Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bearster

Regulars
  • Content Count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Bearster

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Bearster
  1. Vladimir: I think you are missing the essential of Objectivism's view of emotions as well as of ethics. Emotions are not primaries. They are the automatic reaction of your subconscious to what you experience. To say that a thug lives in terror is not a weak and lame attempt to claim that committing murder causes psychological damage. It is to say that a thug must necessarily experience things that cause terror. They are necessary because they are the effects caused by the actions of a murderer. Unfortunatley, I don't have time to go through this step by step, but hopefully I've at leas
  2. I just want to say "thanks, Tom". You went to surprising length to explain the nature of the matter. I could not have said it better myself.
  3. Ordinarily, I don't respond to thieves in my own living room. But this being a public forum, I assume there are people who don't understand the full context. It's true that I let X lapse due to travel. The analogy would be forgetting to lock my front door. Now that I've returned, I find squatters in my house. But it's ok, it is "mere coincidence" and they are not "hostile". They are "fans of property rights." Some simple /whois commands showed the following azr|el [email protected] * : 0x29A azr|el :@#killjoy @#socialism @#Earthnet +#weed #ufo @#jerkstore
  4. Yes, well, right, *achem*. "All of man's values are chosen--except his sexual values. Those are either nature or nurture." Repeat until true.
  5. Except in this analogy, the LP is digitalis-laced vanilla ice cream with arsenic sprinkles. Anarchism is worse than theocracy, as the Dark Ages were worse than the Middle Ages.
  6. Many years ago on a computer bulletin board system, I first encountered someone who claimed to be an ex-Objectivist. On the board, she advocated every socialist position. I spent some time thinking about this. My final conclusion is that the claim is a lie. I believe that this socialist 15 years ago thought she was an Objectivist. But this is "Objectivist" in the sense of having read Rand's books and, without a real understanding of the concepts, dogmatically spewed them at every opportunity. Inevitably, such people utter things like, "something simply came along and suggested..." I
  7. What do people who believe that reality is real have in common with solipsists; rational men have in common with rationalists and mystics; egoists have in common with hedonists, pragmatists, and altruists? "Libertarianism." It can "work" only if you accept that political systems have nothing to do with more fundamental ideas, such as those in the fields of morality, epistemology, and metaphysics.
  8. I have some additional thoughts on business models. First, to clarify, I thought the original context of the question was that a small business owner could outcompete Wal-Mart on the basis of either being willing to take home less money, or on the basis that he can find odd lots cheaply. I believe I debunked both of those theories. I think the focus of the discussion switched to how such mega-successful companies got started. The premise was that they "obviously" started small. While I think this may have been true for Wal-Mart, I think it's less true for Microsoft, and not true at al
  9. Let's be clear here on what a "right" is, and what it is not. One might argue that one's property right includes sunlight, and that if other property owners built tall buildings that left you at the bottom of a pit, sunwise, that this deprives you of a part of your property. I am not sure if I entirely agree with this (still thinking), but if so, then clearly the adjacent owners can't build over a certain height without purchasing the first owner's sunlight rights. This gets hairy, which is why I am not sure if this whole doctrine is correct. But there is *not* a right to property *v
  10. Let's just say that I disagree that Maslow is basically a good guy.
  11. QUOTE (Bearster) This is is naive, at best, and it sure looks pretentious. After I said that public education should be repealed, you said no Objectivist would say that. Were you unaware that you issued an insult? Do you feel you know me well enough to pronounce that judgement? This is my assessment of the current culture. It is also the rational view of political philosophy. The prevailing view today is that the government which happens to a country has little or nothing to do with the culture. This is why the basically rational, life-loving people of Iraq had a murderous
  12. Betsy, the context was quite clear. I was talking about what happens *after* a catastrophic, cataclysmic, terrorist holocaust. I was talking about America in the aftermath of a terrorist nuclear strike against the largest US cities in the same instant. Your cite isn't relevant--and you know it. I don't believe that you lost track of the context I was addressing. You cited Rand by rote, because who could argue with Ayn Rand herself, right? The fact is, Rand was talking about the US in the what, 1960's? That was a different culture than what will be if the terrorists nuke 100,000,000
  13. The socialist theory of corporation is that capitalists take home "rents" (unearned money). Their moral code drives them to the idea of non-for-profit companies, but their economics reinforces the notion. If people get rich by "rents", then a more efficient system is one devoid of profit. This theory should not need to be debunked again in an Objectivist forum, so I will address it further. If this theory is false, then one can see that the idea that a company could lower prices simply because its owners are willing to work for less (or no) money. Aside from the fact that very few peo
  14. I understand what you were trying to say, but "self-actualization" is a modern psycho-babble term. It is the anti-concept that is somewhat similar to the concept* of independent. *Most of the popular anti-concepts are similar to legitemate concepts. Think of duty being similar to responsibility.
  15. It was intended to kill upwards of 100,000 people. It could have done that. Given the rate of their increase in scale, and this is not to be discounted. They've demonstrated a vicious hatred combined with the ability to coordinate multiple teams. They have access to nukes, from Pakistan, the Russian Black Market, and others. If they nuke NY, LA, DC, Atlanta, and Chicago then the United States of America would not survive. Sure, there would be many people left alive. But there would be two problems. First, food and other basic necessities. Such an attack would wreck our economy
×
×
  • Create New...