Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

JASKN

Admin
  • Posts

    2624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Don't Blame Wall Street -- The Government Did It!   
    If that's the best summary of the "whole issue", you obviously either do not understand what the whole issue is or you're simply spouting left-wing slogans. As long as you ignore the problems with FDIC/Fed regulated banks and the GSE, and ignore the fact that they had to be bailed out, you can continue to pretend that they were not part of the problem or were only led along by the sub-prime devils... poor innocent, ignorant big-banks/Freddie /Fannie!
  2. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in What is Capital stock? How to calculate it?   
    I suppose we could have a sub-forum called "Objectivism, Shobjectivism... I need Homework Help!"
  3. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from Superman123 in Masculinity   
    Search for the "Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality" thread, which is I think over 50 or 60 pages long. There are also many, many other sex-related threads from the past which discuss masculinity and femininity. Beware: much rationalizing ensues.

    After reading some of those threads, maybe you could submit your own ideas about the many facets of human sexuality here in this thread.... or just add to the existing threads.
  4. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Don't Blame Wall Street -- The Government Did It!   
    I'd say that the major source of causation flowed from regular and prime mortgages toward the sub-prime ones: via the effect on home-prices. When credit booms and flows to an asset-category, the price of those asset goes up. Typically, lower quality assets in that category go up in price as well ("rising tides lift all boats"). Thinking that prices of homes would rise was the single biggest factor inducing loans (including sub-prime loans) and all the more complex financial assets based on those loans.
    The notorious Greenspan put and Bernanke's "helicopter drop" reiteration of the put led people to assume that the Fed would try its best to ensure a floor under nominal prices of assets. This turned out to be a valid assumption. However, even the Fed can only do so much. The question then becomes: what type of floor can the government actually support. People who completely buy the government's party-time theme ("use your home as an ATM") are irrational. However, people who don't get with the program and who assume that the government will simply sit by and do nothing, or who act as if we're in a free-market are irrational in their own way. Government involvement in the economy is so high, that guessing correctly about government action is a major criterion for success. (Witness the recent upheavals in the stock market driven by ever changing guesses about what European governments will do about the debts of their "PIGS").

    In a free-market, actors who are using other people's money are kept in check by those other people. However, when those other people are being back-stopped by government guarantees, this removes the most important check that a free-market would impose. When the recent crisis was clearly upon us, and Countrywide was clearly in trouble but not yet dissolved, they (Countrywide) tried to raise funds by offering CDs with slightly higher rates. In a free market, they would have had to offer a huge premium to induce people to invest. However, with the FDIC guarantee, putting money into their CDs carried only a small risk of inconvenience and slight delay in return of principal. A small premium of about 0.5% was enough to induce people to buy their CDs. If bad actors are not checked by funds drying up in such bad times how can one expect any checks during good times? [The same principle plays out with food and drugs: with the government being the rule-setter and proactive policeman in those areas, it drives out private-sector options, since people don't see the point.]

    Of course if the FDIC and the Fed were to tighten standards, if Glass Steagall were to be brought back, and so on we would reduce risk-taking. We could go all the way and reduce fluctuations to North Korean levels: stagnation and steady decline are the ultimate non-fluctuation.
  5. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Occupy Wall Street Protest Anthem   
    Howard Stern interviews some funnier specimens of the OccupyWallStreet crowd.
  6. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Occupy Wall Street Protest Anthem   
    John McCain was on CNBC just now. Asked about the "Occupy" protest, he said that he understands the anger because not much has been done for Main St.! yet another GOP politician promoting the class-warfare idea. He said that so many people in his state -- Arizona -- were underwater on their mortgages that the government should help them. There should be a way -- he said -- to figure out what they can afford to pay, and then help subsidize them to allow them to stay in their homes. He did not point out the obvious: that 95 people in each sub-divisions end up -- via taxes -- subsidizing the 5 who acted irresponsibly.

    The anger that people feel all over the economy is very real. There is no denying that, and politicians who deny it do so at their peril. However, anger tells us little about whether the angry person is right about the target of his anger. The Iranian revolution would never have got off steam based solely on religious inspiration. It was fueled by anger. In its essence, it was an anti-monarchial revolution, with common people angry about their situation and looking for change. yet, it would have been ignorant to support the Iranian revolution. The anger of French revolution was probably more justified that the anger of the American revolution, yet that anger did not translate into a better resuklt: just the opposite.

    If the American people are angry -- and they are -- they should look in the mirror. They are the only ones to blame for creating the current mixed-economy system that we have. The American people promulgated all sorts of laws in their quest for government-enforced altruism. The corruption that comes from such schemes is simply to be expected, but it is not the primary issue. Corruption actually works to make parts of the system better and to make other parts worse. The real problem is the political ideas of the American voter, and the ignorance of the American voter.

    These "Occupy" folks are the type of people who would love to write laws that gives us many more Solyndras.
  7. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Objectivism and circumcision?   
    Definitely. I think routine and ritualistic circumcision is foolish. However, my point was that the negatives appear minor -- though I haven't studied it enough to be sure, and so I'm open to being convinced that this is not so. If the negatives are not major, then I would rather see the government stay out of it. I'm guessing much more harm is done to kids in the name of religion than the snipping of their penis foreskin, but I'm wary of letting the government in to make the calls.

    To be sure! Telling a guy you're going to snip around his penis with a surgical instrument is a pretty huge downer. In fact there was this Jewish sect called Christianity that was trying to spread its message among the gentiles and they soon figured that they needed to drop the requirement of circumcision if they wanted lots of converts!
  8. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from Dreamspirit in Anger management   
    The very, very short version is to broaden the context which you keep on the front of your mind, and shut up around your bosses until they are happy about the "level" which you maintain shutting up.

    Going over bosses' heads is a dangerous, job threatening game no matter how great their incompetence. Remembering your job within the grander scope of things, and how incompetence eventually falls flat on its face, should get and keep you a little calmer.
  9. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from DonAthos in Dating an objectivist   
    If you like each other so much, having patience over philosophic differences should be easier than just between two friends, or two people who are just dating and aren't very sure of their feelings yet. In my opinion, the "like each other so much" is the most important part. It's mostly subconscious and means that in a way you've already evaluated each other in a positive light -- even if there are otherwise disagreements when discussing philosophy explicitly. Yes, it's true that philosophy is at the base of all thought and action. So, a disagreement over, say, whether someone should spend his life helping the poor versus helping himself, ie. altruism versus egoism, would be a major problem. However, if he really lives by Objectivist principles and still has strong feelings for you, it is likely that your character has those principles and the values that match. Even if you haven't given as much thought to the nitty gritty reasons behind those principles, you may still be more or less living by them -- hence, he is attracted to you.

    If you really are open to new ideas, and he already likes you, he should consider himself lucky. A question you might ask him is, "Have you always held these Objectivist principles for yourself?" It's likely he had a period, maybe a long period, where he had to learn them and start using them. I know I did -- I started out Christian. It would be unfair for me to meet a new friend and expect her to already know about and use these principles which took so long for me to adopt. But, I may still get along with the person, for good reasons. It would then be up to me to be patient with the new friend while she "caught up," or just to be OK with her remaining the same, if she wasn't so interested in philosophy. In your case, if philosophy is a big interest of your boyfriend's, it may be worth it for you to try to better learn the "deepness" of the principles he talks to you about.
  10. Like
    JASKN reacted to Grames in Ayn Rand on Forbidding Sexual Displays in Public Places   
    The shortcoming of Ayn Rand's defense of procedural restrictions on property use is that she did not identify explicitly the legal principle involved. Ayn Rand was not a lawyer so this is no surprise or moral failing. I'm no lawyer either, but I have the power of a fully operational internet that makes research into such matters much easier.

    The legal principle involved is the "Coming to the Nuisance" doctrine. The principle was stated as follows by David Wilens (ed: who is a lawyer):

    If a property owner is using his property so as to cause a nuisance to another property owner, then the property owner who was the earlier to start his particular use is the one who has the right to continue his use.

    The coming to the nuisance doctrine brings objectivity to the process of establishing which uses of property are rightful and which are not. The full article by David Wilens is at Capitalism Magazine serialized into four parts.
    Part one is a statement of the problem created by zoning laws.
    Part two is an introduction to the 'nuisance' problem, which zoning laws are supposed to address.
    Part three is the statement of the 'coming to the nuisance' doctrine.
    Part four shows how the coming to the nuisance doctrine solves the many problems created by zoning laws.

    And yes, public sex and nudity is attention getting and distracting and can qualify as a nuisance. Note that the 'coming to the nuisance' works both ways, either the party having a sexual display or the neighbors objecting to that display can invoke the doctrine depending on which was first to establish the property. It is possible in laissez faire capitalism to prevent new strip clubs from being opened next to your house. At the same time no existing strip club should be closed down just because some fool wants to open an elementary school next door to one.
  11. Like
    JASKN reacted to softwareNerd in Knowing good history from bad history   
    Exactly.. ... well said! One has to study the similarities and differences between various religions, between various denominations within Christianity or Islam etc., between various individual people within those movements, various points of time when different aspects of the religion were held to be more important than others.
    Let's take the discussion away from religious topics. Instead, consider the question posed by the OP, using an example that has nothing to do with religion:

    Consider some modern "feet of clay" histories. An old, conventional history might portray George Washington as a great hero, scarcely mentioning his failures. Some older commentary lionized leaders, making them out to be more than human. Then, some modern historian comes along and decides to tell us all about Washington's failures: not merely about his insecurities as a man, but even about his military blunders. We see a young Washington building his "Fort Necessity" as if he had no clue on the topic of the location of forts, we see Washington's early campaigns and find that it is not too far-fetched to describe them as months of running away from an overwhelmingly superior British army, we see that French assistance played an important role at Yorktown. In the end, we might even be left thinking: "Wow! that Washington was a clown who got lucky!"

    Of course, that would be the wrong conclusion to draw. The lionizing was wrong in portraying man as super-man, and the "feet-of-clay" view is wrong by thinking that having flaws is inconsistent with greatness. If a businessman had some business failure along the way, would we would not conclude that he is a bad businessman. A history that lionizes him and only shows his success is incomplete. However, a history that shows all his mistakes can also be wrong in concluding that he just got lucky.

    As archetypes, both types of history -- the lionizers and the demonizers -- share an underlying faulty standard of human behavior where one has to be super-human in order to be judged great. The truth is that human beings are often great, with all their faults and often because of their many mistakes and how they dealt with those mistakes. (Similarly, a historical figure does not have to be an all-out demon, consciously plotting the downfall of humanity, in order to judge him as evil.)

    To answer the question in post #1: a thoughtful modern reader can read "both sides" thoughtfully. He can be careful about accepting the conclusions of historians. He should always question what the right standard of judgement ought to be. he should try to dis-aggregate (aka analyse) causes within the people he studies. Men can be bundles of right and wrong premises. A thoughtful reader can focus on analyzing which premises are at work in a particular case, so that he can accept the right premises and reject the wrong premises. And, if men are mixed, how much more mixed are organizations ... particularly when they stretch across countries and centuries.

    With time, a thoughtful reader will be able to judge some historians to be more objective than others. He can then pick his reading a bit better, and avoid both the lionizers and the demonizers. One might actually agree with the conclusions of one or the other. For instance, one might conclude that Washington was a great general after all, so -- in that limited sense -- the lionizers had the conclusion right.

    There appears to be a modern re-writing by Christian apologists which ridicules claims by people like Voltaire as being (at least) over the top satirical demonization. They point to facts that show progress during the time that the church was powerful, and also to progress sponsored by the church. However, that is like a communist apologist showing how the U.S.S.R. won so many Olympic medals, got the first man into space and so on, without analyzing what aspects and components worked and why. The only useful reason to study history is to understand causation, and that does not come unless one dis-aggregates (i.e. analyzes).
  12. Like
    JASKN reacted to ThrutchBlog in Jobs Video   
    I thought that this video was well done:
    YouTube
    Automatic cross-posted from the ThruthBlog
  13. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from CptnChan in New Features in the Ayn Rand Lexicon website   
    Those are two great features, though. Rand quotes make nice facebook status updates, as well as the "like" feature.
  14. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from Dreamspirit in Is it moral for an objectivist to celebrate "winter" instead o   
    capmag.com:
    Christmas Should Be More Commercial
    A Commercialized Christmas Carol
    Long Live Commercialism this Christmas!

    OO.net:
    Discussing Santa Claus With Fiancee
    Telling Children About Santa Claus
  15. Like
    JASKN reacted to D'kian in "Good Luck" Alternative phrases?   
    "Fortune favors the bold"
  16. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from bluecherry in My final word on the Gold Standard   
    This isn't your last word, this is your original word. You didn't adequately address the principled arguments made against yours in the other thread. These arguments of yours are pragmatic.
  17. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from aequalsa in My final word on the Gold Standard   
    This isn't your last word, this is your original word. You didn't adequately address the principled arguments made against yours in the other thread. These arguments of yours are pragmatic.
  18. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from bluecherry in To pursue or be pursued?   
    Likewise, in other cases, getting people used to the similarities between some men and some women, and not acting like it shouldn't be that way, would also lead to a more harmonious society.
  19. Like
    JASKN reacted to Trebor in Objectivism: "Closed" system   
    I agree with what you said.

    I guess that what I am still confused about is just what it is that we disagree about.

    [surely, we can find something to disagree about.]
  20. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from Superman123 in To pursue or be pursued?   
    In reality, people exist all over the spectrum of sexual aggression, for all kinds of "normal" reasons which span their entire lives. If you have reached adulthood and your life is more or less balanced for happiness (healthy self-esteem, satisfying career, fun hobbies, good physical shape, etc.), and you are male and less aggressive than other males and females, then that is just the reality of your person. No mess-ups, it's just who you are. I see the issue as one of personality to the core, and one that really can't be directly changed. Nor should one even try to change it. Would you try to change your sense of humor? What about your preferences in artistic things or music? They are just your preferences, end of story. They may change over time as your self and ideas evolve, but you cannot force yourself to do it today or tomorrow, and there is no reason to even try.
    There is no "ideal" in the realm of sexual aggression, except as it relates to your spouse/other. If you have found a spouse whom you love for all the right reasons, and you are compatible with each other, who cares who is more or less sexually aggressive?

    Otherwise: Why do women "look up to" men? What does that mean? How would you have a heterosexual couple revert to this type of behavior if it is not already a part of their persons? How could they force it? If it had to be forced to "be" at all, why should they do it?
  21. Like
    JASKN reacted to themadkat in The Alligator River Story.   
    Oh my Gawrsh, what a completely stupid, backwards list!!! Your class apparently suffers from the worst sort of altruistic delusions about morality and love. No wonder people behave so screwed up today.

    Someone needs to smack your class upside the head with the simple truth that "sacrifice" should not play any part in romance. Also, the idea that the "rejection" of someone else's "sacrifice" makes one immoral is repulsive.
  22. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from Tenderlysharp in Objectivism and homosexuality dont mix   
    I am excited for you! When I found Rand, I couldn't stop reading her. I just kept going from one book to the next! I know many members here who have told their similar experiences when they first discovered Rand. Besides her ideas, my favorite thing about her writing is her clarity in style. It's like fresh cold air for the mind.
  23. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from SapereAude in "Atlas Shrugged" Movie   
    Check your local Rite Aid bargain bins...

    In serious though, Googles are my friend: all internet points to this fall, and amazon.com will notify you if you sign up:
    http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Part-Taylor-Schilling/dp/B004Z29XAC/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1312836224&sr=8-3
    http://www.prweb.com/releases/AtlasShruggedMovie/DVD/prweb8626359.htm
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/07/atlas-shrugged-part-i-coming-to-dvd-and-blu-ray-in-the-fall.html
  24. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from aequalsa in Objectively at odds with myself.   
    (Disclaimer: I only know what I've read in your post, so maybe my conclusions aren't accurate in one way or another.)
    Sounds like you need a "market correction" of life. You've been over-spending (parents' money), under-doing (haven't gotten the degree/learned all that much in school), and have unrealistic expectations (a desired "lifestyle" with no plan to support it).

    You talk about a standard of living you want to maintain, but you don't want to attain it through traditional scholastic means, and you don't have many interests otherwise (such as entrepreneurial, or musician, or whatever). How, in real, planned-out terms, are you going to achieve that? Maybe Eiuol's suggestion is something you could do, computer work without schooling. But if the answer is, "I don't know," you at least have to allow that you won't have that standard of living while you figure it out; you can't expect your parents to keep paying for you to live up to their standards, which have been built over decades of work and savings. You also shouldn't expect yourself to be where your parents are at without putting in the decades of work yourself.

    Another unrealistic expectation is that your get-by job in the meantime is going to be 100% wonderful, up to all of your highest standard of hopes to get out of working in life. Fact is, you don't run the business, and businesses will have problems. Those two things mean you will likely be frustrated sometimes. The important thing is to do a good job by your own standard, try to please the employer, and make money so that you can keep working toward whatever new aspirations you develop.

    You've gotta reset your standards of what it means for you to live as a good person in your current life's reality. It seems like you're thinking ahead of your achievements. Try to re-evaluate your standards for yourself, and also everyone else and how they relate to you. It's a huge, horrible, monumental task, if indeed you've been judging everything in your life in unrealistic ways, but it has to be done to move forward on to actually achieving something. Your starting point has to be realistic for you to then build on that. "Focus on reality." You'll start feeling a little better about yourself and everything after doing this just one time. When it becomes a new habitual way of thinking and evaluating, and when you accomplish things that you think are good and realistic, you'll feel even better -- it will build on itself, and you'll no longer have that awful feeling of ennui. The hardest point is just starting out, as you feel worse now than any other time during the re-evaluating.
  25. Like
    JASKN got a reaction from Ninth Doctor in Why Dont any Major Objectivists Participate in Online Forums?   
    Hmmmm... I had an assumption here, I guess. I can't find reference to it on the net except from Peikoff's writings. It's on his site, in forwards to his essays, and even in his bio on the ARI site. However, all of those could have been based on his designation only. So, I'm not sure.

    TLD, you're just rationalizing, and you didn't address the errors I pointed out in my last post. And: If I question him I am also questioning her? "Heir" can apply to ideas which can be property which can then be transferred?
×
×
  • Create New...