Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About miedra

  • Birthday 01/01/1908

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright

miedra's Achievements


Novice (2/7)



  1. These posts were split from the "fiancee trouble" thread, as they deal with the more abstract issue of having a relationship with a non-Objectivist.--JMeganSnow How can you ask for no lectures when what your dealing with is the irrational, have you not before mentioned that she is a religious person? ASSUMING you are an Objectivist, what youve done is compromised your values in ever thinking of persuing a relationship with someone that holds the idea that her purpose in life is beyond her but coming from a mystical 'god'. What makes you think things like this wouldn't happen in the future, after you were married? If someone isn't integrated enough in their personal philosophy what can be built on it? Certainly not a marriage, there is no foundation. But your not looking for reason, your looking for someone to pat you on the back and give you some idea of how to rationalize this all out in your mind and make it go away. To forever evade realities which youve pushed to the back of your mind thinking they are unimportant. Reality is the final arbiter. Evade at your own risk.
  2. This seems to portray my recent/current situation, I am eighteen and have been experiencing this defeatist dread of action for fear of dieing before I could do anything about it. Something I am only now starting to see for what it is and properly introspect on it for once, thus eliminating it.
  3. Benevolence from charity is not alturism, the people that donate their earned money do so willingly in order to recieve an emotional value greater to them than whatever amount they donated. There is no "minimum" anything you can make someone pay from his earnings to provide for someone. And how is it that you assume that everyone cares for 'those around him'?
  4. It is this commonly held belief that citizens of an immoral nation can be seen as moral that cause so many of a morally superior nation's troops to be needlessly killed. You know that from everything you will produce as a working citizen and everything that you will purchase, will promote the continuance of your nation. Be it from your taxes or goods to be used by the more immoral of your fellow citizens. Is it not you who provided them with materials, services, and goods to promote their evil ways? Does this mean that you should stop? Hell no, for as most of you have already stated, youve done your cost/ benifit analysis and found that it is best to live this way. Your right you do have a gun pointed at your face when it comes to paying taxes, but this does not mean you are bereft of choice. Even if you know that all other options will lead to the termination of your life, the choice remains. It is when a nation partakes in an immoral act of war against another nation that that nation has the right to defend itself and destroy the destroyers. Remove the threat. A common baker living in this immoral nation, who, for all of his life has opposed his nations for its immorality and has taken steps to see its demise, remains none the less evil in that for all of that time he has produced the bread that went to the mouths of the nations citizens, leaders, and army; and has in all likely hood provided tax money for his immoral nation. For the defending nation to see him as guiltless in his nations doins is absurd. No matter how minor his role was in his immoral nation he bares some of the guilt and thus is to be seen as an evil entity by the defending nation seeking to remove the threat that has risen up against it. Is it logical to see an immediate need to kill this mere baker? In all likelyhood no. But is the defending nation morally obligated to risk its citizens/ soldiers lives for the sake of seeing that no harm come to these supposed "morally innocent" people? Hell fucking no. He has performed his cost/ benifit analysis and chosen to stay. It could be that certain death awaited him if he didnt stay. But he took his choice. It could be that his choice bought him many years of life for lacking the knowledge of what his country would cause to reign down on his nation. But it was his choice, so the defending nation has the moral authority to shoot on site at this mere baker because perhaps only one of that nations soldiers or citizens appeared to be harmless and in fact had a bomb strapped to their chest and killed the defending nations soldiers. So it should be with no hesitation that the defending nations soldiers could kill all on site to remove the threat. Is it at all likely that this defending nation would go out of its way to do so? no. It would be a waste of resources to attack the citizens. But if the enemy soldiers chose to hide in a schoolhouse, it should be without any hesitation that the defending nation obliterate it if it was presumed to bring about the end of the threat to the defending nation. And the moral responsibilty for those children is then layed upon the citizens their country. So no matter how nominal an individuals role in his countries affairs, shares in the evil in having promoted it. The only moral innocents in war are children incapable of fully reasoning, and their death is on the hands of their parents and country. But as we live in the USA, the most moral of all nations, it is doubtful that anyone would be put in such a situation. But those who don't and provide even the most miniscule of services still all add up to form a nation that is held in place by the production of goods from those nominally roled invididuals who choose to stay. Cost/ benifit analysis.
  5. I believe it is referring to the fact that up until that point the people followed Richard Rahl out of faith and expected him to act as a God. He fled to the mountains because he realized that he could no longer do that for them, they would have to find it in themselves the reason to fight for their freedom without him. He later shows the collectivized masses in the city where he is held captice a statue that he meticulously crafted that provoked everyone that saw it to understand what it means to LIVE and be free, and thus they developed the desire for Life as individuals. Its been awhile since I have read the books, but as this was my favorite I recall most of it reasonable well. I may be off, but that is my interpretation of the title as it relates to the content. [Edit: clarified sentence] Looks like Felipe beat me to a response, ah well. That is another reasonable explanation.
  6. In an LFC jurisdiction would not a "bank" be a form of business? And in that case could not both of the proposed banking methods be implemented that have thus far been addressed as long as no party issued CDs under fraudulent terms? Knowing that the CD (s) you held retained exchangable value for gold, but understood that A.) it is guaranteed to be backed even if every member of said bank was to cash in it's CDs (no matter how unlikely) at the same point in time, or B.) That the CD is LIKELY but not guaranteed to be exchangable for its gold equivalent at any given time. Meaning for A to work the bank would have to start with enough capital in the form of gold to issue loans and at no point give loans that exceeded its starting capital unless and until it made profits to therefore have the option of increasing the amount in which it could loan out. Then any and all deposits would be backed for exchange at any time. Otherwise, as in B, you take the risk, even if that risk is minimal, of losing your deposit if in the unlikely event that said bank failed to iniate certain standards for its loaning procedure and had a majority of the people in which it loaned to default on said loans and cause the bank to close when it could not meet the withdrawal demands of its depositors. Granted this would be unlikely in the extreme. Maybe I've failed to understand something, I'm not sure, perhaps I've over simplified the situation; but said examples are hinged on the assumption that the answers to my original questions are yes.
  • Create New...