Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RationalBiker

Patron
  • Posts

    4155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by RationalBiker

  1. That's one way to put it. Another way to put it could be "perhaps you weren't clear enough about what you meant by counter culture".
  2. Well, at least in part it appears he disagrees with the jury verdict and is seeking another legal avenue to have her tried in a "different" jurisdiction. I don't see a problem with that, thought I have serious doubts it will happen. I don't eat there often as it is, but it won't stop me from eating there in the future.
  3. Here's the part you left out of your quoting; No, it is not, not even close. You can still ignore her and go to the bank, go pick up your son, go to MacDonalds, etc. etc. Your existence is not threatened at all in this situation. If you need one, I'm good. Like I said, next time you get robbed, just ignore them and keep walking to your bank to make that deposit. They aren't forcing you do to anything. This is like telling a child not to touch the hot burner... I think you just need some real life experience because I'm doubting any amount of theoretical discussion is going to convince you. Life doesn't happen like it does on an internet forum.
  4. Next time you get robbed, ignore them and keep walking to the bank to make the deposit as you had reasoned and previously acted upon.
  5. Oh, I have no problem making that distinction. I can even make the connection between the threat of being shot to death and being shot to death. I can see how closely related they are whereas I don't think you can. I can even make the connection that I am no longer free to go deposit the money I was on the way to the bank with. I am no longer free to go pick up my son who will be getting out of school shortly. My choices and ability to act have been significantly diminished in a way that I cannot ignore if I value my existence, unlike the divorce-threatening wife. I can make the connection that whether or not my wife wants to divorce me over dishes is of very little consequence at the moment. Now, I only have a very limited number of options being FORCED upon my by the men seeking to deprive me of property, life or both. My very existence is threatened, unlike the situation in which the nagging wife is threatening to walk out. I can make the connection as to how one much more SIGNIFICANTLY impacts my ability to reason, think and act. Additionally, I can make the connection that in robberies such as that typically a person's ability to think, reason and act are additionally impaired by the mental, emotional, and physiological reaction going on in their body caused by the traumatic stress that is occurring.
  6. The gun gives him the opportunity to not only react, but to proactively take all of your decisions away from you except maybe how fast you are going to bleed to death.
  7. Oh no, I don't think I need to show anything to you. I'll be much more entertained by life teaching you this lesson.
  8. Oh no, you got it all wrong. See that's why torturers threaten to break up people's marriages rather than break bones or shove bamboo chutes up people's finger tips; there's virtually no difference in the result and they don't have to go cut down bamboo or carry around a heavy hammer.
  9. No, you have TRIED to show that, but you haven't actually shown that. Since you can really say anything you want about what "choices" you would have from the sterile comfort of an intellectual exercise, I think the only thing that might sway you at this point would be being surrounded by 3 or 4 MS13 members with guns and machetes who want your bling. I'd personally love to see you even think of the words "strictly speaking" at that point. Hey, I could be wrong. Perhaps you are some Special Forces intellectual with mad martial arts training and lots of real life street cred.
  10. It's pretty interesting to see people talk about having a gun put to your head in the comfort and safety of an internet forum, but wholly in a manner that appears COMPLETELY detached from the reality of that situation.
  11. I agree. The internet is like life; there are "security issues" just walking out of the door of your house. Heck, even staying the house for that matter. Like any service, some people will not like it for whatever reasons. Fine by me. I'm enjoying it so far and I haven't seen one Google Black Op Helo outside yet... well, I guess you're not supposed to see them anyway... oh no.... are they out there?
  12. I'll take it that you intend to keep bring that up. Have a nice life... unless you steal artist's work in which case I hope you get caught an punished.
  13. The problem is people keep feeding the troll.
  14. Let me ask you now before I decide whether or not to continue (I stopped once before and continued after hinking we were past this); are you going to continue to bring people into this when it has been demonstrated, repeatedly, how that does not apply to the argument?
  15. People lived for years in the face of tsunamis without cars. If you live in a flood area you should probably have some twine made of vines and tie some logs together to fashion a raft.... no need for that house roof or the car. We can play the "need" game all day, but it isn't necessary because it is a horrible foundation for why something should be considered property and thus protected from theft. That's not a necessary condition for why something should be copyrighted and protected from theft. What the songs could have helped me do was build that house, buy that car, etc. etc. were I allowed to sell my creations with protections against theft just like the creators of other products. Not at all. I'm saying you are creating a condition for what should or shouldn't be property that does not exist. Otherwise, all the stuff you have that you do not "need" to survive is not your property. Neither patents nor copyrights make "all values" property, so this is a strawman. No, actually I've argued that artists need copyrights to be able to pursue the full potential value of the products they create. I don't accept your individual requirement that for something to be property it must be "needed". A lot of the stuff I own, material and otherwise would not be property then. They aren't. Murder has much stiffer penalties than copyright infringement. A more apt analogy would be people shouldn't forcibly make other people take heroin. The act of an individual taking heroin himself is not analogous to this situation. I don't know how else to put it; you are creating an unnecessary condition for what should be considered property.
  16. Copyrightable works allow authors and song writers to survive. They create a value to man's life that they should be compensated for by those who use it's value in their life. As such, if a particular artist's work is not of enough value to a person to pay, say 10 dollars for it, then they can do without and save their 10 bucks. But that doesn't mean that if a particular artist's work is not worth 10 bucks to a person, that that person should just be able to take it anyway.
  17. Okay, but I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread refer to "exchange value" as some specific amount someone is entitled too. Can you point me to where someone has? Saying one has the right to exchange their products for whatever value they can get on the market is not the same as saying someone has the right to some specific "exchange value" of that product.
  18. You can get donations from anything you create so there goes the concept of property for everything if that's a guideline.
  19. Yes it does, but that's really beside the point. You don't need a car to survive either, you can walk so a car can't be property then. You don't need a house to survive, you only need a simple hut or a lean-to, maybe animal furs in the winter, so there goes your house - not your property anymore. Songwriters, authors and musicians create value for man's life. Yea, I know YOU personally think it must be necessary for survival, but that is not what Rand said. When she talks about life, it is in the context of MAN'S life and she is NOT talking simply about morgue-avoidance.
  20. Can you explain this further? Doesn't barring force from the marketplace automatically secure the right to exchange value with other people?
  21. If you are allowed to trade it or the performance of it as property, yes. If people can just take your idea and use it, generally reducing it's value to your survival, it is less likely you could do that with a song. Your whole argument continually seems to exclude the concept of "value" as a primary purpose for recognizing the concept "property" to begin with. The whole purpose for creating something "for your survival" is because it offers value to your life, either by it's use by you, or by its ability to be traded for other things that may be needed for your survival. In the case of words, songs, art, etc., those are the products by which the creators of those things trade for other items that are needed for their survival. That is why they "own" those things they create. If you bring up the "you create people" example again I'm just going to ignore it because everyone involved in this discussion has already recognized that people cannot be property and therefore do not apply to the statement, "you own what you create". That IS a complete argument for those who can connect the dots in acknowledging its inapplicability to people.
  22. So, do you disagree that the lyrics and/or the sequence of musical notes of a song are not neccesary to the surival of a song-writer/performer or that the words contained in a book are not necessary to the survival of an author? Edit: I should add that I'm only asking this question, not that I'm agreeing with the inference you took from Rand's statement.
  23. As if you are the arbiter of independent thought? I'm hoping in time you will grow up and stop trolling.
  24. The point here is that you are making broad UNSUBSTANTIATED claims against a great number of people without providing any evidence of their dishonesty. So if you think people should call BS when they see it... I see it in your posts. You've essentially returned here with the apparent intent of insulting many users of this forum and just general trolling.
  25. At least you are being honest about it. Wrong perhaps, but honest.
×
×
  • Create New...