Moebius

Regarding monopoly, the Objectivist stance seems to be that as long as free competition are not impeded by force, practices like predatory pricing will allow for competitors to overcome the monopolist through natural market forces. But let's say that in the distant future someone (or a group of people, or a corporate entity) was so good at accumulating wealth that he ended up owning every single piece of real estate on Earth. Effectively he owns pretty much ALL of the Earth's natural resources. Furthermore, technology does not exist that humans can colonize space. What would refrain the monopolist from charging such huge amounts of rent that the world exists as a virtual slave state? That is, the rent is such that virtually all the productive labor you do goes towards rent and food and that is it, since the landlord can pretty much tax you whatever you want for being on his planet. Would it be ethical for the land owner to do so? Would it be ethical to utilize force to take the lands/resources from the owner?

Damn how many Robins are there?

Thats probably why the first Robin died.

By the way the only thing i never really liked about Batman is how he designed Robin's costume. I liked the idea that this lone brooding vigilante opened up and took up an orphan, mentoring him into a partner. But what is the deal with the yellow/green/red tights? It looks like something he drew up after a night of heavy drinking with Alfred. For all of Bruce Wayne's formidable skills, he is apparently no fashion designer.

Batman. Bruce Wayne is pretty much the epitome of human evolution -- genius level IQ, Olympic athlete body, iron will, model looks, in-depth knowledge on everything from computer science, chemistry, biology, mechanical engineering, robotics, psychology, forensics, military strategy and tactics, and a world-class martial artist to boot. On top of that he repeatedly kicked superman's ass. Oh, and he has a better costume, drives a better car (plane, bike, submarine), and even has a better nickname (Dark Knight = badass, Man of Steel = porn star). Clark Kent on the other hand is a wuss and a simpleton without his powers. Case closed.

I think it would really depend on the threat. You can certainly use AOE weapons to defend yourself if the threat possess similar levels of firepower or is sizable. Admittedly this is unlikely short of a foreign invasion on US soil or the government suddenly went tyrannical. What if someone stole your kitchen knife and butchered your neighbors? What if someone stole your car and ran over an old lady? What if someone stole your gun and shot up a college campus? Obviously the moral responsibility would lie with the hoodlum.

So in essence I can just walk onto a plot of land that a tribal people has been relying on for subsistence for a few thousand years, fence it off and post a sign, and effectively own it? Or to put it another way, can I simply fence up say, Antarctica, open a press conference, and thereby claim the continent as mine?

I share Gary's confusion regarding the exact principles involved in claiming a land as your own. Assuming that one understands the concept of property rights, how then does he proceed to claim a piece of land as his own? How do you arrive at "intention to do labor", "intention to do purposive labor", or "intention to do purposive labor over the long haul" as the criteria for land ownership? As far as I can tell, the only historical criteria for claiming virgin lands has been FORCE. You own a piece of land if you can exercise enough force to keep others out. Virtually all "civilized" people acquired their initial lands this way.

My parents know. I just told them that I was, and that was that. It helps that I am Asian, and our culture is not overtly religious. Buddhism and folk religions emphasize "doing good", and not on blind faith and belief in God(s). My mother believes in karma, reincarnation, and hell. My father is more or less agnostic -- that is, he thinks that religion is completely irrelevant to daily life whether higher powers exist. One thing I do participate in is ancestral worship. I view it as a bonding social ritual and a symbolic sign of honor and respect for my family history, not because I believe that the spirits of my ancestors are watching over me.

I gave some thoughts to this particular point during the last thread , and I agree with Rand that looting results in the destruction of the looter -- in the long run. It's just that: 1) Here we are talking about looting as a mode of behavior, not as an individual act in every instance. 2) The time horizon for the "long run" may very well be beyond a single human life time. In other words, prudent predation does not require the predator to maintain his visage indefinitely (which is not possible), but only for as long as he lives (the probability and risk/reward of which can reasonably be weighed). That is what Rand's argument does not account for -- that individual human lives are finite. When we consider the historical relationship between kings and peasants, we can see empirically that ultimately all forms of systemic looting eventually results in the destruction of the looting party -- over the long run. Individual looters however may knowingly and/or easily get away with looting over the course of his lifetime, or even over the course of several generations. As an extreme example, a man afflicted with a terminal disease with a short life expectancy can conceivably borrow large sums of money with no intention of ever paying it back, and reasonably expect to get away with it. This of course only applies to the physical or financial destruction of the looter, and completely ignores the psychological aspects. I am somewhat agnostic over the argument that looting results in the psychological detriment -be it low self-esteem, general unhappiness, or whatever- of the looter, or even that the severity of said detriment necessarily out-weighs the rewards of looting. I suppose it is possible, and that any looter who says otherwise is simply evading his own reality, but there is simply no plausible way of knowing let alone testing someone's internal mind.

Got any picks from films made after 1990? Growing up on special effects I cannot stand men in rubber suits knocking over model houses...

Harsh but true... The romance in particular made no sense to me also. I don't really recall Bourne killing pedestrians though. In any case it would probably be excused if he was in an emergency -- and face it, the trilogy is basically a series of non-stop emergencies. The biggest flaw with the film is that I was never really able to identify with or feel empathic towards the protagonist. I mean, I guess I could see how someone could turn out the way Bourne did. It's just that he was never really a likable -or even interesting- guy, before or after he lost his memory.

I think the problem with tipping is that it isn't as if the customer can choose the level of service they want. Nor is there any guarantee that if you tip X amount of dollars that there is an objective level of service you can expect. Add to that the fact that you don't tip until after the service has been performed, you end up with a pretty crappy system.

Its banal. From the tag line, the tag line font, to the imagery. Good game though.

Yeah I am trying to decide if I should stay up just to follow the US market. My market (Taiwan) crashed today and fell by almost 6%, effectively wiped out all my January earnings. Right now Europe with the exception of Germany is looking like they're temporarily halting their skid.

My bad. But the point remains the same.

Philosophy, logic, and certainly science existed in other cultures as well. It isn't an exclusively Greek "invention". Ditto with mathematic proofs. I am not aware that Greek biology and medicine were any more advanced than say, China of the same period, and I certainly wouldn't say they were technologically superior. I do not see what makes Greek art and architecture superior -- certainly not from an engineering stand point in the case of architecture. I am unaware of any notable conquest by the Greeks until perhaps Alexander the Great, whose empire is DWARFED by say, that of Ghenghis Kahn. Mostly the Greeks end up busy fighting each other (as well as effectively ending the classical Greek period). Perhaps that is why their civilization lasted a mere 400 years before being dominated by the Romans. Yeah, so? Confucianism is taught to this date, and he predates Aristotle by a millenia or so. A rather pointless statement. See, I am not trying to argue that Greek culture wasn't a seminal culture that provided the foundation for many aspects of Western civilization. Obviously it is. But to say that Greece was the greatest ancient culture because of what others later on achieved is a faulty argument. What the Greeks did was laying the first few bricks. Others came along and over centuries built the house that became the Western civilization. That is why I said that the criteria for judging the greatness of a civilization should be based on the totality of its achievements for the duration of its existence, not based on its influences on others who actually achieved (a rather second-handed way of judging worth in my opinion). By that rationale, we might as well just end the thread and pronounce ancient Africa as the greatest civilization ever because some man on the safari thought of using fire or building a wheel -- which in turn influence this civilization and that, so on and so forth.

Well considering all the other brain drain phenomenons in the past has been due to the fact that the US simply pays better, I would guess that physicians come to the US because they receive bigger pay checks. Other than that there is also the fact that the US is the most powerful nation on Earth and hence a desirable place for immigration considerations.

Some of my favorite Sci-Fi films off the top of my head: Alien 2 -- Get away from her you bitch! The Fifth Element -- Aziz, Light! Serenity -- I'm a leaf on the wind; watch how I soar. Gattaca -- Never save anything for the swim back The Matrix -- The blue pill or the red pill? Terminator 2 -- The best sequel in cinematic history. Blade Runner -- Do androids dream of electric sheep? Pitch Black -- Best Vin Diesel movie ever. But I suppose that's not really saying much. Reign of Fire -- Christian Bale vs Dragons. Plus he did a good impersonation of Darth Vader. Short Circuit -- Johnny 5! Best robot ever. Brings tears to my eyes every time.

Well I mean, he doesn't have to rise through the ranks because he already did. And in any case what he said was that the wealthiest people should pay extra -- which doesn't normally include people that are "rising through the ranks".

There is only one objective reality. And it is not a "reality as described by Objectivism" nor a "empiricist, concrete-bound reality". Reality simply is.

Last I checked this philosophy is supposed to be about reality.

Well, it means that he's got some socialist in him anyhow. That doesn't quite make him a moron. And it certainly doesn't mean he has no economic sense. The context here is reality. The point of economic theories is to predict reality, not to discuss how people ought to act. Warren Buffet may be wrong philosophically about some things, but he obviously is very talented in predicting future trends.

Are you saying that Warren Buffet has no economic sense? Serious?