aequalsa

Hehe...Now that you mention it, I'm not sure. Never been to Mars myself....I wonder if gravity works there too?...hmmm For the record though, I meant world in the sense of 'universe' ie everything that exists. So in other words, I thought his question was outside of the realm of reality.

In a nutshell, I don't think the question is a proper one. You provide 2 alternatives, neither of which is technically possible. Happiness and unhappiness are the emotional results of actions taken. To say you are only happy or unhappy with no possibility of changing would imply that you no longer possess free will. You can not enjoy the results of action if you can't choose them. Happiness and unhappiness are percievable things which are linked to your actions and act as a guide to inform you as to which actions are more proper for you to take. Neither happiness nor unhappiness is possible without freewill and freewill guarantees you won't 'always' be happy because you can't always choose correctly because you are not omnicient. Ayn Rands philosophy is intended to be used in this world. I don't know of anything she has to say that woould bear directly on your question, for that reason. I will say that she does not believe in omnicience and that she does believe in free will and causation. I hope that helps a bit. Best regards, Gordon

I am not certain I could lay out all of the circumstances it should be illegal, being not-a-lawyer and not-a-programmer, but I think it would need to be done similiar to all criminal law. There are not seperate laws for stealing gum as opposed to stealing candybars. Theft is theft. I think it's pretty much the same here. By clicking on a site-say something you are trying to look up on google, they would have the right to put the things you are looking at there, buttons with programs and addware you can download, advertisements on that page,etc but not the right to download permanent self-reinstalling executable files on my computer without my permission. The illegal part might have to do with the permanence of the programs but I'm not certain. I would be interested if anyone has a clear dilineation in mind regarding the different types of things that can be done with web pages from good to bad.

That's not really fair. Yes I know better and yes one should take precautions to avoid criminals, but that doesnt justify their behavior. Otherwise, like I mentioned before, I could go in and start destroying their merchandise and then blame them for not having enough security guards. I am not opposed to microsoft either. Windows in general doesn't bother me, but I have had a lot better success with firefox then IE and prefer their product.

I did not seek them. I had already purchased firewall software from Office Depot. It was just a number of pop-ups that I made the mistake of clicking on to exit them. Regarding the theoretical law, I understand that to view a site it is "on" your computer. I am thinking more in terms of executable files.

I bought a new computer recently and procrastinated putting a firewall or downloading firefox on it for a couple of days. I immediately contracted several adware bugs that pop up every other friggin minute of the day to tell me that my sensitive information is in danger and only their software can protect me. This of course made my computer nearly inoperable. After a few more days of trying to rid myself of the ellusive bugs, I gave up, wiped everything clean and reinstalled windows. Then vowed to never use internet explorer again. Am I wrong in thinking that this is identical to extortion. "If you pay me I'll protect you from people like me". That could be a line out of the godfather. In a moment of rage and frustration, I thought over my options. The first that came to mind was that I could find their place of operation, go there and start destroying their personal property while offering to rent them security guards. It seemed appropriate at the time but had longterm ramifications which made it untenable. So, at any rate, is it fair to call this "way of doing business", if you want to call it that, immoral? And would it be proper to make it illegal to put things on your computer without, at least, notifying you first? I am not sure how enforcible this would be, but aside from that it hints of regulating the internet which I am opposed to generally. If it is immoral though, then it would only be regulation in the same sense that we "regulate" murder or theft.

The "capital" outlay neccessary to "convince" them would probably be prohibitive. Plus, I would need to illiminate all but 4 other roofing companies in the country to make it worthwhile. That would be great....I could easily afford the higher gas prices once I can charge $1,000,000/roof. Only the very wealthy will be able to afford them. Muwhahahah....

Thanks, that was a good article. I especially liked dividing mistakes into 4 types. Very clarifying. I realize, of course, that mistakes can be made at any age. What I was wondering in particular, and may not have explained properly, was that it seemed that the ability to admit to mistakes was more common in older people. Do you find this to be accurate and, if so, have any oppinions as to why?

Thanks Bold Standard. I had not thought to connect it to "escape from pain" thing. That makes perfect sense to me now. Just what I was looking for. It was one of those things that seemed right intuitively but that I had trouble defending in conversation. Thanks again. My best regards, Gordon

No, I didn't. Sorry about that. It was late and I didn't feel up for any thourough research. Now I am a little more impressed by them. They managed to reduce their taxable income from $204 Bil to $30 Bil from 1977-95. While I am a bit envious I can't morally fault them for that. I would love to learn how to do that.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressrelease...e/1998jun9.html According to greenpeace(not a good source I know) they were funded to the tune of $12 billion, with a B, a year in 1995. Also the 5 big companies(exxon,connocco,etc) seem to have a de facto government backed oligopoly. There hasn't been a new refinery built in 20 years because government regulation makes it nearly impossible. I think government sucks and am inclined to think "poor busines men" but it would seem that with their profits reaching new records every year they are not suffering under unfair government regulation so much as enjoying unearned wealth by virtue of government protectionism. I love capitalism and free markets, but a ceo who allows his company to take huge government subsidies isnt a hank rearden, he's a jim taggert and I have no stomach for hero worship of men like that.

This is actually something of very practical interest to me lately. I have a guy that works for me who is a generally good worker but has a great deal of difficulty admitting to mistakes. For example, while carrying a fairly heavy piece of equipment with another guy, he slipped and dropped it on the other fellow's ankle. Fortunately he was not seriously hurt, but what was telling was that he(the one who dropped it) immediately started blaming the one who had it on his ankle. "YOU WERE WALKING TOO FAST!" and so forth. None of the accusations he made were actually true. I consider it to be a fairly honest mistake and if I had dropped it I would have helped remove the item and then apologized for dropping it. So I am curious what causes that inability. My initial thought was that it was a matter of pride. In that they have too much. That's what people usually say when someone can't admit when they wrong. After some reflection though, I think its related more to a lack of pride. Pride as derived from your accomplishments. So in other word, if you are proud of the life you've led, if you do make a mistake, you think of it as the exception to the rule and almost enjoy it in the sense that it's an oppurtunity to learn. If you have not accomplished many of your values, I think it would be more difficult because on some level you blame yourself and your tired of doing that. This might explain why this is more common in younger people. At least that's what I've observed. Not that I don't know plenty of old people who lack pride, just that it seems that you run into sophistry more often the further down you go in age-ostensibly because you haven't been around long enough to accomplish many of your goals rather then an improper moral base. Which leads me to my question. You mentioned being a researcher in the field. Can you tell me if this is more common with younger people and also if you notice any differences in the reasons for it between different age groups? I suspect that older people with a lack of pride will tend to have their consistent poor decisions result in it whereas with younger people will have it because they're inexperienced. So if you have noticed any general differences between them either it the way this problem manifests itself or quantitatively between then I'd love to hear about it. Let me know what you think. Best Regards, Gordon

Hi Maarten, I would recommend arguing from the perspective that a right to life is not the same as having your life provided for. So if you don't have the right to have someone give you food they had to work for, you also don't have the right to demand that someone give you land they had to work for. Since we are not an agrarian culture, it really isn't neccessarry to own land to exist....you just need a box to sleep in. If you do not own property then you have to find someone willing to let you work on theirs until you save enough duckets to buy some yourself. I see no difference between land and any other property. It all must be purchased by your efforts. Also I would stay away from the idea that improving the land in some way makes it more yours. Property rights need to be absolute no matter what you do or don't do with your property. If I have 10 acres on the side of a hill it can't(or at least shouldn't) be taken away from me if I don't build a mine on it.

Unfortunately I read that article in the mid 90's and don't remember the source. I think it was a time article but am not sure. The numbers were there's not mine and I am pretty sure they are close to correct. I apologize for not being able to refer you anywhere for confirmation. And while I agree that there would be some cost associated with companies maintaining safety on their own it would be very little compared to the cost of government mandated safety. In construction for example, there is a little organization known as OSHA. They mandate things which if followed completely simultaneously reduce my efficiency and put me at greater risk of injury. Using a general government mandate as an absolute for dealing with complex particualr situations can only lead to unnaturally higher costs, decreased worker efficiency, and greater danger to the workers. Whereas taking precautions yourself can be done efficiently and appropriately as the particualr situation requires. As an example, consider that safety harnesses that are used must have an OSHA approval. Rock climbing gear is illegal and if caught using them A contracter would face thousands of dollars in fines(and dont think $2000 think more $80,000...$160,000...usually high enough to put fair sized companies out of business) despite the fact that in a number circumstances they would be safer. So I could buy a rock climbing harness fo $25 that works well or an OSHA approved harness for $129.95 that is uncomfortable, cumbersome, in in many circumstances dangerous. What it comes down to is that I could probably cut the cost of building a roof by 30% without their existence, while maintaining a higher level of safety if allowed to make decisions myself. And thats just one small part of one government organization. And this 30% estimate of mine excludes the possibility of extortionate fines which can't be accounted for until you get nailed with one(which everyone does eventually) I think it really difficult to seperate out the exact cost of government in my own industry but I know it's big. The problem I see with an accurate appraisal of the damage they do is that everything they do has impacts that can reach so far. How can you accurately calculate the extra cost of rents because of the higher cost of roofing because of roofers having to pay .20 for every dolllar of payroll for forced workmens comp insurance, on top of all of the other government mandated costs. Or what cost is there to society for some 6 year old hyper-genius, protegy mini-galt who gets put on riddlin because he doesn't fit in well in a public school system dedicated to the destruction of his mind? (A better question is what is the cost to that child?) I really don't believe there is an accurate way to really observe how different it would be because the not so invisble hand of the government reaches so deeply but I think it fair to believe based on my limited experience that roofing would be extraordinarily cheaper. A safe extrapolation is that other industries would to for their own reasons. Imagine the differences in a world with free market banking? Unregulated insurance? Or what if drug companies didn't have to spend $800,000,000 just to get a drug through the FDA approval process?

You just gotta love how capitalism "fixes" moral dilemnas. http://www.new-harvest.org/faq.htm I am really curious to see how moral vegetarians will be opposed to meat when it is manufactured this way.

To reduce the question to a particular concrete: Several years ago I read an article that outlined the cost of government in the creation of a product, in this case, the ford taurus. At the time, it was a sedan that sold for around $20,000. After they went through and subtracted the costs of government...not just sales tax, but compliance with government mandated regulations of all kinds through each involved industy(iron mines, shiping,ect), it ended up costing a little over $7,000. So in other words, in a capitalist country, if you kept this car for 7 years it would cost you about $80/month to drive it as opposed to say $250/month in our current economic system. Now apply that percentage of saving to every other product you ever buy, subtract add 50% on to your wages and imagine financially what things you would have accessto that you don't now. What I thought would be even more intereting would be, though tedious to investigate would be if you could research all products and services. The $7000 is probably high if you consider that by ford making cheaper vehicles, the cost of shipping their parts and wehicles would be cheaper as well. Prices would go down for everything, which would cause prices to go down for everything even more in the same way that prices go up and up for every thing the government does in the economy. Another sobering thought to put the damage of bad philosophy into perspective is the dark ages of europe. For 800 years there was virtually no progress technilogically. Imagine if platonic christianity had not taken over for that time period. I would bet you could move everything forward by 800 years on a 1 to 1 basis. Imagine where we would be now if Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in 1269 AD.

By 'paper' money being borrowed into existence, do you mean in the sense that(assuming it is backed by gold) a one ounce paper bank note means that the bank "owes" you one ounce of gold? So, in other words, the bank note represents a debt owed to you by the bank?

hmmm...maybe I misunderstood, but that was what I thought trudy was explaining on the debitism post-that they were fabricating money and earning interest off of the fake money. If the federal reserve does not do that, then who is getting the interest off of the fiat money initially?

I'm an INTJ also. I really don't see much of a problem with the test's dichotomies. As I undertood it, they are meant to be viewed in the "more this then that" way rather then "either this or that". Over the course of a large enough group of questions phrased in slightly different ways it is more likely to be accurate representation of you. If I remember right in 'please understand me' he even recommends taking the test among several people who know you well to avoid answering based on how you feel right then as opposed to how you behave generally. My first hand experience with it has been that it is useful in learning how to deal with different sorts of folk.

Ok...so I have no problem with fractional reserve banking as regards to #1. And after reading some more on it(your post included) I am tending to think there would not be a serious problem with it except in the context of a single supplier of bank notes. If you actually had a choice in banking in other words, you could deposit your money in a bank who offerred you the best deal. You would have to weigh the interest they were offering against the risk your money was under. So if they operated on a really thin fraction of reserves, their liklihood of bankruptcy would be higher. The problem then currently seems to be that because of a privately owned national bank that also controls the money supply, we have a system balanced on the edge of disaster which allows banks to make rediculous percentages of interest in a very underhanded way. If $100 existed in the whole economy, which was primarily held in accounts with a national bank, and the bank could loan out $900 at say 12.5% and still maintain 10% fractional holding, then after 1 year they would have made the entire $100 of the whole economy's money in interest payments for that year off of money(in the sense of created value) that they don't actually possess. In other words, they would earn 100% interest per year. This is what strikes me as fraudulent. To be able to loan out money you don't possess and have not either earned yourself or had deposited in your bank. Of course by telling everyone and allowing everyone to do the same, it is no longer fraud. So, theoretically in a free market everyone could loan out 10Xs what they possess. Even if it is not fraud per se, still seems like there is something wrong with the notion.

With Regard to the so called "boomerang generation", I am real hesitant to put much blame on them. Economically we live in a very different world then 20, 50, or 100 years ago. Consider that in 1900 the average person paid less then %6 in taxes every year. Today that number is 32%. People pay more in taxes then on food, clothing and housing combined. Social Security tax alone has gone from 1% in the 1930's to 15.3% currently. So my thought on this boils down to, "of course most 20 somethings can't afford their own houses, they're to busy paying for thier grandparent's homes." Another factor is that income has not increased in 20 years for 80% of Americans. The top 20% have experienced real income growth that offsets the appearance of the average wage, but the bottom 80% have actually experienced a drop in real wages. Then, of course, in the US, the real estate market has made buying a house almost out of range for most people starting their careers which would also affect costs of renting real estate. At least in most areas. So I don't see younger people as more lazy, just unfortunate inheritors of the last 100 years of quasi-socialism.

(Moderator's note: The issue of Fractional-reserve banking arose in another thread. I have moved the post to this existing thread that has that subject as its main topic. - softwareNerd) Could you do that for me. Also Include an explanation as to how you believe fractional reserve systems would work in a proper economy. I think there exist 2 different views regarding what it is and that might be part of the confusion. 1- A bank owns $100 and can loan out $90 2- A bank owns $100 and can loan out $900 I understood fractional reserve banking to be #2 but I'm not an economist. #2 seems inherently fraudulent to me by nature in any system. Especially when applied to a country size scale.

Man, you have a lot of questions(For the record, I regard that as a good thing) I think it might be more proper to say that value is something which is beneficial to your 'life'. Since there are circumstances in which it would be possible that something which would be good for your life in a philosophical sense might also cause your death or, at the very least, put you at risk of dying. On this note, I am curious if anyone on this list has circumstances in which they would both put themselves at various levels of risk of dying, that they feel would be philosophically defensible. Obviously this is highly contextual but I would be interested just the same. Personally I have a lot of trouble with it because I can think of a number of reasons why I would personally put myself in harms way, but have a great deal of trouble actually justifying it. As an example, if someone were to try and put me into a concentration camp(not neccessarily a death camp), I would assume great risk in order to avoid it. But when I think about it, it seems that it might make more sense to just go along with it as complacently as possible in order to continue to survive for as long as possible hoping for a future release perhaps. Anyways, I look forward to any responses.

"It is likely that unlikely things should occur"- carl sagan(?) The problem I am seeing is that the people you refer to are not random samples. If you could take every human ever born-pluck out 50 of them at random and find that they were all born before 2056, then it would have meaning, but what it seems like is that you are picking 50 people born in the 20th century and saying "what are the cahnces they were born in the 20th century?". That's like having numbered balls from 1-1000 that are visably labled, choosing 1-10 in order and then asking "what are the chances I picked 1-10?". My answer is that the chances are pretty damn good. But I'm a smart-ass. So what am I not understanding?

I'm on board with Hal. I think it's important to see the system thats inherent there. I remember having to memorize those in 3rd grade distinctly because I was agitated that others in the class were taking too long to memorize them. I had to recite them in front of the class in the same way as you describe but thought it was easy. In retrospect I realize that I never really memorized them at all. I just figured out that 3X3 meant 3 3's 4X3 meant 4 3's and so on. So when I recited them, I just figured out each one as I went. With the larger numbers of course, it helps to break them down as Hal describes in order to keep them within the confines of your crow epistomology.