Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aequalsa

  1. 1. No and no but I would recommend doing some serious soul searching on your standards. What reasonable expectations are and whether yours are in alignment with that and more that reality is in alignment with that. I suggest that only because the nature of your question makes me think that there is an embedded premise that there are not a significant number of people with whom you could potentially be happy. The fact that those people who fit with us really well are rare does not imply that they are impossibly rare even though it may feel that way sometimes. 2. I've always like the "1/2 your age plus 7" standard fore ascertaining significance. So if your 28 then 14+7=21...so 21 and up would be appropriate. Very far outside of that range and it is unlikely that the two would find themselves in similar places in life. A lot more difficulty in being connected with huge differences.
  2. I think that that is a mistaken view. The founder's were(very rightly in my opinion) extremely wary of power and embedded as many checks as possible on it, not just in the form of 3 branches of roughly equal power but also in the form of varied levels of opposed jurisdiction with specific limitations at each level. Not that it matters since congress and the courts have always completely ignored the 9th and 10th amendments which reiterated the limitations on centralized power, but they were explicitly clear about their primary purpose, which was to protect liberty by distributing power as widely as possible. So it's trifling only in the sense that they disregard it so often. Consider in regard to the recent scotus decision on healthcare that if half or even less of the states would turn down the medicaid funding and thereby exempt themselves they could do an end run around Obamacare and it would collapse under its own weight. Not that I expect the Republican led state legislatures to act consistently on their convictions but theoretically at least they do have that power. It's not insignificant.
  3. I agree with what I think is the sentiment of this; that it is necessary to shift the burden to the person who wishes to abridge the rights of others. Depending on the person I have encountered, they usually, when pressed, break their views down into either the "Rawlsian" minimizing harm for the worst among us or they advocate some kind of Utilitarianism. If they are utilitarians they stand on pretty unsupportable grounds with regard to the difficulty of measurement. The Rawlsians seem to be most vulnerable in a similar sense. How can we really determine who is the worst off in any spiritual sense of the phrase? If they have marxist tendencies then they stick with those who are materially worst of("the poor"), in which case you're probably not going to convince them of much because they are using a specifically delimited standard of evaluation that inoculates them against arguments from reality. All you really have left then is to show that the worst off are better have under liberty. Rising tide lifts all boats. If they are not materialists you might gain some ground by showing how material wealth is not synonymous with general well being past a certain point. With all of this though, in arguing with irrationality, in my experience, little ever does as well as the Socratic approach. If someone makes the claim that you would be better off without a liberty, make them prove it and don't let them wiggle out of the massive issue of opportunity cost.
  4. I agree with that in that we have quite a few more social or personal freedoms and quite a few less economic freedoms. In this conversation, I am only considering the latter since they are the predominant issue in discussing primarily economic systems.
  5. Not at all. 90% go to public schools and the vast majority of those in "private" schools are indoctrinated according to government set standards. There is slightly more freedom of content in the extremely small percentage of people who are homeschooled, depending on the state you are in, but that amounts to pointing to a successful black market as an example of economic freedom.
  6. Sure. Online business is known as the one example of unregulated industry. Anything brick and mortar is another world. Get anywhere near food, oil, children, health and its a goddamn nightmare.
  7. It's orders of magnitude more difficult. So difficult that most financial analysts recommend not starting one because they are so likely to fail, usually as a direct or indirect result of regulation compliance. It's difficult enough that it is usually impossible or prohibitively expensive. I've started 3 businesses. 2 Failures, 1 success. I usually work 12-16 hour days and half of that is regulation and tax compliance. It's nothing like 1947. If you think that it's because you haven't tried to start one in a regulated industry.
  8. The point is that they were not called "extermination camps." That's what we call them now because we know that's what they actually are, regardless of their clear and concise name. Likewise a system that requires, by force of law, all children attend a government owned and run facility where they are indoctrinated by what is primarily the Prussian model laced with Dewey's theories as an alleged improvement, is in no way comparable to an actual educational facility. What happens in your typical "public schools" is absolutely not education. It is in point of fact, antithetical to all things an education should by, by design. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's the history of education in this country for the last 130 years. I didn't. I called it Fascist or Socialist, depending on the element you are looking at. Here's some examples...Federal Reserve-Fascist, Government owned Mandatory Schools=Socialist, The few private schools=Fascist, Banking and Insurance Industries=Fascist, GM=Socialist, Utilities=Fascist, Energy=Fascist. Oil Refineries=Fascist, Computer Industry=Free Enterprise.
  9. I would. I would dare anyone to try and start a business now that was started in 1947.
  10. You're free to do as you wish including jump to conclusions about my intent or capacities, but I think, from the above statement that you still do not understand my central point, which is that what you are calling "clear and concise" words can, and often are used to obfuscate the horrible nature of what is actually occurring. Calling Auschwitz a German re-education camp, while technically correct, allows a level of civility in conversation that something so grotesque ought never to be afforded. So I don't afford it. Believe me when I say that I know and understand the terms of these arguments. My refusal to use them in most situations is because I care so much for concise meaning and those "agreed upon" terms that revere absolutely disallow a concise conversation.
  11. No, I would not try to argue that a country that was overwhelmingly capitalist was not capitalist. Let's say everything but the roads is privately owned since state run indoctrination camps are never more than 2 generations away from socialism.. Let's say further, that it was an abject failure and everyone starved to death out of greed and avarice and too much money spent on hookers and gambling. I would consider it dishonest to try and claim that since the roads were publicaly owned it wasn't "true" capitalism capitalism. It was actually a tollboothacracy. No. No way. It was close enough to a capitalist state that it would be a great example of the impracticability of capitalism. I would even call the first 120 years of the United States an example of capitalism even though it had quite a few more particulars of government involvement in the economy beyond control of the roads. Likewise, in the present day US we are far closer to fascism and in some cases socialism than we are to capitalism and heading in that direction at breakneck speed. In 1930 it may have been a toss up as to which side of this coin we were on but now it's not close enough to even bother with the question. Arguments to the contrary are all predicated on the unique nature of Fascism that Sowell outlined so well in the link I provided, where business men(using that term loosely since few significant companies and industries don't have governmental ties) are routinely blamed for failed government policies and regulations.
  12. I think you're right about our agreement. Rhetorically speaking though, I find that allowing that conversation to even happen for very long gets the conversation bogged down in details and away from the essentials in such a way as to allow them to be on equal moral footing. I agree though that one ought to have a decent understanding of the various types of political systems though since that allows you to ascertain quickly what groups in particular they wish to own. The quicker i can get that the quicker I can get back to the fundamentals as in..."ohhh you want to own the 1%(or some percentage of their money) because they can't be trusted to decide what to do with their wealth. I feel the same way with black people in the US. They're not doing very well economically for the most part so I would like to be in charge of how they spend their money. Maybe we can compromise. What, no? Why not? Oh, ok...you don't like the race thing. How about poor people generally. They make lots of bad decisions with their money. Almost by definition... Maybe I can own the bottom 1% for the good of society. " I find people like that reprehensible. As much as if they wanted to own a racial group so I'm extremely disinclined to allow them to carry on in a conversation without confronting that fact. The real scary ones to me are the ones who are unphased by it.
  13. I agree with that of course, but what then of situations like this when the various new terms are used primarily to disguise an old idea with new trappings and blur the meaningful distinctions with less ominous sounding verbage? Pinko Commy Bastard-"Oh no, he's not a communist...he's progressive...!" Capitalist Pig- "...Oh right he 'favors or advocates progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters' sooo....he doesn't want government to control as much of the economy as they can get their hands on, right?" Pinko Commy bastard-"I'm so tired of people calling Soviet Russia communist. They were totalitarian." Capitalist Pig- "So they didn't attempt to institute 'a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state?' They weren't attempting to follow Marx's blueprint of instituting a dictatorship of the proletariat until such time as human nature sufficiently changed to allow us to all get along voluntarily and have our needs met without property rights? Kumbafuckinya? Pinko Commy bastard-"No, this cant be fascism in the US. Government here only controls 40% of the economy directly. The other 60% is only controlled indirectly through regulation and specially allocated tax breaks and legal exemptions paired with government buying policies for the politically connected with some left leaning social restrictions. Fascists were right leaning and spoke Italian." Capitalist pig- "You're right. Must not be Fascism. Let's instead call it a European Styled Social Democracy with a loosely tied safety net that catches only enough people to justify its existence to the masses,so drunk on the bread and circuses they learned to love in our public schools that they don't need us to censor them, while obfuscating its primary purpose of allocating the majority of resources and power into the hands of a few politically connected elites." In identifying true, useful definitions it is necessary to identify the essential differences and similarities. If an earlier Socialist State owned the steel mills and textile factories and a modern Socialist state only owns and/or controls all of the schools and the banks(who force financial terms and ownership loss on the steel mills and textile factories through a debt-based currency paired with cost magnifying regulation) it hasn't changed in any way substantial enough to warrant a new term. The real purpose of a word like Social Democracy is not to clarify substantially different concepts but rather to put distance between the practitioner and the now discredited term "socialist." To use your example, it would be as if we called Snake poison, "poison," but then, because people don't like "poison," we call scorpion poison "Scorpion oral excretion," so that we do not fear it as we rightfully should. Obviously, all historical concretes are going to vary significantly, but I don't accept that as a carte blanche to make up a new word for each specific instance. Their particular methodologies, the scapegoats they choose whether Jews or gays or entrepreneurs, the amount they take, how they take it, are all irrelevant. Taking 40% of my income rather than 60%, while beneficial to me personally, is a meaningless distinction in identifying what they actually are. Spending it on free healthcare rather than a army worthy of building an empire is still nothing more than a distraction. The culture and historical circumstances change only what they can get away with and not what they desire. What doesn't ever change is their fundemental driving goal. They look around and see a world that's not ideal enough or efficient enough, or not kind enough and set out to change it. They inevitably fail because upset and inefficiency is an inseparable aspect of the trial and error that life is and that leads them to try and own me, and own you too. They're scared, hurt, petty little arrogant minds that believe that if only they could turn us into well behaved pets we'd thank them for it and heap wealth and adulation on their shoulders like they believe they deserve for the great benifits we gain by giving up our own wills for theirs. They are opposed to rights. That is the only meaningful difference in political constructs. The differences that can be pointed to are no more than high level variations on their levels of success in separating our actions from our wills and, ultimately our minds from our bodies.
  14. When you let your opponents define the terms of an argument, it's almost a guarantee that they'll win.
  15. A good article by Thomas Sowell on the name that statism game. http://www.redding.com/news/2012/jun/13/thomas-sowell-by-any-name-left-threatens-liberty/?partner=popular Unless you're interested in comparing the specific outcomes of specific policies, like say Stalin's purges vs. the Trotsky influenced Khrushchev's in a historical perspective, I see little value in specifying the finer points of various forms of statism since they amount to the this same things...slavery and death. Usually when people bring that argument up it is intended to discredit the person as ill-informed and/or to imply that "x wasn't communism since a true marxist regime when never hurt people or limit their rights," or something of the sort. What these arguments fundementally do is attack an individuals epistemology, causing conceptual paralysis since anything outside of specific concrete instances can fall outside of the pure definition of the word "communist" or "socialist." The fact that this particular would be plantation owner currently in the white house now utilizes different strategies than Stalin, Hitler, and Louis XIV in no way exonerates him or his policies. They all amount to the same thing...a deep seated loathing of freedom in everyone but themselves.
  16. I agree with both Dante and SWN about the second aspect but think that it might be possible to rework it in such a way as to include it, partially at least. At the end it seems like a tell the audience rather than show them problem. I felt that he gleaned to much too fast looking at wurthers face leading to that inner monologue. If, for example, Wurther waved to his 6 year old daughter just before the fight, then the protagonist might be able to come to conclusions along the lines of "Wurther has something to fight for," which could warrant more lengthy inner monologues just before the fight. Secondly and less importantly, I felt that the thoughts he had during the fight, especially at the end with the spike in his neck made it less believable. Unless he's autistic or he has some really strong sociopathic tendencies or maybe a great deal of fighting experience, his brain is not going to be physiologically capable of entertaining those sorts of philosophical thoughts while someone's trying to kill him with a laser pick. It would make more sense if he did all that just before engaging in the fight plus a little while he's bleeding out or if a third person narrator or other character was identifying the issues.
  17. I agree. A big difference is Thiel though. He's kinda a doer of things.
  18. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024761/Atlas-Shrugged-Silicon-Valley-billionaire-reveals-plan-launch-floating-start-country-coast-San-Francisco.html Link didn't work. Cool though.
  19. To simplify it, you might broaden the question and ask is it wrong to fantasize about anything at all? Or further, should one ever try to escape reality? Say with drugs, alcohol, video games, vacations, or anything else? I would say that those things are good to the extent that they further your highest values. Since we're mortal we sometimes need breaks from stress, life, and even spouses, but breaks can be so long and enduring that they damage rather than further our values. In that light, if you always fantasized about someone else in bed then you ought to think about what is wrong that is causing you to desire to stay so disconnected, or it would be harming your life. The only thing from Rand that I think might apply is the bit about vacations needing to be a vacation from something. I don't recall where that was from though.
  20. You didn't betray her in that instance but you may have betrayed yourself and that's most likely what hurts. You pursued her to hurt Francis so you used your affection for the purpose of revenge. I don't recommend that as a general rule. I also though, don't recommend losing much sleep over Francis, who strikes me, from your description, as an emotional succubus. I'd say move on from both and stay true to yourself.
  21. Also, some "stupid games" are really just the natural push and pull that any balanced relationship(romantic or otherwise) will have. Giving other people personal information about how you feel about them or anything else really is appropriate to the extent that you have developed an equitable level of trust in both directions. Giving up too much too early gives the impression, usually appropriately, of weakness or at best a lack of social sophistication. I say usually because some people can push those boundaries harder and in such a way that the other party will want to come along for the ride, but typically that's not the case.
  22. I see. By "corner of the internet," I mean the nature of your search might be limiting you. “what to do when she contacts me and says that she misses me?” to me, immediately conjures up an image of a woman keeping a guy on the back burner for emotional support while she's pursuing another relationship(s). It could be other things, of course, but usually it's some kind of emotional manipulation like that, which probably causes most people who have experienced something similar to suggest fighting fire with fire in some respect. I'd note also that the bias is probably even stronger than that since the people likely to respond to such a question are more emotionally motivated than the average due to some previous connected experience.
  23. Nah bro....that's how bitches is. They be liking you to lie to them. Seriously though, I'm not sure what forums you're looking at so I can only guess as to what you're worried about, but you might want to find new ones if they're not a value to you. If you're conversing, for example with some guys who are trying to get laid indiscriminately(outside of looks) then they're mostly telling the truth, in that lying and emotional manipulation are effective. If you are interested in something more than that, then maybe you should find a different corner of the internet.
  24. I don't feel like it's that useful as they'll usually disregard any general or even close scientific knowledge, as in the case of meteorologists, in favor of the climatologists whose percentages of agreement support their argument from authority approach.
  • Create New...