Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Brian9

Regulars
  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Brian9

  1. I can explain that, but why not ask her directly? As far as the OP's question, why are we squaring the velocity in the equations, I'm inclined to agree with what Robert Kolker wrote, although I don't completely understand what it means. I read somewhere that the Kinetic Energy equation and Einstein's equation are one & the same. I believe that, but I still don't understand either one. I don't understand them, because I don't know where they come from. But offhand they make sense. In the equations, "energy" is related to the product of "mass" and a velocity squared. "squared" perhaps because the physical thing we are describing is a sphere. I've read that the 1/2 is ignored when you talk about the speed of light, because light doesn't have enough mass that it is so very consequential. But if that were the case, I don't see why we couldn't just write the equation as, E=c2. If half the mass didn't matter, why does the other half matter? So, I really don't understand the equations.
  2. All you etymologists are alike! Is this the Kinetic Energy equation? E = ½mv2? If so, why does E=mc2 look similar?
  3. I admire what you're trying to do. That said, I think it is better to talk about why adding the parenthesis doesn't mess up your addition problems, as opposed to saying that ordinary integer addition is associative. Be real with the people. That's just my opinion. To me, it seems like what is really going on is putting the parenthesis around a math problem like this -> {5+4} tells you that you'd better be careful to resolve what is inside the parenthesis before you do something else. So, (5+4}+3 is different from 5+(4+3) because someone is telling you about the order in which you add things up. Now, what does it matter since, you're only adding things up. They all get summed together eventually right? That seems like a clearer way to say what is going on than to say addition is associative, but that's just me. I'm more than willing to have somebody tell me I'm wrong, and I should be eager to use the bigger words to describe it. Maybe "more than willing" is an overstatement. I just don't have much use for long strings of letters and fancy jargon. Another example is the distribute law for natural integers. The "distribute law" is a "law" because multiplying 10 by 2 is the same thing as multiplying 10 by 1 twice. Or adding up 10 twice. Or adding up 2 ten times. Six times Seven is the same thing as Seven six times. Or Seven 3 times and Seven 2 times and Seven 1 time all summed together. Because multiplication is shorthand for lots of adding. And exponents are shorthand for lots of multiplication.
  4. Double Post There are long objects, and shorter objects, right? A ruler is an interesting example. It is a man-made object which we use as a standard by which to compare various objects' length. We put a ruler next to a bookcase, and we say ah, two rulers long. Next to a doorway, ah 3 rulers long. The doorway is more rulers long than the bookcase. When we are very young, we perceive that some objects have more length than others. Eventually we speak about length and make complex studies of it. "[The defenders of conceptual knowledge] were unable to offer a solution to the 'problem of universals,' that is: to define the nature and source of abstractions, to determine the relationship of concepts to perceptual data - and to prove the validity of scientific induction ..." -Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg 3 (which is the forward)in my copy As far as points go, lengths end in points, right? Pointy objects end in points, at any rate. Lengthy sentences end in points. Um, when you argue, you try to make a point. That is a different kind of point I suppose. Or is it? Pointy and sharp can be used interchangeably sometimes. I'd say the word point in mathematics classes usually refers to some part of an imaginary line. Oh, and basketball players score points by ending plays. That seems like an equivocation. Some people think it is rude to point fingers. I kind of see what they are saying, but as you can see I'm a big fan of pointing in general.
  5. I agree with what New Buddha is saying. You'll want to read Rand's introduction to epistemology, if you already haven't. It is the same thing with the attribute of color. Color isn't an axiomatic concept, but it is a concept that you can make just by looking around. Entities have color just like they have shapes and sizes. You look around and you figure out that one thing is red and long, another purple and short. I recommend Rand's book on epistemology. It is the most valuable (to me) book of hers. I own a copy with the appendices. The appendices are great too. I love the book.
  6. I'll just quote myself, so you don't have to go digging. Its bad form to repeat one's self as often as I do, so if just want to redirect me out the door, I'll understand and I won't hold it against you much. Err, I made an error. The monopoly of force refers to the use of retaliatory force. I suppose that is what we should say if that is what me mean, isn't it? Excuse me, I understand from her that government agencies should have the monopoly on retaliatory force and that all individuals should have the monopoly on defensive force is that right? The rest of my post still stands. I think the central theme of everything I'm writing on this subject is to point out that we are all individuals and we pay our employees to carry out our retaliatory force for us. It seems disingenuous to claim that it is the government, not us, which uses retaliatory force. That's because it is we who fill out the police uniforms and pay ourselves to do the law enforcement. We, the people, right? We are the government, even if you don't carry a gun and badge, you're still responsible for all the force that is committed on your behalf. That is why the phrase monopoly on retaliatory force is confusing to some people. Everyone shares in this responsibility for this "monopoly" and monopolies are supposed to be exclusive, right? Well, I hope I made up for quoting myself, by just expounding some more. Edit again:
  7. Disjointed is the word I'd use to describe this thread. I'd still like to return to what the OP said, but it may not be so consequential as I had thought. I'm participating in at least three threads that now that all deal with this same subject. One thread asks, "Is taxation moral?" Another, "Governments monopoly on force contradictory?" And this one. I've counted a few others that I haven't participated in and I'm sure there are more, which I haven't seen. Dream Weaver, I want to pick up our dialogue where we left it. My post #95 on the previous page. You redirected me to a different thread, which I'm thankful for since now we're talking there as well, but I thought we had a good thing going here first.
  8. I don't understand this quote. Okay, so, the government official may do nothing except what the law permits. It is the same thing. If the law doesn't forbid it to the private individual, then logically it it is permitted to the official. I think its a matter of emphasis. I'd just simply say that the private individual pays the salary of the government employee. Individuals determine what the law should or should not allow, and individuals hold their public servants accountable for their actions in office. We are all individuals. (I'm not! )
  9. CapitalismForever - It wasn't "your" question, was it? I was reading too hastily, I'm sorry. I certainly agree with your answer. It is the question I don't like, because it obfuscates the issue by sort of glossing over the rights-respecting part. Again, sorry. EDIT: But I also agreed with Dream Weaver when he wrote "A rights-respecting form of society arises from a rights-respecting mentalitied people." I suppose it depends upon whether or not, once they have it, they can keep it. But I'd have to think about it some more.
  10. Oh, sorry. I took offense without cause. About the game being useful to concretize the concepts we're talking about, I'm not sure. I'll leave it to you to elaborate on that point, if you care to. I have been talking about what the government does to various industries. I mentioned the railroads, airplanes, and the phone company. When these technologies were developed, the government misused them grossly, distorted the markets, and prevented progress for decades, centuries even. We still have the government involved in these industries. Since day one, the government has tried to monopolize these industries. So, while I agree with you said, it didn't address what I saying. Yes, you nailed it. I have meant the entirety of each of my posts to come across as an effort to reduce, break down, dissect, or analyze the various abstractions to the perceptual level. To concretize the phrase "monopoly of force". When you get into an argument without someone over what phrases like this mean. (Parenthetically, there is a big argument over this phrase), I believe this is what you should do. And I'm trying to emphasize that I think the problem comes from an over reliance on particular language choices and propositional formulas that have been given to us by our intellectual leaders. Where I would be without Ayn Rand explaining to me what the the higher level concepts meant, and breaking everything down, I shudder to think. And I would add that, historically speaking, it is a failure to trace back complex ideas to the individual human beings involved which has led to most of the worlds problems. I know we agree. If you are comfortable in your knowledge about what the monopoly of force means, then congratulations are in order, but if one finds himself in argument with say, a Libertarian, over this issue, I think the conversation is best served by tracing the concepts back to the individual human beings. Edited for clarity Edited again: and basically, I don't like the word monopoly. It is a confusing word since it can be used in different ways, to mean the board game as an example.
  11. No, I wasn't talking about the Board Game. I'm sorry you have to ask. Yes, I don't disagree with the way you have defined monopoly. You only think you are disagreeing with me, because you don't understand what I'm saying. I tried to restate what it means in plainer English, but you didn't understand me. I want to be able to use the complete English language to argue for Objectivism. Yes, a monopoly means exclusive control. It means one power to the exclusion of others. You say that government must have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. I agree. I think I understand that sentence and am able to restate it in ordinary language. You don't have to use the word monopoly in order to think about these concepts. It isn't an essential word. Now, you understand at least what I am claiming I hope and if you reread my first post I hope you will understand me better. Because and let me emphasis this. I don't disagree with anything you have said. You are completely right in what you have said so far, in my judgment. EDIT: It boils down to this. Saying that the government must have a retaliatory use on force is a very abstract statement. Not abstract because it is hard to believe. It is easy to believe because it is definitional. In some sense, definitional statements like this aren't very useful, because they don't talk about the real world in more concrete terms. In reality, there is no such entity as the government. There are only individual humans and office buildings. In reality, there is no such object as retaliatory force and you can't just ostensibly define it from defensive force. There are only individual actions, and sometimes everything is not crystal clear. So, we have to root our understanding in the real world and in the complete English language. Not retreat back into definitions and comfortable propositions. The real world's challenges do not allow for it. Not that definitions and comfortable propositions are bad. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. We must have a strong foundation. So, I hope it is clear, I don't want to disagree with any Objectivist about the Objectivist position anywhere. Ayn Rand was completely right. She was the voice of reason, but I think there is a human tendency, perhaps weaker among Objectivists, to rely on the voice of their leaders. That is what I think I perceive. I believe it relates to what I perceive as too heavy of a reliance on the term monopoly. It isn't a great enough word. It is over used. There is no justification for how often it is used. You have to stretch your language in order to strengthen your concepts. I know I am preachy and arrogant and a lot of my readers will say, "duh" if not something worse about what I wrote. But oh well. I am preachy and arrogant.
  12. Ayn Rand, the voice of reason. It is amazing how gifted she was at speaking and writing clearly on HEAVY psychological issues. How comfortable she was, how in her element she was discussing reason and philosophy, and sometimes doing standing on only one foot. I rewatched an interview of her on the Phil Donahue show, last night. He was being contemptible towards her, but she just let it roll off her back, didn't get mad, and was very pleasant.
  13. Dream Weaver, I agree with what you said. I think you're indicating that you disagree with something I wrote, but since I don't disagree with anything you wrote, I'm not sure how to reply. Yes, I agree with what you said about monopolies, for instance. That's why I think there are at least two meanings for the word. Objectivists, in talking about a monopoly (one-power) are talking about a dedication to resolving our differences and establishing one objective book of law that everyone can live with. Whereas the more common use of the word monopoly has negative connotations which reference what the government did to the railroads, or airplanes, or phone companies or etc etc. See, if you go back and substitute "one power" for everyplace anyone wrote "monopoly", I think it would be clear that the word doesn't actually mean the abstract notions that people try to make it mean. That, to me, explains why different groups of people have different ideas about it. It is a "loose" word and I think it hinders the thinking and the communication process much more than it helps it. EDIT: Wait, wait. You asked me a question, and I was dodging because I didn't know what to say. Yes, I think that I wrote was VERY simple and clear. If you didn't think so, why didn't you ask me to clear something up? I think you implied that you disagreed, but you didn't make any specific claim about where I went wrong. Make that claim, if you can. I want to know where I am going wrong, but at this point, since you didn't, I'm going to assume that you couldn't, because what I did write was simple, and clear. EDIT: Well, now I'm not being fair. Obviously there is something you didn't understand or agree with, otherwise you wouldn't have asked that question. But what it is I'm not sure. I think this underscores my point. I think we agree, but are having trouble communicating.
  14. Epistemology is the cat's meow. I think that means good.
  15. Ditto. But even if Ayn Rand did say something to that effect, that IS something, strictly speaking, I wouldn't consider a part of Objectivism. Love Rand as I do, she was human and therefore capable of saying strange things.
  16. I found a contradiction in what I said. I offer an explanation for why people value government more than it is worth and then just some lines later, I'm totally amazed why anyone would think an argument has to be made in favor of government. People don't appreciate freedom. It is that simple. It is just incomprehensible to me. How can so much of the world not get it? I understand why freedom is so great, why don't they? Is it possible that I am upside down, and the world is right side up? Of course, it must make sense, if one looks at the history of civilization, and the history of thought, and calmly breaks it all down. But just at a casual glance, isn't it just staggering? What Earthly reason is there that freedom is not the law of the land? Why does freedom seem like the exception to me? Is it? There is obviously something I don't appreciate. I may have heard about it intellectually, but it hasn't sunk in.
  17. Allow me to paraphrase what you just said. As long as there is peace and order, the government can forcibly take money from me in order to pay for that peace and order. If I want, I can use an "alternative means of exchange" which presumably means going somewhere where is no peace and order, like leaving the country, that way, my freedom is not being violated, since I have an option. If the government demands in taxes less than than the value of your entire life, which you presumably only have because of peace and order, then it is a fair trade. You should in fact be thankful. Such a system provides checks and balances against people forcibly taking my money unfairly. Whereas if people have to trade value for value voluntarily, the government will be in bed with whoever pays its bills. That is all wrong of course and I explain why my paraphrasing is completely and totally apt. There are a few things you overlooked in your line of thinking. 1) Anytime anyone is free anywhere, a group of law enforcers can claim that they and only they made that freedom possible. 2) Even if they could make that claim, it doesn't follow that they have the right to any part of my life. If you rescue a drowning man, does he owe you a percentage of his estate every year from then on? 3) The price of security is determined by the purchaser of the security. It isn't an infinite value, it is determined by market forces. Your argument has government services be "priceless", because your life depends upon them. This simply isn't so. The price is a factor of production costs, and interest rates, and how much competition there is. I think I subscribe to the Austrian theory on time preference. Possibly some other factor as well. It's clearly more complicated than "priceless". You can't say food is priceless, because you need food in order to survive, therefore farmers can charge whatever they want and you must pay and of course you are always free to go somewhere where there is no food. 4) What checks and balances?? You're saying government is priceless, I can be forced to pay with anything less than my life, and I am always free to flee from the government, run, and hide. 5) We want the government in bed with the people who pay for the services. The problem isn't that the government is motivated by the profit motive. Everyone is motivated by that. You can't escape that. You shouldn't want to escape that. The problem is there are more socialists in the world than capitalists, i.e. people don't appreciate the value of freedom. There are plenty of people who already value government. Government is way over valued, currently! That is a fact and it is because everyone is taught that government is great and made up of lofty, nice people who have magic wands that are able to heal the economy, fight off pestilences, and in general make live worth living. It is such a gigantic con that most people never even realize what happened to them. Edit again: Why in the world do people have the idea that we have to force people to pay for government? Look around. Aren't there plenty of big governments? How I long for the day when there will be difficulty in persuading people around the world to fund government programs. All government programs - from World War and Genocide to the Post Office. There is no difficulty in getting people to fund this monstrous evil. Quite the reverse.
  18. I tell you I'm waiting patiently, and I acknowledge that you have plenty of other people to respond to, and this is your response? Could it be that you just don't want to address what I said? Stop lying. You don't have my consent. I don't want you taking any part in my government. I frankly don't trust you. You twist the meaning of my words, misquote me as having said "I just don't feel like paying my taxes", which I find insulting. You ignore whatever you can get away with and then dismiss me very rudely after I politely remind you I'm waiting for answer. I respect your position not at all, but I don't fault you for that. I fault you for a lack of intellectual honesty. EDIT: For anyone else looking to have an excuse to leave this conversation, I think all you need to do is pick up the point I've been making. And Grames, if you can finally pin him down, will become very bored with this whole topic. It is either that my arguments bore him and are easily refutable, or that he has no answer to them. I know he has no answer to them, because I know I am right and I know he is wrong. EDIT: My entire post should have been the following: Look, he is defeated, he refuses to answer my arguments. It is a simple, powerful fact.
  19. CapitalismForever,- I'd rephrase your question to make it more simple, "Is it okay to liberate oppressed peoples?" I believe this is the same question, but your question is unnecessarily wordy. You ask is okay to impose a (rights-respecting) form of society on other people? Your language choices are provocative, but I can't think of a good reason why that should be. We do want to impose (good)forms on people or we simply want to free oppressed people. Semantics, I know, but there is an art in diplomacy that isn't superfluous, but is essential to convince people to agree with you. I think monopoly of force is another instance of unfortunate language. The government grants monopolies to all sorts of industries all the time. It almost seems like every single industry. Whenever a new technology comes into existence, the first thing the government tries to do is monopolize it. One should try to be simple, clear, and look beyond popular connotations and popular phrases to convey truth. We the people, the individual entities are the only existing agents of force, moral or immoral. We organize into government agencies and establish laws so that we may be more objective in the dispensation of justice, but we can't forget that the monopoly of force does not reside in a separate "entity", "the government". It is, according to my understanding of its use, by Rand and others, a phrase that refers to the commitment to solve our civil and political disputes publicly so that everyone can see and we can, as communities address our problems scientifically. It is not really so much that we, as individual citizens lose our agency as moral force (after all, there are no other agents of moral force in existence besides individual humans), but rather we want to cope with the criminal element in our midst as carefully and systematically as possible, while causing the least amount of risk to our individual persons. -Opps, I meant to address must of that to everyone.
  20. Miles Mathis' physics

  21. So is fair to say that you would ascribe the monopoly of force to such an abstract notion as the law? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. My point is simply that if individuals can use force to stop crimes, and other individuals pay certain other individuals who wear badges to make sure that the first group of individuals were applying force correctly, then it seems like everyone involved, and I mean everyone, is not only morally responsible for the use of force, but actually prepared to use it. I'll give my opinion now about what I think Rand means by monopoly of force. What I understand from her is that government agencies should be the only agencies to use force. But what happens when the people exercise self-defense? They are agents of moral force. And Rand is okay with that. Rand is okay with individuals enforcing the law. Indeed, how can one not be since we are all individuals. Saying that the government allows us to exercise self-defense is backwards. We allow the government to defend us rather. EDIT: That is what it says in the constitution, right? We the people find it necessary to form a government to protect our individual rights? Not, we the government find it necessary to protect the people. Rights are derived from the people. There is no monopoly of force, the individual people get together and organize their force and establish objective rules, but it remains clear to me, that the people could not sustain a government, could not create one in the first place, if they themselves were not the primary (and only truly real) agents of moral force EDIT AGAIN: Saying that the government allows us to exercise self-defense is not backwards, if you understand that it was "we, the people" who allowed the government to tell us what to do in the first place. So, we are in a sense allowing the government to allow us to defend ourselves. But that is a rather convoluted way of looking at the relationship.
  22. Grames, I'm looking forward to what you think about my posts - I believe #139-140. I made a strong argument for why, contrary to your expressed opinion, market in force exists. You have other people to respond to, so I'll wait patiently, but I'm looking forward to it.
  23. Is it out now, or a week from now? I don't understand. You don't like cartoons, or you would prefer less Newt and more (I mean some) Ayn Rand? I'd trade all the clips of Newt, for just one clip of Rand. She wouldn't have to say anything either, it would be worth it. I like the Reagan quote about how we could 'say they're spending money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to the sailors, because they're spending their own money'. But I've no interest in seeing this. I'd rather just re-watch something better and more creative. Come to think of it, the graphics and music did look pretty tacky.
  24. I can remember hearing Ayn talk about how she wanted to give the world her picture of man as a heroic being. She wanted to give the world her novels, she considered herself primarily a novelist. When she found there was no satisfactory philosophy that she could use to accomplish that end, she had to philosophize for herself. Volco just wants to remember that. If you want to say Objectivism would less well known without her novels, that is true, but Volco is unhappy with leaving it there. Objectivism would lose it's art. The thing Ayn wanted to share with us. I hear Volco saying, "Roark above the waterfall!". And your response is something like, "strictly speaking, that isn't Objectivism", it is only a container. Give me a break. Now, can we please talk about the issue the OP raised, and the one I want to talk about. What did Rand mean by monopoly of force? I now also remember that it was a sense of life that she saw around her growing up. Perhaps in Russia, or perhaps (what seems more likely, but I can't remember) predominantly from imported American films. She probably saw it deteriorating and wanted to preserve, reinforce, and renew it.
  25. Or perhaps I should back up even further. Do not allowances need to be made on a family-to-family basis? Of course, there we have biological proprietorship, which complicates matters, but if one brother commits some minor infraction against another, it is the family unit that rules on the matter as the members of that unit see fit. If one brother steals 5 dollars from the other, there isn't some universal law which tells us what to do about it. It was a crime. But what is the objective punishment? The "anarcho-capitalist" position does not give us an answer, but neither does Objectivism. I'm not saying there is no answer, I'm saying what it is I don't know. And perhaps the best we can do in some of these situations is admit our own ignorance and fallibility. I don't think we want the government imposing what it considers to be an objective ruling on ever familial matter. We want "family court" rather. Growing up, my family had "family court". I thought it was silly of course. But it was implicitly guiding the course of our lives everyday, I just didn't realize it. We don't want the single "entity" government imposing a universal solution. That sounds to me meddlesome and inefficient. I doubt I would get much argument on that particular point. I'm listening to "Everybody Knows" - Leonard Cohen. I think it is pushing me over the edge.
×
×
  • Create New...