armor of this line of discussion, I am trying to apply your line of reasoning to other aspects or examples of property ownership.

    I still feel landed property is in a different class or species of property and in a societal context would be understood in that context. Ownership would or should be designated according to the class of property and that such recognition can be derived objectively and contextually.

  7. J

    In Objectiland, if an individual obtained property in the manner of the donut and hole example, what is the disposition of the land inside the hole area if there are no previously recorded owners?

    Would the land become the property of the owner of the ring section by default?

  8. Realistically that end (rules and principles never being in conflict) is improbable. Man is not infallible, there will most likely exist, even within a near wholly consistent 'system', a mistaken idea or notion which leads to a rule that will be inconsistent with the underlying principles. The degree of rights violation this mistaken rule would necessarily cause would, I think, be minimal.

    From my point of view establishing a rational society would in the practical sense take at least a generation. A consistent raional philosophy to be apprehended by enough of the general population to be seen as the zeitgist(?) would require almost total revision of accepted cultural norms.

    As to what can one do now? I guess the answer is the best that one can, given what is. I do not think the alternatives are mutually exclusive, we do not have such a society now therefore we never wil, nor since no society like that has existed prior to now , therefore none will.

    I do think the motive power behind the establishment of such a society is ideas. Everyone may not hold the same principles as O'ism, that does not mean the principles themselves are incorrect.

  9. Well, as I said to Nicky, I'm not unsympathetic to your qualms over the definition of honor I gave but I'm assuming your not just complaining about that but that you're making a more substantive criticism. Some evidence, or at least some examples, would help explain your position.

    I have given some examples already but they were mostly hypotheticals designed to draw out the issues. Let me now offer more practical reasons for aligning theory with reality.

    Let us suppose that I encounter a criminial gang. Can I rely on their lack of honor to inhibit their ability to act together against me? Probably not. This applies even more in the case of a government that is violating my rights. There is every reason to expect that they are quite capable of maintaining trust within their organization.

    On the other hand, can I trust only those who act on the basis of the "right" principles? Or is it reasonble to trust others more generally? My experience is that trustworthiness is quite possible among those who do not, for example, hold Objectivist principles.

    Trust is an important topic and getting it right is thus important.

    Well as to an example of trust as it refers to actions of people who either do or do not hold O'ist principles, I think our experiences are probably similar. I drive and stay on the appropriate side of the road and I trust others will also.

    As it relates to trusting the actions of a government, I trust the office of Presidency of the United States to act in accordance with the provisions in the Constitution. Trusting the man that at any time holds that office is a different matter. A government of laws and not men would be a trustwothy agency. A governemnt based on the actions and or whims of men without having a preset standard of action based on principles would be less trustworthy , to say the least.

  10. Aside from the walling in aspect of exercising property rights. What happens to property and any improvements on the land after say a mudslide occurs?

    I own property that borders your land, a mudslide occurs and the result is my building ends up on your property, along with soil and other debris. Who then is responsible for costs associated with cleanup? Have I lost title to my salvageable property, because it now rests on your land?

  11. I am not a big sports fan, but I do follow the Yankees. I even have a few items of clothing fastooned with their logo, sports jingoism I suppose. If I awoke, tomorrow, and found my Yankees sweatshirt ( an oft used item this time of year) to be missing I would start on a specific course of action to determine its whereabouts.

    If I awoke tomorrow and found that my favorite piece of my backyard were missing, my response would more likely than not be pure amazement.

  12. But the qualification is that it's a radical departure from normal Objectivism insofar as it is about acting against socialism and not arguing and persuading socialists to change their mind.

    My targets are 'pre-socialists" or socialists willing to change their minds. The principle of retaliation of force against the initiation of force should always apply.

  • Create New...