Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Daniel Giterman

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daniel Giterman

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
  1. This seems like the correct choice. I was actually considering doing this in the first place, but gave the teacher the benefit of a doubt. RealityCheck44, yes, it's going to be in class. In fact, the next essay will be during the mid term examination. And profit motive, I believe, is taken to mean by my teacher/class to be a system in which the incentive to work is the desire for money. And I don't think I should revert to the topic to individual rights, because that is almost precisely what I did with individual freedom. This was seen as "off topic rambling" and subsequently lowered
  2. Finally got the essay back, after two weeks of marking. Mark? 7/15, or 47%. Criticism? She said that I went off topic by refusing to argue that Government should encourage profit motive (this is a contradiction). She said I refused to recognize that capitalism can exist in degrees, and instead discussed an all or nothing approach towards profit motive. Finally, she said that I confused the issue by introducing a new question. Meaning, I equated profit motive with individual freedom. The good news is that if I significantly improve on my next essay, she'll only count the second mark.
  3. I wrote the essay today. It was an in class assignment, and we were only given one hour. This means no quotes, not much research, and little time. The topic given was "Should government encourage profit motive?". I wrote that the essay question itself was contradictary, and that the only way the government can "encourage" profit motive is by leaving the economy alone - ie. laissez-faire. The sad thing is I had to spend a good part of the beginning equating profit motive with capitalism, because for some ungodly reason my teacher thinks that they are two different things and can be mutua
  4. I currently attend Grade Eleven at an academic high school that is widely acclaimed as one of the best, if not the best, high school in all of Western Canada. Our current topic of discussion is economics. As the government holds a monopoly on education, I think that what we are taught is, in general, being taught all over Canada (or at least Alberta). We were give a "sample essay", written by a student, that recieved perfect marks according to Alberta Education requirements. I just want to show you what passes as 100% these days. I'm not going to reprint this entire essay, only several cho
  5. Thanks, Evangelical Capitalist. You understood the question, namely why is it in your best interest to not engage in force when the fear of government repercussion is gone, and answered it very well. I'll listen to the lecture.
  6. Tim, I see, by your sig and avatar, that you've read Terry Goodkind. That's actually the way I was introduced to Objectivism, through his transcripts! But to address your statement, of course there shall never be an opportunity for someone not to face the full repercussions of their actions. However, the question was if an Objectivist was presented with an opportunity, through any means whatever, of evading the physical consquences of imposing physical force towards his own end, what ethical principle would keep him from doing so, given the fact that Mr. Objectivist is concerned with his
  7. Well, my background is, so far, only The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and the Lexicon. Planning to read The Virtue of Selfishness in a few days, as David suggested. Thanks. Finally, a bastion of intelligence on the internet! . . . Alright. So a primary Objectivist ethical principle is neither sacrificing yourself to others, nor others to yourself. Since giving up a principle is always a sacrifice, contrary to your own rational self interest, the Objectivist would not initiate the use of force and act like a leech. And so the second question should be answered by reading The V
  8. Over the past few days, I've been debating with a certain student, two years my senior (in Gr. 12), who firmly stands on the grounds of Christianity. He is a devout Christian who believes that altruism is moral, and selflessness results in a better society as a whole. What benefits society will benefit you as well, he says, and thus the very definition of morality is altruism and sacrife for others. Most people on these forums would rightfully ignore this viewpoint, but he is a prominent speaker who has in fact participated in the International Speaking Tournament this year. I consider d
  • Create New...