Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About lidryn

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Libraries, Objectivism, social networks

Recent Profile Visitors

1442 profile views
  1. An update on Gotthelf's essay: this is reprinted (I don't know if it was revised) in Allan Gotthelf and James G. Lennox (eds.), Concepts and Their Role in Knowledge: Reflections on Objectivist Epistemology, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013. Stephen Hicks reviews it here. While this may be logically prior to the OP's concerns, it would be foundational to a critique of the "linguistic turn". More philosophical clean-up...
  2. Yes, it's an ancient thread (in Internet time)... The thread title is what I'm after. Consider this: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=226686 I put up some other Karl Denninger ranting somewhere else, strike-related I think, but this is... different. So there it is.
  3. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker Karl Denninger, Oct. 11, 2013 [omits hyperlinks] "The Market Ticker is offline from October 11th-13th as a deliberate act to reduce to zero my economic activity, and thus taxable income, for those three days. On 9/11/2013 I went dark to protest the NSA's unconstitutional and outrageous acts of spying against American Citizens -- acts they claimed at the time were "catching terrorists" but which they were later forced to admit had interdicted not dozens of plots but perhaps "one or two." Despite this forced admission our Congress has refu
  4. Thomas, I don't think this really describes how JSTOR functions or how it is governed. For one thing, the corporation operates more as a middleman or jobber between the publishers of the scholarly journals and the subscribers to the database of digitized journal articles. Not to go on incessantly with the references, but this is another useful one: www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/JSTOR. A similar resource (mentioned in this entry) is Project Muse, and it's a short step from there to EBSCO and Gale - more subscription services. So anyway I just wanted to get that out there in case anyone wa
  5. Sorry if that was not useful - perhaps a little more on the ownership of JSTOR would be? The entity/corporation is known as "Ithaka Harbors": http://www.lincc.us/PubApps/showVals.php?ein=133857105 (this includes links to their 990 filings as a 501©3 entity) and here's another person, looking at the question: http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your-money-go/ So do I have any opinions on copyrights and patents? Still reading, I'm afraid - intellectual property is fascinating, but I don't consider myself well-informed enough to contribute more than a few references
  6. Thomas, there are a lot of openings here, but I'll take the JSTOR angle. I'm not at all sure about the ownership structure - an IRS filing might help with that - but you may find this to be of some related interest: Kevin Guthrie, Rebecca J. Griffiths & Nancy L. Maron Sustainability and Revenue Models for Online Academic Resources Published May 01, 2008 www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/sustainability-and-revenue-models-online-academic-resources This report (available in PDF) may be more relevant to your larger purpose of discussing the moral aspects of intellectual property,
  7. Okay, I'll bite: what's the worst? Whittaker Chambers' "review"?
  8. This would be an interesting hypothesis to test (but I wouldn't take the bet because I just don't bet!!). This conclusion depends necessarily on a confirmation of the hypothesis, of course. And is a topic for another discussion, sometime.
  9. I am, however, reminded of the enabling legislation passed by the National Socialists in 1933, upon which they erected the edifice of their regime: all completely "assented to" - and, by the way, a very difficult bone for the postwar German historians to chew, when considering the legal status of resisters prosecuted under those laws. (See Also, obviously, Ominous Parallels). I don't think there's any problem with my identification of modern-day anonymous bureaucrats entrusted with the initiation of coercive force as latter-day analogues of the equally anonymous and lethal agents of the RSH
  10. I find it difficult to distinguish between this line of thought and one that leads to "therefore, orders are orders, and my job is to follow them." My modest proposal, as Swiftian as it might be, is to simply suggest that it is not only technically possible to hold these bureaucrats to account by name, it is also likely that it will occur. Sooner or later. BTW, the fine distinction between a "democracy" and a "democratic republic" is forgotten, apparently - and one might ask, to whom are the bureaucrats responsible? And who wants to know?
  11. I understand your objection to the apparent moral equivalence (always a valid objection), but consider: Eichmann's role in facilitating the Holocaust was essentially bureaucratic - in fact, the same charge could be made against Himmler, and many lesser agents as well (although the SS did not lack for educated enablers: see esp. Table 4, p.12 - and many were convicted murderers) -but the point which Churchill only implies, and which I find to be the common element among these thugs is the classic "Befehl ist Befehl" - a fruitful resource, BTW, which takes us off the topic of Nazis and more towa
  12. From the War on Terror Ward Churchill's epithet of "little Eichmanns" was misplaced: 9/11 casualties in New York were not bureaucrats, except in the typical conflated sense from the perspective of a modern leftist intellectual (and leaving aside the confounding circumstances of crony capitalism). The real "little Eichmanns" are the bureaucrats of the state: in particular, those instrumental in authorizing, implementing, or executing the police power of the state. But while BATF, FBI, and IRS are obvious, these agents include employees of the social welfare establishment, and the regulatory
  13. following the two previous commentators, I will only add: I want Jeff's hat. I would wear it until Part III comes out. Maybe longer.
  14. I think this is the right thread for this note; anyway, somebody looking for the topic will find it like I did... I am surprised that nobody's mentioned the connection with Elizabeth Warren and George Lakoff, but other than flogging that entertaining blog I wanted to point out that the whole episode is an excellent example of the transmission of ideas - a notion I first encountered in For the New Intellectual (the essay) and which has continued to serve me well (that, and "follow the money" or more classically cui bono). Anyway: one more step down this track, chasing Lakoff's references
  15. To the Original Post: I wonder if you aren't on to something, actually, speculating that "gender", as it's currently used in discussions of human sexuality, is an anti-concept? I offer this link (w/ customary cautions about credibility) to anyone interested in pursuing the topic through the literature: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/John_Money You might have to dig a bit, though, to make a case that Money employed a term (gender) that ultimately served to confuse (corrupt?) the pursuit of truth.
  • Create New...