dark_unicorn

If this could be clearly established then I wouldn't, I didn't object to Napster and Audiogalaxy being shut down, nor would I necessarily be opposed to Kazaa being shut down if it could be proved that they intended to do this. However, some of these sites are very useful for people who wish to perpetuate mass advertizing of their own products, it's almost like having free television space to promote your products (these sites also make money by advertizing for various corporations). I don't want these sites to completely go away, I would prefer them to have some sort of filtration system so that people could obtain permission from the various artists concerned. I completely understand, with how rampantly socialism runs through the field of popular music these days, I would be tempted to accuse myself of being a collectivist. I've only been here a couple days and obviously my views on property rights have not been fully established on this forum for others to see. The Fountainhead and the Romantic Manifesto are pretty much my Bible and Summa on how to be a musician and poet. Sometime soon I'll submit some material in the productivity forum. I've actually been writing some reviews myself on various sites, unfortunately I haven't yet made a big enough name for myself to get free promos, but I am hopeful.

My name is Jon and I just recently joined the forum. Though I do not fully qualify as an Objectivist (I tend a bit more towards Thomism and traditional Aristotilean philosophy, sort of like Catholicism with a dash of Deism). Anyway, I have a great deal of admiration for Ayn Rand as well as for several in the Objectivist movement (Leonard Peikoff, Gary Hull , Andrew Bernstein, and Edwin Locke in particular) and I support pretty much all of their political stances. I have also found the Objectivist approach to Epistemology to be superior when used as a method of teaching in public school than any other method out there. I guess I should call myself an admirer of Objectivism, which of course is not the same as actually being one. So, greetings to all, look forward to some lively discussions.

Greetings everyone, I'm a novice to the forum who is currently residing in Quakertown Pennsylvania (formerly of Philadelphia). Good old Richard Reardon country.

In the 4th book of the Qu'ran this is pretty much covered, "Convert by the Sword" so they say. The answer is all non-Muslims are either to convert or die. There is no second opinions, nothing else is valid, not being a muslim is blasphemy, case closed.

Yes, that goes without saying, I'm not a member of the new left. Well, a little bit of a confusion in terms on my part. I alluded earlier to the fact that I would use my own capital in my choice to attempt to succeed without them, which I meant to imply that I would reserve the right to compete with them on fair terms. And for the record, being that I'm one who only works well when taking my own orders, it is pretty much guaranteed that I would not associate with them unless they agreed to stay out of my way. They want to make money, I want to make money, it's simple and it's fair, I just do not wish to be compromised on my artistic principles in the name of working with others. Primarily I'm speculating on what recent court treatment of file sharing programs, though obviously if they shut down Kazaa and other servers I would simply run the files from my own site, it would just make it more challenging for me to advertize. However, naturally as an artist and a supporter of the Constitution I oppose censorship in any respect, and based on supposed decency laws (my Catholicism non-widthstanding) so the FCC's existence presents a problem for me. Not so much because of profanity or sexual content in music (neither of which is too big of an issue for me, except maybe a few instances in the latter) but because eventually political opinions will be next. I see, so technically when I download the song it's already been copied, the fact that I may destroy it later is non-material because it was not mine to being with. Well understood there. I do have some friends whom recieve free promo CDs for the sake of giving online reviews of them, these are usually sufficient to figure out the extent of an album's quality. Fair enough, my gut likes Taco Bell but there is obviously no accounting for taste. I was curious to see how this would be interpreted because after reading some of Ayn Rand's material I began re-thinking my stance on file-sharing. Clearly I was heading more in the direction of what I've heard from you and will proceed with my financial endeavors as such. This is basically what I was planning on doing, but I was going to do it in a way that most signed acts don't so as to get more interest in my material (larger sound clips) and with the way file sharing is being treated right now, I am wondering if maybe people are over-reaching here a bit.

Meta Blog: The only thing out of your post that I think really needs a response to is the part where you seem to defend Supreme Court Justice Souter, the man is not worth your time. Ever since George Bush senior (aka linguini spine) appointed that guy he has done more to harm property rights in this country than most would have imagined possible. What I find appauling is the fact that you seem to think that preserving some sort of idealistic concept of political philosophy is more important than whether or not this country deteriorates into Fascist Italy, which is precisely where we're headed with this Kilo decision.

This was directed specifically at the person whom started this topic, not those whom responded to him, or the forum in general. I specifically was referencing the comments of one of the first responders when I used the term "boring" to denote that this thread was started by a person who was constantly blanking out his premises rather than being forthcoming. I apologize for a lack of clarity in my post, it was not my intention to deride you or anyone else here. To start off with my band is not what you would qualify as indie, we mostly fall into the power metal genre which has a strong following in Japan and alot of Europe (I have a feeling it may catch on here soon). The recording industry's pretext is to maintain their dominance in the field of music recording by any means neccesary( which is their right of course), and mine is to make my fortune without need of their assistance, but when a government such as ours is in the business of unneccesarily regulating communication mediums (such as radio and television), the result is that competition is squashed in the name of proping up bad business (though they would call it preserving capitalism). I will state for the record that I am not a person who compromises when it comes to art, so if I am presented with a deal from the recording industry, I would need to be given 100% full creative freedom. That almost never happens until after spending a few years whoring yourself to the wishes of the guys running the show. I am tempted to make an allusion to The Fountainhead but I don't want this to go off-topic so I'll save that for a separate discussion. My only real evidence of my suspicions in this matter is circumstancial in nature, and that is the current music scene. Music is not measured in terms of greatness, it is measured in terms of how depraved the subject matter is (rap), or how incongruous the lyrics are (nu-metal), or how minimalistic the music is (Pop). Like all products sold on the market, low quality music goods sold at a high price with no alternatives is a sign that somebody is benefiting from a contradictory form of law enforcement. On a side note, would anyone consider today's music scene Romantic? Hmmm, you do raise a good point here. Would the situation change if I instead decided to borrow a friend's copy of the CD and listened to it all the way through before choosing whether or not to buy my own copy. I guess this would be the equivolent of borrowing my friend's car, which is of the same make, in order to reach a decision. Would this change the moral implications of my information gathering methods? P.S. - Most of the music I download is from the home sites of the bands, which would mean I have their permission. I have made the occasional exception for bands such as Metallica, but obviously there are other ways to get the extra information needed so it's probably not neccesary for me to do it. I canceled my membership with Kazaa about a year ago and have had little interest in restarting it. This was more of a way to test what premises I had at the time and whether or not they are correct. My gut would ordinarily tell me to steer clear of those whom keep information away from customers in order to push over a lousy product, and it hasn't let me down yet.

Greetings to all of you here on the forum, I'm a bit new here and I wanted to inject a couple of specific hypothetical situations into this conversation that might make it a little more intellectual and a little less boring. First of all I'd like to state that I am an aspiring recording artist (among a few other things) and as such I am a strong advocate of property rights, specifically intellectual property rights. However, I believe that some whom wish to regulate the internet more strictly because of the phenomena of file sharing are going too far and actually meddling in the rights of intellectual property owners to dispose of their property as they see fit to. To further explain my position, I will now present my hypothetical. 1. Let's say that I am an independent artist who wishes to mass produce my intellectual product by disposing of some capital gained through labors in other fields. As such, I have decided that I will make 1 or 2 complete songs from my self-produced album available visa ve file sharing to aid in advertizing for selling this album over the internet (some artists like Dragonforce already do this). Now, the recording industry does not like the fact that I am circumventing their right to determine that only artists signed with them can mass-communicate and profit from their musical creations, so they use the fact that many people steal property from signed artists as an excuse to ban all file sharing, and thus criminalizing my actions which have nothing to do with intellectual theft (this is similar to the way the Anti-trust laws work). What are your opinions on this senario? 2. Let's say that I am a person who wishes to have a little more info about a particular musical album because I like to know whether I'm going to waste my money by purchasing something that is not being advertized truthfully. The album gets rave reviews and short-sound samples are available at the FYE store before I purchase the album, but unfortunately I am unable to determine whether or not the album is worth what it is priced at because I don't have enough information. I then decide to download some of the songs in their entirety in order to get a clearer picture of what the album is worth, I either discover that the album isn't worth the CD is printed on and don't buy it and subsequently delete all the files I downloaded without sharing them with anyone else, or I find that the album is excellent, I purchase the album and then delete all the files I downloaded without sharing them with anyone. I personally don't see this as being theft since all I did was utilize a method of gaining information to make a decision on how to dispose of my property (my money earned while at work). Am I wrong in my views on this? And if so, where am I going wrong? Note: The second senario is actually how I researched and ultimately decided not to buy Metallica's St. Anger. In addition to the obvious principle of not wishing to steal and perpetuate further theft of Lars', James' and Kirk's intellectual property, I was also motivated by the principle of not helping to perpetuate the mass communication of musical excrement when I did not share these files with anyone else and immediately deleted them from my computer before my gag reflex kicked in and caused my computer to be steeped in vomit.

Although I was mainly leaning towards Thomas Jefferson, I ended up going with James Madison for one primary reason. The greatest weapon that the Islamicists have against America is the fact that our political and intellectual elites have the confounded idea that the US constitution applies to anyone who just happens to share this planet with us, including these physco-suicidal turbin-wearing Islamo-nuts. In addition to a military solution, the person who wrote the constitution would be vital in clearing out the intellectual bile that is allowing these sleeper-cells to infiltrate the US and plot terror attacks. Jefferson gave us intellectual independence from the intellectually-deteriorating European establishment, but Madison's constitution gave us the philosophical base by which we established our own identity as a nation, that is what we are losing today and are in dire need of reclaiming.

Indeed he is, he's made of straw, he exists primarily in the minds of those whom can't figure out the contradictory nature of robbing Peter to pay Paul, unfortunately he never seems to go away no matter how much we wish him to (despite that wishes are what created him) and even more unfortunately his handiwork is to be found all over the place.

First, in the interest of being 100% forthcoming, I am not what you would classify as an Objectivist, so my answer will probably not fully coincide with what the established philosophy states. I guess you could qualify my philosophy as a mish-mash of Objectivism, Thomism, and the various Aristotilean philosophers of the enlightenment. The primary thing that would disqualify me as an Objectivist is my different view of metaphysics, which are more in line with Aristotle's philosophy than Ayn Rand's (though I have accepted Ayn Rand's epistemological interpretation of the nature of a metaphysical object (such as the "redness" of the color red)." Consequently, I am merely offering my opinion into the cougher of intellectual discussion, though it is obviously different from what others here will say. The nature of man is obviously separate from that of any other object, that is the "law of identity". So in order to begin analyzing the choice "to live", we must understand "who" or "what" life we are speaking of. Both Objectivism and Aristotle agree man is an animal whose distinct feature is one possessing a rational faculty, ergo the ability to make choices based on analysis and synthesis. Implied in man's metaphysical existence is the propensity to think, and his free will begins with the ability to either think or not (Aquinas referred to it as Volition vs. Nolition). However, in order for man to think, he must be alive. But in order for man to choose whether to live or die, he must first contemplate the choice, ergo he must think. Essentially the 2 go hand in hand, and the only way that they can come into conflict is if man does what is against his nature, not think. Since free will (in the words of Aquinas) is dependent upon a person being of a rational mind, it is surrendered when one does not think. This also means that the minute that you believe yourself not to be free, your thought process reverses itself, the ultimate consequence being the end of your humanity. I have always believed that there is a strong belief between the despair of feeling determined and life thus being something you have no control over and the confusion that comes with not understanding the strong link that exists between thought and choice. When you have the power of moral clarity that comes with knowing yourself and why you desire to make the choices you make, despair is not something that ever enters into your thought process, because such things are dependent upon confusion. In logical terms this would state the following. 1. Every moral choice is dependent upon thought. 2. Every thought implies a choice. 3. The choice to live is dependent upon your thoughts on life. 4. Your thoughts on life are dependent on the fact that you are alive. Ultimately one of these 2 phenomena (choice and life) are determined by thought. Thought determines whether you have choice, and choice determines whether you will live to continue to think or to die and thus not to think again (and if you are an Atheist, this implies an end to your existence). As a person who does believe in an afterlife, my speculations on it's nature are completely dependent upon my perception of material reality, for that is what all abstractions are dependent upon. Any concept of the immortal soul or God begins with individual thought, though obviously if both exist they would be independent of my thoughts, which mean that my speculation could be at error. But I do think that our choices are a determining factor of how such an existence would be for the soul. P.S. - If you don't buy this afterlife stuff, feel free to disregard my last paragraph.

Historically our strongest ally has probably been Austrailia, with England probably taking 2nd place. Ireland and Israel are also probably fairly dependable. Norway and Denmark are a tiny bit iffy, but they may be of help if things go to hell. I'm not fully writing off France as an enemy, but their behavior has been nothing short of troubling. Germany and Italy are a mixed bag, they are our allies so long as certain political parties maintain power. Spain is not an ally with it's current government, and by virtue of their last election, their people are weak and not to be depended upon as friends if things go awry. Some of Eastern Europe may indeed be good allies, but they need more time to form individual identities before I can count them as seasoned allies. Russia is not an ally, though many of it's former satelites can probably be depended upon. Sweden is not an ally because it is not a military nation. Switzerland is to be considered an accessory to terrorism (if not an outright enemy) by virtue of it's banking deals with terrorist states. Everyone whom I haven't mentioned I'm either not sure about or the answer is otherwise obvious in the negative.

Nonsense like this is exactly the reason why American Episcopal Ministers are going back to the Catholic Church, not that they have been doing anywhere near what is clearly called for. But I have a question for one of these supposed Bishops of higher reason. What kind of peace do you wish for the world? Do you seek the true peace that comes with free communication and trade between all free peoples, or are you looking for a concrete based, pragmatic, inconsistent balance of political power between lesser and greater tyrannies? But more importantly, do you understand the ramifications of these two contradictory goals? Since these daft padres won't respond to this, I'll answer it for them. "No, we don't understand the ramifications of these two forms of peace. Peace is an end in itself, regardless to what definition we place upon it." To which, I then respond: "I have always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: "My God, make our enemies very ridiculous!" God has granted it to me." (Voltaire)

It does my heart good to know that although they have not been perfect on this issue, that the Vatican has not gone down the depraved anti-human road of suggesting that sexual desire is supposedly un-Christian in nature, which naturally fuels the viewpoint that Christianity is an anti-human religion (in the case of Lutheranism, it is). This sort of nonsense is par for the course as far as the Lutheran Church goes, Martin Luther's view of humanity as a depraved collective of despots was the cespool that spawned the Post-Kantian axis that gave us Hitler and the Nazis. I will still continue to voice my opposition to Ad Humanum Vitae until the Vatican wises up (which probably won't happen in my lifetime) and continue my protest by non-recognition of it as valid doctrine.

I wouldn't put much stock in them doing anything based on their recent behavior. They are pretty tightly in line with the welfare-statist mentality of the rest of Western Europe, such a mentality makes for linguini spined cowards where real leadership is needed. The Ghost of Immanuel Kant still haunts the land of poets and philosophers, and he demands piety and humility.

Contradictions like this are the sacrament of the irrational Left it seems, and the blood and money of the people they exploit could be qualified as their Eucharist. The Left is not interested in sustaining the environment persay, but rather in curing Mother Earth of the blight that they view continuing to plaque her, humanity. I myself have known a person from Venezuela and he actually had some rather harsh terms for the people who live in Venezuela, I remember at one point he referred to them as "A race of thugs who would rather loot the crops of their neighbor's farm rather than try to grow their own." To me it's all tyranny under the guise of helping the poor. If you wish to help the poor, you teach them how to NOT be poor. And as for the Left ever learning, it will not happen, it is against their religion to learn.

Tsk Tsk, the echoes of the Populorum Progressio continue to haunt my chosen church. May god have mercy upon the Vatican for giving comfort to violent heretics from the evil expressions of rational thinking artists, for the maniacs they are defending will not be so mercyful when the time comes. I think that St. Thomas Aquinas said it best. "It is requisite for the relaxation of the mind that we make use, from time to time, of playful deeds and jokes."

I had a similar situation upon speaking with an old high school buddy from years back. Him and I went in completely different directions, but growing up we were both heavily active in the Republican party and as recently as 2000 we were both staunch Bush supporters. After I moved from Baltimore Maryland to Pennsylvania we lost track of each other for a few years. During this time I went into study with the Philadelphia Arch-diocese to become a Catholic Priest and was heavily exposed to the theology of Thomas Aquinas and the Philosophy of Aristotle. When I gave up my pursuit of the priesthood in favor of advocating for Catholicism (Aquinas' theology in particular) on a non-clerical basis so that I could pursue a happy life without the sacrifices demanded of a priest, naturally I became more receptive to what came next. It was after that time that I was exposed to Ayn Rand's literature by an atheist friend (as a man of reason, I have many of those). I have since collected 90% of Ayn Rand's books (fiction and non-fiction) as well as several selected works by Leonard Peikoff, Gary Hull and Edwin Locke. Her philosophy has had an appeal for me as a Catholic proponent of Laissez Faire and also as a fan of the naturalist philosophers of the enlightenment (particularly Voltaire, John Locke, and Adam Smith). Now I am sort of a half-breed proponent of Objectivist Ethics, Epistemology (especially in teaching), and Aristotilean metaphysics with Aquinas' theological elaborations. My friend, on the other hand, had abandoned all traces of both his reason and his humanism in order to become a planner for animal rights protests as a ranking member of PETA. Naturally, we had a lengthy discussion about the contradiction between objective metaphysics and the idea that animals can possess rights that they are not epistemologically aware of. Furthermore, being a proponent of the benevolence consequences of animal testing, my views were naturally a sacriledge that demanded being shouted at over the phone. The friendship has thus been ended, and though I do regret his choices, I do not regret ending the friendship, there was essentially nothing left for us to relate to each other as friends. Whether or not this event in my life bears any comparison to your situation depends on whether or not your friend has his entire life invested in his quote enquote Crusade (the Catholic in me shudders at the thought). If he can listen to reason, then you both have something to offer each other. If your debates can be civil, by all means continue them in good spirit. But if neither of these are still present, you stand only to harm yourself. P.S. - My friend and I did still have one thing left in common however, neither one of us is any longer an avid supporter of Bush or the Republican party. He voted for Ralph Nader (the renouned pressure-group messiah/enviro-mystic wizard) and my vote for Bush was motivated by two things, Kerry's abysmally loathsome domestic and foreign policy ideas and the fact that the Objectivist denunciations of the Libertarians were made available to me before I made the mistake of supporting Badnarik. Bush was the least worst choice, which is not really saying a whole lot for everyone else who ran.

The primary problem that arises when one pursues happiness as an end within itself, particularly when it is done irrationally (Nietzsche comes to mind here), is that itruns the risk of subjectivist ethics. This is not a problem for the Objectivist obviously because no such tendencies towards irrationality or subjectivity exists. But bear in mind that when these ethics were formed, there was no such thing as Objectivism, the product of Ayn Rand's studies. Basically the thing to look for here is what is missing from this quote, the principle of rational thought, which Catholicism views as an attribute of a person whose faith is in the correct order. Aquinas' famous quote "Well-Ordered Self-Love is right and natural" speaks specifically to avoiding excesses that may harm the body or the soul (though it provides short-term happiness or the illusion of it) some examples being alcoholism, over-eating, irrational gambling, et cetera. This is a standard that seems to deal with the formation of a constitutional Republic where these issues would be dealt with on a specific basis. This is essentially the statement that the goal of Catholic ethics is the advancement of humanity (as God's prized creation). Unlike Comte and Kant, the Vatican is not married to collectivism as a matter of faith, they are more than willing to give another format a try, provided that it succeeds at what it promises. Applied to a secular government, Objectivism would be in the best position to create the wealth and prosperity, in addition to minimizing poverty. Hense, in the rare cases where benevolence is needed to care for those victim to circumstances not of their own making (birth defects, accidents), it would be done by convincing by way of private means the acts of benevolence by the prosperous. Objectivists hold private charity as the only ethical means of distributing wealth to those rare people who require it by charitable means, and in their system the Catholic Church would be in a position as a non-government entity to provide a medium for it. The same applies to any other charitable organization, be it religious or secular. This is where Catholicism and Objectivism do seem to come into a rather unfortunate intersection. Ayn Rand viewed the benevolence of prosperous people as automatic by virtue of reason, hense all of this is seen as stating an obvious bromide for the sake of tearing down the great for the sake of despotism. However, this is not neccesarily the case. Objective criticism warrants a vetting system of what is defined as "relative need", ergo each individual carries his own needs, and his best way of satisfying them is on his own initiative. It is indeed rare when such a thing is not possible to an individual by reasons not of his own making, but such acts of benevolence also need not be compulsory. Indeed, morality ceases to exist when compusion is present, so government forced benevolence is a contradiction in terms. Augustinian Catholicism may indeed be in contradiction with man's quest for the end of the self-love/benevolence dicotomy that has haunted humanity since it's beginning, but Augustine does not speak for all of Christianity, and he particularly does not speak for me.

This is an extremely inaccurate view of Catholicism, though it holds a great deal of accuracy in terms of protestant denominations such as Lutheranism and Calvinism. I will concede that Augustine's view of humanity is opposed to man as a virtuous creature by nature, but Augustine is not held in the same light now that he was in the 9th century. Although Aquinas' penned his works several centuries ago, his Aristotlilean influence has only recently become prominent amongst Catholic Theologians. Indeed, though the Platonists are still heavily present in certain areas, there is a real debate going on what the actual ramifications of such things as "Original Sin" and "Divine Predestination". Now, as far as Altruism goes, I think it would be profitable for you to read the Catholic Polemic against both Auguste Comte and Immanuel Kant (both philosophical charlatans, the latter worse than the former) and it's attack on the philosophical theory of Altruism. They can be found at the following URLs. Catholic Encyclopedia "Altruism" - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01369a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia "Kantism" - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08603a.htm Furthermore, in my recent RCIA meetings with our Church's father, he gave an energetic rebuttal of subjective morality in favor of "objective" morality. Now granted, alot of Catholics are incredibly skeptical of Rand and the Objectivist movement because of their Atheism, however, both of them have some common interests that could warrant some collaboration. Such issues as opposition to Public Education (a bromide, Government Education is a more appropriate title, being one who has been a slave to their curiculums for 3 years now), freedom of religious expression (and yes, the freedom from it as well), and a system that does not punish people economically for having differing views.

You guys also have had (I'm not sure if you still do) laws against owning a satelite dish and practicing medicine privately. When a country tilts this close to economic fascism, the next step is for the so-called "laws against incitement" to become meaningless as the various groups pressure the government to make exceptions to those laws for their particular group against another. The only thing that I would actually be thankful for is living in a country where such mythologies as race, class, or any other pressure group are not recognized at all. Instead, everyone would recognized as their own person and would be free to live independent of the tyranny of the coalition of minorities/majority.

Being someone who specializes in the metal genre that was prominent in the 80s as well as the continued evolution it saw in the 90s in Europe, I have come across a few bands that have that "world as it ought to be" Aristotilean mode to their lyrics, some more consistently than others. Power Quest - This is a british/italian outfit that deals in 80s inspired new-wave mixed with speed metal. The lyrics are reminiscent of viking/greek pagan tales of heroism. It is so positive at times that it becomes cheesy, but this is not an issue for me. Gamma Ray - These guys are a mixed bag at times, but their Science Fictionally inspired music (particularly their album Somewhere out in Space) has a mode of intellectual curiousity that is in line with Rand's view of fiction serving reality. Some of their later music (Powerplant album/Magestic album) function more as political polemics against theocracy and tyranny. Mob Rules - Their music is essentially classical music and old style Sabbath metal super-imposed over a concept story of a post-apocalyptic era in the Waterworld/Road Warrior mold. However, there is a sense of optimism and humanism that pervaids. "End of all Days" off of their Savageland album and "Way of the World" off of Hollowed be thy Name are excellent tales of both the value of man and the individual. Rhapsody - These guys take classically influenced metal to an extreme and literally have harpsichords and organs noodling diatonic lines with blazing electric guitars. Picture Bach meshed with a hyper-fast Judas Priest and you'll have it. The Fantasy Storyline is mystical in nature, alot of Dragons and Magic, but the hero bears a strong resemblance to Kira's Viking (We the Living). Iron Savior - Similar to Gamma Ray, heavy Sci-Fi influence at work, and each album ends with the victory of the human race over their enemies. These guys basically present their own version of Atlantis that rivals that of most cinema devoted to the subject. Freedom Call - Another great band with melodic music and inspiring lyrics. Some accuse them of being a bit too light and fluffy for a metal act, but there is some genuine genius at work here. The track that bears their band name (Freedom Call) on their album Crystal Empire is a pretty strong declaration of freedom. The song entitled "The Quest" and "Land of Light" are both keepers. This may not be your style, but give it a try, it may grow on you.