Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Marc K.

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Marc K. last won the day on September 29 2014

Marc K. had the most liked content!


About Marc K.

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Geneva, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

11683 profile views
  1. Yes, Ayn Rand was very clear on this point. The following quote is perfectly clear and concrete -- not an out of context, floating abstraction.
  2. Really??? You mean the only thing we've been debating for 3 pages is the word "the"??? Well, OK, this should be easy then. So you would agree then that men have the right to own THE land that they improve and that no one can remove them from that land if they don't want to go, no matter how much more productive those others might be? And that the land owner can charge whatever rent he decides, while, of course, he can force no one to pay such rent? And, of course, since he owns the land, no one can force him to accept a rent lower than what he has decided to charge. Problem solved.
  3. There are many things to say, all of which point to Georgism and Objectivism being completely incompatible, to "economic rent" being some sort of anti-concept, to you confusing government force with voluntary free trade and to your continued belief in some sort of intrinsic value to "land". I may take the time to answer more fully but first I would like an answer to the following two questions. First is the one you promised me a reply to earlier: Second is an explanation for your blatant self-contradiction:
  4. Can you sum-up, perhaps in one or two sentences apiece, what the problem is (as it pertains to Ayn Rand's position on private property), what his solution is, and since you disagree with his solution, what your solution is please? I don't quite understand why are you directing us to read his book if you disagree with his solution? Perhaps it would be better to just quote the one or two or three paragraphs you think would be useful. No, I haven't read the book and, I'm sorry to say, I probably will not in the near future. I am confident that I understand the proper basis of property
  5. Since you have linked to this page I decided to have a look. I had suspected that there was a deeper issue associated with your want to deny property rights in land and I think I have found it. From the henrygeorge website cited above: Can we call you a Georgist? If so, then our perspectives and philosophies are quite at odds. You believe that we have an "obligation to society" and that forcible taxation is moral and should be legal. Objectivists are individualists. We believe that every individual is an end in themselves and that they have a moral right to the fruits of their lab
  6. Is this a reply from Jon Southall? If so, why do you have two accounts and why would you reply to me using a different name? Very confusing. As you parenthetically acknowledge, your usage of "ultimately" above is pretty loose. There is one ultimate source of property: the mind (or intelligence as you say). Be that as it may, the point of my post was to suggest that your usage of the term "land" is just as loose. "Land" meaning: natural, pristine, untouched land; is different from real estate, or worked land, so please be clear to which you are referring. "Land" is a natural resource like b
  7. The aluminum atoms that comprise the body of an iphone were not man-made. What is the origin of an aluminum ownership claim?
  8. You mean as clear as you are here? OK, that was a needle, maybe you are just demonstrating your point, but your point is unclear because of the imprecise wording you use: People are fallible, axioms either describe reality or they don’t, i.e., they are either true or false, ones understanding is either correct or incorrect. The “particular words” you use are important, no matter how much you want to denigrate their usage. So, is this some semantic game I’m playing, as I’m sure you’ll claim, as you have been claiming about Plasmatic? No, it bears directly on the point I was making to lu
  9. But they aren't "equally valid", at least not under a completely rational, reality based, fully integrated philosophy. Part of the problem here is talking in generalities. Talking about all "philosophies" and all "axioms" in general, as if they all describe reality correctly and are all equally valid is absurd and obviously untrue. Since we are on an Objectivist forum, why don't we talk about Objectivism. Do you think Ayn Rand's identification of existence, consciousness and identity as the three principle axioms is true? Do you understand her argument? Do you understand why these three are
  10. I like art deco but I don't think there is such a thing as "Objectivist style" or an "Objectivist paint scheme". While color is always important, to me, art deco is more about textures, patterns and designs. I would concentrate on assembling some details or accents of art deco style that you like, and then match the final paint scheme to the details. In addition, I would try to gather inspiration from other things art deco, like: buildings (the Chrysler Building), bridges (the Golden Gate), diners, posters, trains, campers (the airstream I think it is called), lamps, ceramic tiles, ceiling
  11. Here is an article from the past week essentially saying that some scientists have evidence that free will is an illusion, that free will doesn't exist. Do you think that such a thing could ever be proven? Let us say that some "scientists" do "prove" that free will is an illusion. Should we take them seriously? Why or why not?
  12. CriticalThinker: Your last several posts on this subject (innocents in war) are in complete accord with Objectivist principles and doctrine. I am in complete agreement with your answers, characterizations and examples. However, I think you do your argument a disservice by introducing the concept of the "emergency situation", to wit: From the Lexicon: Certainly war creates conditions under which human survival is impossible. However, it isn't unchosen (by the aggressor) and thus not unexpected, nor is it limited in time. The point is that one has a choice about whether to be
  13. In other words, the individual doesn't matter, only the collective does?
  14. Interesting how when given a choice between two descriptions you chose the one labeling yourself as evasive. Thank you for acknowledging the truth. Besides, you admitted defeat before the moderators got involved. First with your childish tantrum and then with this: Essentially saying: "I don't know what I'm talking about so read this other person's post, I agree with them even though I don't understand it."
  15. It is good to finally hear you acknowledge that you think the government should be allowed to initiate force against its citizens. But now you want to pretend that that was Ayn Rand's position? No matter how many times she explicitly said no to that proposition? It would be far too kind of me to call an evasion of that magnitude chutzpah. Here is Ayn Rand's actual position: "[...] But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morali
  • Create New...