Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Doug Morris

Regulars
  • Posts

    1508
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by Doug Morris

  1. More of Trump's iies. Under current circumstances, unfortunately yes. Of course no approach will work without teaching enough people the basic principles involved.
  2. "Story" is a very general word that includes history, much other non-fiction, and most fiction. We should think of categories like Aesthetics, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Ethics, and Politics as file folders for organizing our knowledge, not as having walls of separation between them.
  3. Trump has taken very anti-freedom stands on abortion and immigration, although he has toned down the former. Even where he supports freedom, he hasn't been very effective. With his stolen election lie and his policy of winning at all costs, he threatens to destroy our system of democratic elections and orderly transfers of power. If he does destroy it, we will be left with a contest of physical force to determine who gets power, which will result in dictatorship of one sort or another. This is an imminent danger. The Democrats' ignorant path to dictatorship will take much longer to get there, so our best bet is to stop Trump, continue teaching fundamental principles, and do what we can to slow down the slide into more and more statism.
  4. If you are referring to then Trump was told by his honest advisors that he had lost and should concede, but he chose to believe, or pretend to believe, the people who told him what he wanted to hear. This, at best, skates very close to a lie. It leaves three possibilities: 1. Trump just lied. 2. Trump lied to himself along with everyone else and deluded himself into believing the stolen election lie. 3. Trump acted in reckless disregard of what was true and what was false. If someone is being memorialized primarily for their contribution to the Confederate cause and/or slavery and/or Jim Crow and/or any form of white supremacy, that memorializing should cease. We are memorializing Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington for very different reasons and that memorializing should continue. If they were guilty of some wrongness such as owning slaves, this should not stop that memorializing, although it may justify adding a qualifying note.
  5. Maybe we should let tadmjones answer. What does David Odden have to say about Trump's stolen election lie?
  6. Protectionism. How well will this last? What will be the side effects?
  7. OK, so Trump actually just said that there were "very fine people" on both sides of the Charlottesville incident. But since Unite the Right was a white supremacist movement, who exactly were the "very fine people" on that side that he was referring to? There is a lot more to criticize Trump about than just his "very fine people" sloppiness. This includes his stolen election lie, with all the damage it has done and can do. It also includes his prioritizing his pseudo-self-esteem over knowing or caring what he should do as President.
  8. No, I don't believe Biden lied, and I don't believe he wants anyone to commit violence against Trump. He just wants people to vote against Trump, and rightfully so. What are your grounds for your accusations?
  9. What I find worthy of amusement is your silly comments.
  10. Crooks's being there looks very much like a coincidence. Why shouldn't Blackrock delete a molehill that some are making a mountain out of? Why shouldn't Blackrock try to minimize the publicity an assassin gets?
  11. Is that when everyone can see they cheated again, or when all of Trump's suckers believe his lie that they heated again?
  12. I was specifically thinking of something I heard a long time ago. I was talking with a representative of one of several companies who offered a certain service, and he mentioned one company that offered a different service with the same objective. He said the service offered by the one company was inferior. I asked why the other companies didn't tell people the truth. He said if they did, then because there were more than one of them and only one of the other, the one company could sue them under the antitrust laws and get rich thereby.
  13. I understand that under current law a business's ability to present the facts to the public may be restricted.
  14. Here is one of the things Ayn Rand has in common with her character John Galt. John Galt wanted to invent a motor. He accomplished a revolution in physics to do it. He didn't publish the physics. He just went on inventing his motor. However, he later taught a course in physics. Ayn Rand wanted to write a novel (Atlas Shrugged). She accomplished a revolution in philosophy to do it. She didn't publish the philosophy. She just went on writing her novel. However, she later published some nonfiction about her philosophy.
  15. This is true. Please read Ayn Rand's monograph "The Objectivist Ethics", reprinted as Chapter 1 of her The Virtue of Selfishness, for an explanation. This seems bizarre. Do you have anything to back it up with?
  16. I looked up neomercantilism. It very quickly became clear that it is very different from laissez-faire capitalism. Objectivism is not a syncretism. It has its own foundation and builds from there. I have not yet read Leonard Peikoff's The Objectivist Philosophy of Ayn Rand, but I gather it does a good job of explaining what Objectivism is. If you want me to recommend books I have read, start with Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness.
  17. Couldn't a similar argument be made against the term "laissez-faire capitalism"?
  18. Ayn Rand is neither "Conservative" nor "Liberal", although the vagueness of those terms may cause confusion. Ayn Rand wanted to dismantle welfare of all kinds for everyone, including herself. There is a crucial distinction between accepting welfare when offered and supporting or condoning it. If you study the material linked by others on this thread, you will have an opportunity to understand this better.
  19. Some people who hear "laissez-faire capitalism" may mistakenly assume it means leaving capitalists free to do such things as polluting their neighborhoods, defrauding their customers, and making deals with government officials for special privileges. One possible strategy is to say "force-excluding capitalism". The worst reaction we are likely to get is "What the [obscenity] is that?" This wording indicates a key concept in what we are talking about and gives us a chance to explain what we mean without dealing with the baggage some people attach to "laissez-faire". Thoughts?
  20. I looked up law of scarcity. The first definition I found is If what we desire “appears” to be in limited supply, the perception of its value increases significantly. This doesn't seem to be what you are talking about. The second definition I found is economic resources — land, labor, capital, and talent — are limited, not infinite. This may be what you are talking about. Why is this "not good news or happy news."? How does it doom us all if it cannot be overcome? What would it mean to overcome it? There was another definition that equated it with the law of supply and demand.
  21. Can you state the Law of Scarcity?
×
×
  • Create New...