Richard_Halley

Bearster: Would you say that Ragnar was correct to take the tax dollars back for those invited to Galt's Gulch? I agree that one should aviod publicly funded employment due to the kind of experience it would be. But sometimes, such an experience is better than the alternitive. And as for Dr. Stadtler... as long as one recongnises that one is merely taking back what is theirs, there are no eyes being closed or averted.

ragnarhedin: Firstly, don't apologize... if an apology was necessary it wouldn't be accepted. I agree with this completely and did not state (nor intend to imply) otherwise. This was not my intention, perhaps my statement implied this... but I thought I had been rather clear that the man was the one wanting the woman, and that the man was the one having the woman. In fact, I worded that statement the way I did with the specific intention of making it obvious that the man was the valuer and the possessor in a romantic relationship. It seems to me that this whole thing has been no more than a misunderstanding, and that, in fact, we agree almost completely about this issue.

Very nice MinorityOfOne, very nice.

Feldblum, I stated before that I have no position and am trying to make one. My concern right now is whether or not you are correct, and this is what every one of my "claims" has been in the interest of. Disproving ether does not prove your theory and so, at this time, I have no interest in it. I agree with your second paragraph, so we can skip over that. If I pick two objects A and B, and map the distance and direction from A to B, then picking a third object C, map the distance and direction from A to C and from B to C, I should have a triangle. However, if location is defined as completly reletive, than the distance/dirction from A to C is in no way related to that from B to C... so the triangle is not necessarily formed. In order for the triangle to be necessary, location must be defined as other than reletive. I am still giving consideration to the possibility that something may exist with no dimensions and that those somethings are the makings of all other things... but I am leaning towards that it is possible... If it is, than the above question about reletivity and geometric laws is likely to be my last objection.

Bartwart: I think you misunderstand me. My only contention was that your proposed slogan was not effective because it suggested a reason to support capitalism which was opposite of Objectivism's view, and that such a slogan would not be helpfull.

Sure she did... here it is: bold mine This was precisely my contention. Read We the Living, The Fountainhead, The Goal of My Writing and About a Woman President. Each demonstrates that its writer held something at least very close to what I presented as her view. In fact, I would contend that, when you brought up Kira and Dominique, you were arguing for the same thing that I was. Except that you were merely noting that there were differences, and I noted what the differences were. On a side note, such personal attacks are really unnecessary and unproductive, as I place no meaning in them. Moving on... I don't recall any particular reference to masculinity, but she did say that her novels were written in order to present the "ideal man." So I would argue that her novels are sufficient to present her opinions on masculinity.

Feldblum, you are putting up a lot of straw-men there... Your first sentence supposes that distance exists apart from all existants. This, in turn, is essentially your entire argument, you show in a later paragraph. And here is straw-man #1: I did not say that these objects could have no other attributes, and yet this is what you are arguing against here. In fact, this is much closer to what you are arguing, which is that length may exist apart from an object to have it. Straw-man #2: I am not arguing for ether, at this point. I am merely arguing that length implies an existant for which it is an attribute. Yes, but you are arguing that distance from other objects, not just location, is a part of an object's identity. Distance from one object to another does change, and so my argument still stands. This requires that the simplest of all existants have no length. Here's how: Distance is a relationship between one object and another. More complex existants may only have length because there are smaller existants making them up, so we may compare the distance from the last object on one end to the last object on the other. However, for the smallest existant--the one which is made up of no other existants--no such comparison is impossible. So it is without length. Your argument implies that there are existants which do not have any attribute of length, and that all other existants are made up of them. I am in the process of considering all of the implications of this claim--i.e. considering whether it allows for the world around us to exist as we observe it--and so, am considering whether it is possible or impossible. If anybody sees an implication in feldblum's claim which contradicts reality, please point it out.

Admins, feel free to quote me on that.

Value (or anything) does not come from any sort of agreement... value is a personal judgment. In fact, none of the things you mentioned must come from the government (although the army should). Is this supposed to be an argument? You seem to be suggesting that because the Romans invented it, it is right. In any case, this suggestion is an outright rejection of Objectivism; If you want to prove it, you are going to have to argue it in the "ethics" section (and then in epistemology and metaphysics). Who said this? Surely not any Objectivist. All values are purely ethical... an economy is merely the system by which they are traded (or, rather, the lumping together of all systems, in a given region or sector, by which they are traded). You seem to be arguing against an idea which you have little to no understanding of... I suggest a read of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal as well as The Virtue of Selfishness. You seem respectful, however, and, as such, I am willing to answer any questions you may have in reading those books (and any other Objectivist literature).

How about this forum...

Firstly, I do not propose what you said I did. Two entities do not need to have anything between them, they can be right next to each other... Besides this... (1) they do have identities; in fact I stated one of their attributes... length. (2) well, you are going to have to give some evidence for this... for now, it is meaningless. Following the argument from your first paragraph back through your previous posts, you seem to be arguing that location is defined by an object's identity. This may not be so, since an objects identity may not change... but it's location may. An object's identity defines that it must exist somewhere, not where it exists. Distance between two objects requires length between those two objects, right? So, since length may not exist seperate from entities--i.e. we may not measure nothing--in order for there to be distance between two objects there must be at least one entity between two objects.

Dominique is quite different from the strikers in her reasons... The strikers withdrew their ability because it was the only hope; Dominique withdrew her ability because she thought there was no hope. And by the way, if this is what it comes down to, 3 may defeat 997 by refusing to help the 997.

Correct, feldblum, the ability to think rationally depends completly on the ability to choose.

Not by Rand's definition. It was Rand's contention that a woman should look up to a man, knowing that he is good enough to have her, and that a man should look up to a woman, knowing that she is good enough for him to want. This seems to fit in with the body types involved--and would certianly be the kind of relationship I would want--but I view the idea that it is the only proper one with some skepticism. Like Rand said, women are perfectly capeable of leading the country... she just said, that they shouldn't want to--or that any woman who would want to would be the wrong kind for the job--based on the above.

I haven't read Contact... but I had thought that Sagan was a "religious scientist" type.

It can stand alone. Selfishness, in the proper sense, means that ones primary value is ones own life, that ones "core purpose" is oneself. All else in ethics follows from it.

Ayn Rand wrote an essay particularly covering the role of government in a free society. I believe it is located in The Virtue of Selfishness.

America is not capitalist... Note that, to the degree that it is capitalist, America is succesfull... Capitalism has not failed in America. Considering how much it has been impeded, I would say it has done quite well.

Great work setting that up, GC... I got an e-mail from ARI today about it. Sadly I won't be around... Hopefully I can catch the next one.

Welcome Ziggy... which threads did you like?

That is a question for science, not philosophy. The important thing, philosophically, is that it does exist and that it does so according to the laws of reality. So, the above question should be in the science section, not the metaphysics/epistemology.

Sounds to me like "socially responsible" companies are those whose primary goals are not profit, but rather charity... I, personally, wouldn't invest in any such companies. Also, owning stock in such a company is like giving to charity, but not getting to pick what charity to give to. This makes it a moral wild-card. I wouldn't take part in such a charity, and I wouldn't take part in such a company. On the other hand, I would be willing to bet that most of these reports are released as publicity alone, and that most of the companies releasing them place no importance on their meaning. Certainly Starbucks fits into this category? I would still be reluctant about such a company, and would run from such a mutual fund as quick as I could.

Concise phrases are fine, so long as they don't remove the philosophy from the issues (there are plenty of libertarians around to ignore philosophy). This is not what you are doing with your slogans though... your capitalism slogan not only ignored Objectivism's philosophic views, but presented the opposite ones. Firstly, I am concered they will take the phrase to mean just "capitalism." And yes, I am concered they will do that, just not in thoes words. I am worried that they will take it to mean that they should like capitalism because it makes the pie bigger for everyone. A fair thing to be concerened about, since that is what your solgan says.

Correct, feldblum, an existant must have a location in relation to other existants... but what defines how far apart they are? Because I believe that this discussion is currently getting nowhere, I am going to lay out now, in the simplest terms I can think of, exactly what it is that we are in disagreement about: You are arguing one of two things, as far as I can tell: 1. That it is possible to measure nothing. OR 2. That distance between two objects is defined by something other that how much exists between them. I am aruging that in order to measure, we must measure something (i.e. in order for something to have an attribute of length, it must exist). So, #1 above cannot be true. And that you have yet to show any reason to believe that #2 is the case (you have yet to define what could cause distance other than the existance of something between two objects). And all of your methods of percieving/measuring distance rely on the perception/measurment of that which exists between two objects. Please specify which (if either) of 1 or 2 it is that you are arguing, and answer my above objections to that particular viewpoint.

Precisely, they are concerened about Wal-Mart's success. Their stated reason for being agaist Wal-Mart is that they think that it will be succesfull enough to put the "Mom and Pop" stores out of business.