Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Netafja

  1. The Roman Empire called that Slavery. It was tried at Auchwitz later. The employers mostly ended up in jail themselves for their pains, if not dead. I wouldn't advise going that route. Officially slavery has been abolished. Teresa
  2. This is also the Pope who has a spiritual majority on the US Supreme Court.
  3. If the dollar were backed 100% by gold, then all trading in dollars would also be trading in gold. The two would be interchangeable. Other currencies may have a lesser coverage by gold, or even none at all. They might support their currency on the basis of petroleum reserves, or some other real commodity. Variations in the value of the backing would create the revaluation and devaluation of the various currencies in circulation. Teresa
  4. Country X's currency would be gold, or at least its equivalent in paper form. The devaluation of gold in terms of other currencies would therefore also devalue country X's paper. The advantage and the disadvantage of using gold as a country's money lies in the comparative inelasticity of its supply. A constant quantity backing the paper limits the money supply and can thereby restrict the rate of economic growth. A new source of gold production on the other hand can suddenly increase the availability of money, encouraging inflation. I'd imagine that there would nevertheless be plenty of scope for banks and other corporations and individuals to issue bills of exchange (not backed by gold) which could be used as a substitute for money. The only legal tender would be money 100% backed by gold. Currently we use the bill of exchange system exclusively. Anyone can issue a bill of exchange. They do so when they write a check. What the payee does with that check does or does not turn it into money. The monopoly granted by the State to the Central banks is the problem to be eliminated first. Teresa
  5. Isoldes Tod from Tristan und Isolde
  6. These activities all sound like typical "intelligence service ramps" committed as much by MI6 and the CIA as by Pakistan or Iraq. They are hardly threats to the States of the USA or the UK.
  7. Doesn't the property become virtually valueless if there is no access to it?
  8. To torture places one in the same moral status as the Royal Saudi regime, or even Saddam Hussein. We Anglos do not torture out of principle. We place people before a court of law and if found guilt of criminal activity they are formally punished. End of story. That's who we are. Let's not second guess the Justice System. We may need it for ourselves yet. Janet
  9. A government of a particular jurisdiction and territory will always be required, if for no other reason to counter criminal behavior within that jurisdiction. That government has no mandate or responsibility for reacting to activities of any person operating outside their jurisdiction unless that action presents itself as a real and immediate physical threat to the citizens of its jurisdiction, situated within that jurisdiction. The government has no justification in protecting its citizens' interests that they undertake in other jurisdictions. The citizen judges the risks of operating in any particular jurisdiction for him/herself. The interference by the government in foreign domestic disputes should never be permitted. Janet
  10. We're not just suffering the "fruits" of pragmatism. The US way is now Pragmatism, fed with a Dogmatic ideology, whether that is Socialism or Christianity is merely the whim of the moment. The Constitutional ideas of Freedom of the individual have been eliminated by 100 years of the public educational system. (Probably a lot of the private system is as bad, but there I'm not so sure.) Peikoff's analysis in the "Ominous Parallels" explains your lady teachers who claim to be liberals. Their ideas do not surprise me in the least. Nor for that matter does the outrageous behavior of so called conservatives surprise me. The self-identification of large corporations with the government is just around the corner. Janet
  11. When I was the CFO of a large European manufacturer and repairer of elevators, I was a " legal, government sanctioned thief". The contracts that we signed with our customers were based on the fact that our certificate was required for them to operate an elevator in their building, which would be used by the public. We made money from this business as you can imagine. The government safety regulations permitted us to obtain a better price than we would otherwise have done. This is undeniable. However, this being said, I'd like to pose a further question. To what extent can it be said to be government's obligation to ensure that transport facilities open to the public should be reasonably safe? I know the ideal is for every operator to see his/her best benefit in providing some level of competent safety, but what about the irresponsible ones? Do the unnecessary accidents matter? Should one prosecute the irresponsible only after an injury or death occurs? Janet
  12. Do you remember what the difference in justifications there were in the confiscations of BP's interests in Iran and the US's interests in Aramco? Netafja
  13. Yes, I agree. Let's go back to the Sherman Act. But I'd settle for the moment with a reversal of all the damage done under Clinton and Bush. There's plenty of work to be getting on with.
  14. Can any of you see any of the current candidates for President actually reversing any of the Government control and role in the community? This has been building up steadily over the last 50 years. Not even Nixon or Reagan made any more than token efforts to reverse this distressing trend.
  15. A starting point might be to have each tax payer indicate (on his tax return) what percentage of his tax should be spent on which governmental activity. This would maintain the overall yield, but might greatly change the composition of government expenditure. Capucine
  16. You need to start thinking about the "values" of the manufacturer of arms. Most of us try to avoid doing conscious harm to others, particularly those who have in no way harmed us. If the manufacturer's values do not include any concern for how the product of his efforts will be used, then I'd have problems with his values. Most manufacturers have begun their operations through their scientific discoveries. The Krupps, Armitage, Colts, Lockheeds, etc all became operations independent of their native countries. They felt entitled to sell their goods to anyone with the money to pay for them. I suspect that this is more an amoral state of affairs than good or bad. It's business. This is a personal matter, when it comes down to one's personal assessment of the manufacturer. In these days, though, most of the arms sales are made through the government of the manufacturer's country. Any sales from the US or UK to a country in Africa are a government to government affair. This is a political statement of support and approval of the actions of the recipient of the arms. The selling government is doing this to gain an advantage, as is the recipient country's government. If the arms are not truly needed to counter an external threat, but rather to enslave the local population for the benefit of the ruling class of the recipient country, and ultimately for the benefit of their supporters in the wider world, then the level of coercion is such that it has to be morally condemned. The world is now awash with weapons. Anything which would stop the arms trade from continuing to expand would be a good start. Capucine
  17. I'm 70 years old. I love this imagery. When I first arrived in France in the early 60s a car would ballpark at 1 million old francs (iUSD = 500 old Francs) and a house in the near suburbs of Paris around 10 million. This is called inflation, which, please remember, is a tax on all the responsible members of society. The primary beneficiary of this tax is the political class, who no longer have to pay for their fiscal irresponsibility. Objectivism's vision of the greatest evil being coercion is a comfort to this old lady. We are all coerced by those in power continuously. At least I understand what is happening to me, even if there is little that I can do to avoid the majority of the government blackmail, whether the government is French, US or UK. A better world is possible, but it is only the young who have the energy to revolt against the socializing policies of all our Western governments at this time. All you young people on this site - please voice your beliefs in individual rights and fight against the worsening tribalism everywhere within our societies. Capucine
  18. I suspect that the food dumped at sea is the GM variety. This is an act of principle by the socializing governments, who believe that they know what's best for the people over whom they rule. Destruction of materials to affect price is never necessary. A simple planning of the delivery schedule to adequately meet all current needs of those with funds is the only precaution required. Where a significant oversupply arises, the investor will change products.
  19. I'm rather inclined to think that I'm misreading your message. Are you seriously proposing to involve the US government in terrorist activity? Do you really want the Special Ops forces of the US Army to be branded terrorists? I learned from Ayn Rand that one only defends oneself, not initiates attacks on others. There is no evidence that Iran has actually attacked the US as a matter of State policy. Until they do, we should restrict ourselves to reasoning with them. Netafja
  20. 9/11 was a bad blow against freedom. We all have to agree about that. However, it depends on whom we wish to free from. Personally, I'm always more frightened of my own government than any foreigner. It's the excessive use of domestic power that the Founding Fathers tried to protect us against. It would seem to me that the cumulative effect of the US and UK governments over the last 100 years has left us all with little basic freedoms. Ayn Rand would be disgusted by the way that American "Sense of Life" has failed to act as a functioning philosophy to protect our freedoms. 9/11 should have been outrage not an opportunity to reduce our freedom of movement. Netafja
  21. Can I post a reply to this message? Netafja
  • Create New...