Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

aselene44

Newbies
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aselene44

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Missouri
  • Chat Nick
    aselene
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    Cornelius
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    I recently wrote a piece for a writing contest called 10,000 Swirling Sh*tstorms. Cornelius might not be my real name.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    My Objectivism experience level is 3, though the GM says I'll level up after the next session.

    I have read Atlas Shrugged. I've read an assortment of her essays. I think I've read the entirety of Virtue of Selfishness, though not all at once.
  • School or University
    Washington University in St. Louis
  • Occupation
    Student

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The 8th circle of hell.

Recent Profile Visitors

756 profile views
  1. In context, it's apparent that Kira was expressing her own view of the masses. Rand's journals clarify that she was expressing both Kira's view, and what Kira believed was Andrei's unconscious view of the masses. The full quote from the 1936 edition reads: What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it? What is the people but millions of puny, shriveled, helpless souls that have no thoughts of their own, no dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat, and sleep, and chew helplessly the words others put into their mildewed brains
  2. All I can say is, if you're analyzing Rand's specific argument, it seems like you didn't finish reading the essay she wrong on the nature of government. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government "A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similar
  3. Sounds like someone who thinks he knows the answer. So why bother asking the question. To see if I'm wrong. I answered your questions in good faith. But I'm not gonna debate the contents of Rand's philosophy with someone who doesn't seem to have read her works, and is using google search as his only tool for building arguments. Incompetent to formulate a cogent argument constructed from Rand's actual words, you instead attack my person. This speaks both to your character and your intelligence. You are a degenerate halfwit. Your own words prove it. Like unto those who retaliate
  4. All actions involve the use of physical force. If that action is a violation of someone's rights, then the physical force used is initiation of force. The list of physical force used in filming a 13 yo. is fairly long: there's the walking to the site, the lifting of the camera, the various electromagnetic forces used to capture the recording, etc. And sure, that's not very insightful. I'm just stating the obvious, in answer to your question. If that's what Objectivism was, it would be useless and stupid, because it offers no criteria to determine what is initiation of force, and what i
  5. Thank you for your efforts to answer my questions. Ayn Rand was a philosopher, not a lawmaker. So she never created a legal framework, be it of an actual or hypothetical (Aynrandistan) country. She never created a set of laws. Though I dispute she never created a "legal framework." Her philosophy consists in the main of an argument for an alternative operation of law than today's. It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that her initiation of force principle is reductivist, and inadequate to cover numerous situatons wherein what people think of as their rights (and reasonably so!) ar
  6. 1. "To be clear, 1&2 would violate our Federal Wiretap Act. It's commonly called the "wiretap" act, but by its plain language," Weren't you asking about your Aynrandzistan? Here it seems like you wanted to ask about the wiretap act. I think it should depend on details of the interception, although I don't know the details of the wiretap act. I'm just telling you what I think is most relevant to whether or not rights were violated. I was asking about Aynrandzistan. I already understand the wiretap act. I was drawing a contrast between the outcome in Aynrandzistan and under the FWT. Y
  7. Thank you for your efforts to answer my questions. 1,2,3,6 the competitors are using information improperly I tend to agree--or more accurately, I believe the intruders on Adam and Bill's privacy are obtaining that information improperly. But I don't understand how these examples of intrusions on personal privacy can be lawfully protected against in Aynrandzistan. 4 would depend on the jurisprudence of doctor / patient confidentiality of arstan Based on your understanding of Objectivism, what do you believe that jurisprudence would look like? Based on my understanding, it would
  8. Thank you for your efforts to answer my questions. 1 and 2 I guess really depends on why the PI is listening and for what purpose they will use the information. Listening per se is not really anything that is a violation of rights, but my sense is that for the purpose of corporate espionage, it is likely to be a violation of intellectual property. If the information they want is a release date of a product, I can't see how that violates a right. To be clear, 1&2 would violate our Federal Wiretap Act. It's commonly called the "wiretap" act, but by its plain language, it's really b
  9. If you only have time to address one or two of the situations, that's fine too. I don't know how long threads here typically go on, but I think this one might go on for awhile.
  10. I've only found a couple of Rand's statements on the subject of "privacy" using Google. Both of them seemed to deal with the question of privacy against governmental intrusion. Here, I'm more interested in how Rand specifically, and Objectivism generally, handle the question of privacy against private intrusion. Optimally, I'd like citations in the answers, but they're not absolutely necessary. Below are a few fact situations I'd like addressed. Some of them make assumptions which might seem improbable, but that's because I'm trying to see if Rand/Objectivism have any way of addressing
×
×
  • Create New...