RadCap

Yes - and the exercise of that right is precisely what is delegated to a proper govt. No. It is a profoundly moral one. It is the subjugation of force to reason. Since the govt has the legal monopoly on the use of force, your unsanctioned use of force is most definitely subject to legal review through the courts. Just so you know, this topic has been broached a few tiimes on the board already. If you do a search, you should find much more definitive answers to these questions - including some I made on the subject.

As AR stated, "a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force." As such, the govt has no "burden" to show that you only intend to use a weapon 'defensively'. It has no burden "to show that you intend to use the weapon to initiate force." Because it holds the monopoly on the use of physical force, it has the authority to restrict ownership of or use of that and any other weapon. Why? BECAUSE it is the possessor of the monopoly power on force. To claim otherwise is to claim that government is NOT a possessor of such monopoly power and that others PROPERLY compete with government over the power to use force. Now, if one understands the concept and nature of govt, the question quoted above vanishes. If one does not, one ends up advocating the libertarian 'competition' over the use of force - ie anarchy.

Asking on the off chance someone here might know about this: does the presence of humans around wild animals as they grow up make them more amenable to human existence in general? Does their presence during growth make any difference whatsoever? For instance, are zoo animals less likely to attack or exhibit aggressive behavior towards humans (because of their every day exposure to humans) compared to the same animals in nature (who have no exposure to humans at all)? Oops - slipped when posting. This was supposed to be in Misc, not Member Essays. Could a mod please move this to the appropriate catagory please?

I think our difference of opinion, and thus difference in premises for this scenario, comes about here: I believe men will not tie themselves to fixed productive associations for extended periods of time. Because man's ideas are what they are valued for primarily in the nanotech world, those whose talents and abilities best suit an individual project or even goal within a project, will be hired to achieve that end. Once the goal has been achieved, they will move on to the next project which requires their particular expertise (be it management, design, specific talent, specific knowledge, etc). They will not sit around hoping the same company which excelled at the one project in one field will excel at another project in the same or different field. They will be mostly free agents, going where their best judgements take them. I used this example previously, but I think it bears repeating - motion picture production. A film crew is not sitting around in a company office waiting for a film to come along to create. One man (or a group of men) search for a script (an idea) to produce. Once found, they form a company specifically for the production of the project. Then they gather together the best people they can find for the specific project - from actors, to directors, to set designers, production manager, etc etc - who will BEST serve the PARTICULAR production. All these individuals come together - produce the film - and upon completion, move on to NEW production companies in order to produce a NEW project. As such, the individual company life-span is relatively short-lived. It is born with, and dies after, the product is completed. And the reason for this is the LACK of a need to maintain a permanent physical infrastructure to facilitate this production. Cameras, film stock, locations, vehicles etc are all purchased solely for the production and then returned once the project is complete. In a nanotech world, these things would all simply be 'recycled' and new and better equipment would be 'grown' for a new project (and new people hired who know more about the new equipment/technology/whathaveyou). And each person would join this company (or decline) based on his evaluation of the merit and value of the project itself. Given this model, I think you would see far fewer companies that exist beyond the length of time it takes to complete a project - though some may exist beyone just a single project - and some single projects may take long periods of time to complete. Given the context of the scenario, I believe it is individuals who will adapt to the needs of the economy, not fixed associations of people adapting to those needs. What is the benefit of keeping a fixed group and having to adapt them? Because, in a nanotech world, that is the only thing which would be fixed if a company existed beyond one project. Location would not be fixed. Equipment would not be fixed. Technology would not be fixed. Nothing would be the same then, except the people. And in such a dynamic society, keeping people - THE productive resource - fixed to one association across multiple pursuits, simply for the sake of fixing the association, would be the greatest waste of all. -- Given this, I believe that basing a 'currency' on entities which will NOT have a long life in most cases, does not give you the stability of value I believe you are trying to achieve (thus your low risk index fund). But that is not the only supposition I disagree with. Actually, with more and more people free from material constraints of production, there would be fewer and fewer consentrations of enterprises supplying the wants and needs of people. There would be more diversity in production AND producers for any given product or service. -- Now my biggest problem comes with this example: Since we are positing a future in which $1 million (in any material value) will essentially be a meaningless phrase, my question was: HOW exactly do you DETERMINE this market worth or market 'profit' etc without ALREADY having a STANDARD of value? In order to create your standard of value, you seem to already be assuming that which you are trying to create. As I asked before, WITHOUT a pre-existing standard of value, HOW does one (no matter WHO they are) make an OBJECTIVE determination about comparative value of the companies you want to use AS your standard of values? THAT is what I was saying was circular. === In all our contrasting viewpoints (not just A, but everyone), I don't really think any of us are wrong, because we are all proceeding from different premises and assumptions. And since this is a future radically different from one we are used to dealing with, I don't think any of us (including myself) can say with even close to certainty, that any of the assumptions is 'more right' than others. As it stands, based on the assumptions I am making concerning a nanotech future (all of which I have not shared - and which I now realize would both take a lot of time - and would possibly spoil story ideas ), I feel comfortable (more so now that I have had these conversations) with a reputational system of valuations vs some form of representational system of valuations. So far, while some have presented ALTERNATIVE ideas, none have presented any substantive objections to a reputation based system. Thus I see no reason NOT to use such a system as opposed to these alternatives. And since there are a few story reasons to use such a system, I believe I will proceed down that road, vs the other options. I want to thank everyone for their suggestions and ideas. I REALLY appreciate all the input you have provided. Please do not take my disagreement as evidence I consider them to be invalid. Consider it like someone asking for advice on different careers. While your advice may indeed be quite legitimate and valid, in the end, it IS optional. As such, the advice is quite valuable, even if the particular career is not pursued, for the advice does help one to see one's options when making a choice. And for that assistance, I thank you all.

Besty The only problem with this comparison (goods barter to goods monetary/labor barter to labor monetary) is that a goods monetary system established one good as the intermediate exchange which everyone was willing to trade for (gold) so that they could then buy ultimately what they wanted. Unless you are suggesting that everyone is willing to accept one person's labor as the intermediate labor so he can then buy ultimately what they want, then you don't have a medium of exchange at all. You have direct (albeit elaborate) barter system still. And such a system is still open to some of the problems I have already names (including no control over whom you will work for - thus you have the prospect of a Galt having to work for a Stadler, with all that implies). -- Soul I was very specific in my questioning, because I did not want to spoil any other aspects of the stories. Rest assured, the ideas you have presented (along with many many more of the implications of nanotech) have already been taken into account. Beyond that I can say nothing more. As to your computational explanation, I didn't see the answer to some of the questions I asked, including (most importantly) how this money is related to the actual productivity (or lack thereof) of any given individual. You also say: In a goods exchange, this is quite true. Stability helps greatly, because the primary and end goods fluctuate in value, and so a steady priced intermediate good makes economic calculation muuch easier. Of course, if we were on a true gold standard, if you look at the price of gold, it has fluctuated greatly over the decades. So the concept of stability here is a general one. There is no physical commodity - especially if it is used as a store of value - which will remain at a constant (or even consistant gradual growth in) value. However, compared to most products gold does retain more stability than most. Reputation is something you ALWAYS have. And it's value is NOT static, as you say. But that is because what it represents is not static either. Reputation indicates the value another person could provide you at a given moment in a given context. As such it is a representation of a value which does fluctuate. So you do NOT WANT a static 'store' of it. Now, why is this important? Because you are not buying goods from people anymore. You are buying their ability to conceive of new, better, and/or productive ideas. And that is NOT a static ability. Nor is it universal. A man who is a genius at zoological design may be a disaster at transportation design, etc. And an RQ would provide an insight into that fact. It would tell otherss what he has been successful at and what he has not, so that they may then decide if he is a great risk or a great asset to the production team. So RQ is a measure of value - and it is a measure of value of the thing being traded - you. Remember - it is not goods which are really being traded any more. It is your ability which is being traded now. And as such, there needs to be some measure of that. Reputation is the only cumulative meaasure I can think of in that respect. But this is a GOOD thing. Lets make your example more concrete. Take a Bill Gates of the future. He creates software for nanotech production which is valued by an enormous number of people. This collective 'vote' on his productivity is translated into an enormous boost in his reputation. Now, as per your example, lets saay this Bill Gates ressts on his laurels for 50 years, and then decides to pursue some new endeavor in a different context. His reputation, while perhaps greater than some, will have diminished significantly from 50 yrs ago. As such, people may not be ass interested in using his ability over someone else's ability. The reason? It represents an increased risk. Why? BECAUSE 50 yrss have passed with nothing else to show for it - no additional value added to the pre-existing value. No further productivity, and thus no evidence that he WILL be a value today. Imagine today's Bill Gates. Now, imagine HE sits on his laurels and does nothing for 50 yrs. In the intervening 50 years, the computer industry will have advanced incredibly. But Bill Gates will have not. His knowledge and understanding of the industry will be far out of date. As such, his value to that industry will be QUITE reduced (in fact, it might be detrimental). And RQ would indicate that very clearly (because just as his value is reduced by that time, so is his reputation). In other words, the fact that reputation would diminish over time without additional productive activity, is a direct representation of reality. As such,it is a very GOOD thing - not a flaw in the system. A Your ideas are well explained. Thank you for your thoughts. They are interesting as well. I wonder if you would allow me to ask you some questions related to a few of the premises you appear to base your ideas upon. In today's world, what are the primary reasons for forming a company? What of these reasons would stay the same in a nanotech world and what reasons would no longer apply? What effect would this have upon companies - short term and long term - in the nanotech world? Along those lines - what are the reasons for the long term existance of a company in today's world. And, in a nanotech world, would any of these reasons apply? If so, which one's and why? Again, what effect would this have upon companies - short term and long term? And finally, how do you measure the value of a company today (on a stock market)? What is the standard of measure which allows for comparative value to be established? Is it not the measuring value/standard a separate value from all the values being measured? In the nanotech future, such an independent value does not exist as a measure, as your suggesstion clearly acknowledges. As such, how does one determine the value of any company stock whatsoever? Without that standard, how does one determine which companies qualify for the index fund and which would not? In other words, to make your determination as to what you want to use as your standard of values (your index fund), don't you already have to have the very knowledge you are seeking TO establish? Once you have the answers to these questions, consider once more your 'shares as money' suggestion. Would companies still exist in a form usable for your suggestion? And how would you determine the value of these companies in order to determine which of them you would use as your standard of values?

Many of the elements are 'beyond my control' at the moment - both directly related to the project, as well as in my life in general (health and whatnot). These make estimating a production timeline problematic. I forget what information I last gave on the project, so I'll provide a brief summary of where I am at the moment: I have written out in some detail the overall story arc for the entire Logic Chronicles series. As it currently stands, I project 14 individual books, devoted to the fundamental concepts/fallacies of Logic. This includes creating the plot idea/theme of each, conceptualizing each individual fallacy, how they will be combated, the 'gimmick' of each story, etc.. In addition, I have also woven characters and situations which will allow a connection to additional Rational Man series (Origins - which deals with Metaphysics and Epistemology; and the League of Virtues - which deals with the virtues of rational men, and their corresponding vices). Its never too early to plan ahead. Once that was complete, I began the story breakdown and design for the first 'episode' - the first book - adventure: "Contradiction". As this work has progressed, the AisA universe has come into sharper and sharper focus. I now have essentially established the scene/ideas/conflicts that run through each act in "Contradiction" and am now just working out some of the specific plot points/gimmicks/technology involved to make the plot turns 'work'. As such, I am doing alot of brainstorming and nanotech research and previsualisation (ie conceptual design work for characters, locations, craft, etc). And of course there is no way to put a time frame on all that (especially the brainstorming part). Once that is fully completed, I will begin the final work on the script and then the design breakdown for each page of the book. At that point, I will be able to start finalizing the storyboards and complete the artwork. While that doesn't give you any exact timeframes, it certainly gives you an idea of the work I, as one person, have to do - and thus an inkling of the time it might take. It is gratifying to hear about your enthusiasm for the project though. It is encouraging that others anticipate it as much as I do. And based on the current work Ive done so far, I don't think you are going to be disappointed.

Well, obviously there would not be an infinite number of them. But, in the established nanotech society, they would be ubiquitous and as readily available or reproducable as any other matter made by nanites. So they would be essentially unlimited. As to Reputation being an awkward system to understand if you don't live in AisA City, that is perhaps true. Like any new idea, it would definitely need some form of explanation. But, like most fictional universes (take Star Trek for instance), detailed explanations are not really required to get people to understand and accept the general principle. And this explanation does not have to occur in the very first story. It can unfold over many of them (though it would have to be grasped by the time I got to Verecundium). What I like about this idea, besides it being the only intellectual, as opposed to physical based, 'currency' I could conceive (at least the only one which was directly connected to one's actions and ideas) - is that it concretizes another aspect of rational behavior - the judgement of others, (based upon their actions and ideas) so that the rational person can decide to act or refrain from acting in association with them or acting or refraining from acting towards certain goals. This would be a similar concretization as I am doing with the fallacies themselves. As such, the Reputation as currency concept definitely lends itself to numerous conceptual, constrasting and plot. My purpose in posting was to see if anyone either had better ideas/ideas I had not considered as to what would qualify as a currency under such a civilization, or if there might be obvious (or not so obvious) problems with a Reputation currency. So far, there seem to be few objections.

I don't follow this suggestion. And what is the connection between the computational system and the values created (or destroyed) by men? How would an individual decide what job to take or reject based on this system? Why would the amount of computing power help you determine what value would achieve better productive ends vs another value? Put simply, you've lost me here.

While this approach might serve to provide good examples of the metaphysical explanation, I dont think it can be used in place of a metaphysical explanation - which is what I ultimately need. Given the posts so far, I am going to take it that there is no in-depth objectivist explanation of the metaphysical nature of change, proceeding from Aristotle's explanation but which corrects his errors. As such, I'll approach the problem on my own then. Do keep an eye out for specific questions along these lines though, since there are a couple issues relating to Aristotle's explanation which I am not certain how/why they are wrong - mostly for reasons of equivocation.

Well, energy could be used as a medium of exchange, but only so long ass it was scarce as well. However, in a nanotech society, this will not be the case. Solar cells alone can be built into the very fabric of any building, and in fact, roads could be paved with solar cell material, providing enormous resevoirs of energy. And that is not including what soul mentions as well, the energy involved in the process of dealing with atoms in the first place - ie energy from the chemical reactions, etc which are a biproduct of the atomic manipulations (note though: carbon from the atmosphere would be the more prevalent material used - making buildings of diamond strength (multiples of times stronger than steel) which are multiples of times lighter than steel. And that certainly will take care of the 'pollution problem' that way. ). And of course, there are always new forms of energy collectors as well. For instance, I seem to recall a motor which draws energy directly from the atmosphere at virtually no cost at all. -- Finally, as I have said before, if anyone (neme) wishes to dispute my premises, I will ask one last time - politely BUT FIRMLY - that you REFRAIN from such disagreement IN THIS THREAD. If you CANNOT respect that request, I will report the behavior to admins, who WILL take action.

"You would be trading for a claim on someone else's time. It might be a "You help me plow my field and I'll help you put up your barn" kind of bartering for labor that has been used when people are mostly self-sufficient and there isn't much of a circulating medium of exchange." Ah - I was trying to avoid a barter system, for numerous reasons, including some I identified in previous posts. What's more, while I agree a computer system could handle the 'promises', there is one aspect I don't find attractive and believe most would not care for either. Others could bid on your services, and you would have to work for them whether you found such work or such persons objectionable or not. For instance, a Wesley Mooch could decide to buy up your labor time - or a Dr. Statler - or even Red Herring. Thus, I don't think 'promises' trading is so promising, since it seems like there would be numerous caveats, restrictions, etc placed on individual bits of 'currency' - ie labor promise dollars. So - any thoughts on the concept of Reputation as currency?

I know that a firm is not merely the value of the material goods it possesses. I thought I made myself understood in that respect, but apparently not. So rest assured I do understand the value in question. Now, as you point out, these 'index fund banknotes' are backed by the property the firm owns. As I pointed out though, in most cases, the property which is owned has little or no trade value - because it is easily reproduced or replaced by comparable values. Furthermore, this assumes also long term existence of a firm (for its future profitability). But nanotech will decentralize production - even of intellectual property. And firms will likely come into existence and pass out of existence because the individuals working on them will desire to move onto new projects and work with new people involved in such projects. Cookie cutter mass production will be a thing of the past in most (but certainly not all) instances. As such, the longevity needed to build progressively bigger and better products (which require greater and greater accumulations of capital) will not be necessary in virtually all cases. The value of a company truly will be its people (not its 'factories' or buildings or stocks of products). And each one of them will be a free agent. So what you will ultimately be trading is the value of the people and the value of their intellectual property. And your index fund is simply a piece of paper upon which this value is printed (or electronically registered or whatever) and then traded. This sounds very similar to what I am proposing with the RQ, except that the values in mine are tied directly to the individuals, as well as to the companies. Thus Im not sure that we are far off from each other. A thought occurs to me. Consider blogs for a moment. Men and women engage in what they consider a productive endeavor - recording ideas and information readily available for download and use by others. In most if not all cases, money is not what drives them - and there is usually none to make. Now - what is the 'currency' on blogs. That which people consider to be good ideas or information. People are voting as to the value of the blog by their continued visits - as well as their referrals to others. This is what builds their reputation. And it is reputation - reputation for being useful and valid etc - which makes their efforts more and more productive. Links on the side are also ways of boosting reputation (or killing it, depending upon the link) because reputation is affected by the knowledge and value of these other places as well, which reflects upon the person making the link. So some blogs become more read and more useful - which in turn increases their reputation - while others have little reputation or actually lose reputation because of bad turns or decisions etc. Im rambliing a bit here but I think (hope) you get the idea of what I am trying to convey. Reputation can be quantified to a good degree and can be used to enhance or destry one's own reputation - thus encouraging better or more useful activities (ie the increase of values) BTW - please do not take any of my arguments as aspersions upon your ideas. They are indeed very helpful. Trying to present other ideas - and trying to knock mine down - is helping spur my thoughts on the matter. You are helping me hone in my mind not just the answers, but also the scenario/question as well. Thank you.

y Yes, I know that all value is measured in relation to other values. When making a direct trade (barter), one is trading one value for another value. No money is involved. Money is an intermediate commodity - an intermediate value - used to make exchanges easier to facilitate (so long as it is easily divisible, relatively valuable as a commodity in its own right, and has stability of value). The reason for this is, without an intermediate commodity, it can be exceedingly difficult to find someone who has the values you are looking for, who is willing to trade them for the values you are willing to give up. As I said, it seems that your are arguing for a situation where money is not used - an intermediate vallue is not first traded - but barter instead is used. If I am misunderstanding your position, please let me know. As to your second question, securities ultimately rest on the value (current or anticipated) of the material goods and material values possessed by the company in question. Since my scenario posits a future in which such values are reproducable with virtually no cost, it is not possible to compare the situation today to the situation in the scenario. Otherwise, the question itself would not arise. Now, again, if I am missing something or not understanding an argument being made, please let me know. As it stands, the reason I have focused on reputation as an apparently viable alternative is that it DOES have value (less than it shouldd in today's market because of govt interference in the economy). And that value represents more than just the material value embodied in its stock or its facilities. That is why I think it could used a new form of currency. I believe, in an economy in which much if not most of its value is derived from its intellectual property, that some form of currency based on intellectual commodities or some form of intellectual valuation, rather than physical commodities or physical values, is necessary if a medium of exchange is going to be used. Something like a Reputation Quotient (RQ) might fit that bill. Companies/organizations/associations would have combined RQs of the people who work for them, combined with the Rpoints of the number of uses of their product, pattern, design, etc. Note: this has almost all been literally off the top of my head as I write this. Another reason I think a reputation currency would be good is that nanotech, if not handled properly could be very dangerous. Knowing reputation concretely could in fact serve to make the tech safer because fewer people will take risks dealing with those who do not have good RQs, leaving such a person with fewer opportunities to wreak havoc with the advanced technology.

Some here seem to misunderstand the purpose of this thread. It is to ANSWER the question I have asked. As I have ALREADY STATED, my purpose here is NOT to discuss challenges to the scenario I have presented. Some don't seem to respect that intention. IF you do not have suggestions as an answer to the question, then you have no response. And IF you cannot restrain yourself from CHALLENGING the scenario, then PLEASE present your disagreements in a DIFFERENT thread, so that I CAN deal with the scenario I have presented HERE - ie so I can FOCUS on what I was SEEKING to focus upon. Im sorry if this sounds TESTY, but I already stated this once. In SPECIFIC response to neme, please do NOT presume you know my assumptions nor my premises. You are WRONG in almost every one of them, beginning with your VERY FIRST SENTENCE. No marxist assumptions have been made. However, I am NOT here to explain to you WHAT assumptions HAVE been made NOR to what end. It is YOU who have made UNWARRANTED assumptions - assumptions which stand in direct opposition to my EXPLICIT statements, I might add. I will ask you NOT to repeat that behavior.

Networking? I don't think that describes it. If you don't have a specific material reward for the work you are doing, there has to be some way for you to determine what projects or what people you are going to work for (IF you are going to work for someone else) - ie which are going to produce greater value compared to others. In other words its more about what you are going to do, with whom, and why. As to reputation, Im not so sure that reputation couldn't be quantified in some fashion. It could be similar to a futures quantification (but would also include a quantification of past reputation - ie how many people 'voted' for you/your product by use of it). Now, about the securities, I understand how they may be debited and credited electronically etc. But my point is, WHAT are they exactly? They are the value or future value of a given project/company. That begs the question though - value as embodied in or by what - other companies? That is just an empty circle. What exactly do you get for your share if you want to buy a nanopattern or design - a share in some other pattern, design, project? As I said, that seems more like a barter system - ie you have done away with a medium of exchange entirely. And in doing so, I think you do away with some of the distinct benefits inherent in a system which uses a medium of exchange.

Betsy, I understand and agree. The four causes are indeed due to the more fundamental cause - identity (and yes, I understand the teleological nature of the fourth). I am simply looking for the explanation (if it exists) of that principle as it applies to change - as opposed to just the one or two sentence *identification* of that principle. I am also trying to understand if the concepts form and matter are valid here, since Dr. P later says that this was another of Aristotles errors and that no such division is appropriate. I am not sure though if this error relates JUST to the concepts of universals and particulars as identified by the terms form and matter - or if it applies to the terms in relation to change as well. Sometimes it's hard to keep track. I'd also like to know if there is any comprehensive explanation from the objectivist perspective of the relationship between form and matter, and potentiality and actuality. Basically, Im trying to find out if I have to do all the work on my own on the topic, or if there is some source which I can learn from/validate my understanding of the concepts better, so I can then explain and expand upon it more clearly.

Betsy I know you don't need material scarcity to establish values. My point was, when dealing with a material medium of exchange, relative scarcity (as opposed to abundance) is one of the prime factors which makes a physical commodity a good currency. And, in a civilization in which material abundance is fairly universal, there would not appear to be one or a few physical materials which would fit the requirements for a good physical currency. That is all I meant by scarcity here. Now - considering your 'time' currency, that thought had occured to me as well. With the 'reputation' currency, you are buying people's time too, just as you do with a metal-based currency. But what confuses me about a time currency is what is it you are buying/trading exactly? Say I want to hire you as a designer for one part of my new widget project. With a time currency, what exactly are I giving you in return for you time and you effort on your project? I can't literally extend your life. So what is it I are trading you for your time (and what does it cost me to give it to you)? Also, say that someone else also wants to hire you at the same time, for a similar project. What is it either of us are offering you of this 'time' currency - and how would you decide between us based on what we offer? Yes - amusement does continue -- y You say one cannot own any part of another's reputation. This is correct. However, your OWN reputation is affected both positively and negatively by what you choose to do and whom you choose to do it with. Thus one can increase or decrease the value of one's reputation without need of such ownership of someone else's reputation. Remember, when you buy something from someone with gold, you are 'voting' on that person and/or product. You are saying you believe in this product or person as opposed to that product or person. If you got rid of the gold, every interaction with such persons or products would still be such a vote. That is what a 'reputation' economy would consist of. For instance, suppose Hank Reardon hires young newcomer Bob to work for him on a project. Hank's reputation is very great. The fact that he has taken Bob on means that Hank is placing the value of his reputation on Bob. Hank is risking his reputation on Bob - that Bob will do a good job and perform to Hank's standards of excellence. As such, Hank's estimation (based on an assesment of Bob's talents and person) confer upon Bob an increase in Bob's reputation (*because* of Hank's good reputation). Again, this is what you do every time you buy something, or go to work for someone. Now, consider the opposite situation. Suppose Wesley Mooch hires Bob. Mooch's reputation is very bad. The fact that Bob went to work for Mooch says alot about Bob's talents and person. As such, Mooch's reputation causes a decrease in Bob's reputation (*because* of Mooch's bad reputation). Thus, while it is impossible to own another person's reputation, it is indeed possible to have someone else's reputation affect your own. Therefore you would choose your actions and associations very carefully, so as to increase the value of your reputation, as opposed to decreasing it. The reason for this is - the better your reputation, the more options you will have to work on better projects with better people, who are much more likely to achieve better ends. (Of course, just as with money, you will have choices to work on less 'reputation' rich projects, if you so choose - seeking instead to derive value from some other aspect of the endeavor) As to 'securities' currency, I am not certain how this would meet the qualifications of a medium of exchange. Could you elaborate, perhaps explaining how or why one security would become the means of exchange over all the others. Or are you suggesting more of a barter type system, where securities are exchanged for other securities? -- tommy's objections are either inaccurate or do not apply to the scenario I have created. As such, I am not addressing them. I am making this note, simply so others do not think the objections are valid and I have no answer to them. My purpose here is not to answer such challenges, but simply to search for answers to the question I have posed.

Stephen I thought this was more metaphysics as opposed to science or a specific science. In his History of Philosophy lectures, Dr. Peikoff presents the following under the catagory of Aristotle's metaphysics: Reality is this world – the world we live in – of concrete particulars – individual things as revealed to man’s senses Each particular – each primary substance is comprised of two elements Forms – a universalizing element which constitutes the basis for putting it into a particular class and ascribing to it a certain nature Matter – an individualizing element which constitutes the basis of its uniqueness – that which makes it a ‘this’. Matter is the stuff or material comprising a thing Form represents its structure or organization Change is the process of matter taking on a new form Change thus does not involve contradiction. It is logical and scientifically understandable. Change is passage from ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ which occurs in orderly, logical predictable ways. Every change involves four factors – four essential causes Material cause – the material from which the change proceeds Formal cause – the new structure imposed on that material Efficient Cause – the action of the agent which gives the new structure to the matter Final Cause – the end or goal or purpose of the process; the final answer to the question “Why does it occur” -- Now Dr. Peikoff indicates Aristotle's 'causes' are one of the places where he starts to go wrong with his theories of change. Are these what you suggest are the realm of science? Is there a scientific as opposed to metaphysical explanation I should be looking for here which describes the relation of an entity to its potentiality and its actuality and the principles of how it changes from one to the other in an orderly manner? Or is there an earlier error in Aristotle's work which renders this question irrelevant (ie matter/forms). In other words, is his identification of change as matter taking on new form according to the dictates of its potentiality, an error into which I am also falling?

Preface: I do not posit this scenario as a 'gotcha' against Objectivism, or any such negative. I present it as a serious inquiry into a situation I need to address in the here and now. Scenario: A well-established nanotech civilization in which the manipulation of matter on a molecular level can provide all men with the material means for their survivial (food, shelter, etc) with essentially no cost. Such a civilization would have virtually no manual labor requirements whatsoever. Most forms of material trade would cease (because nanomachines would 'grow' most of the things you need). Thus the values of society would become predominantly intellectual values. An example from today would be computer software. The physical cost of software (the disk, burning, etc) is relatively small. The value of the software is derived from the intellectual content realized in thhat physical medium. The value provided by the designer/programmer of that software. A nanotech society would be one where the skyscraper itself cost virtually nothing to build, but the knowledge of how to build such a skyscraper with nanites is of great value. Question: What would men be able to use as 'money' - as a measure of value - when trading intellectual property, if no *particular* form of matter can fulfill that role (ex - gold - or diamonds - etc are made easily from molecular slurry, and thus are not scarce, thereby making them as useless as seashells as a store or measure of value)? Potential Solution: Much of the trade which occurs today is trade of physical property for physical property (with money representing an intermediate physical property in the exchange). Since personal or utility nanomachines would render most such trades obsolete, the trading of intellectual property or intellectual services would make up the vast majority of human interaction and exchange. But no one or few intellectual properties could serve as an intermediate property to be exchanged amongst everyone (I can explain why if necessary). It occurs to me though, that one intellectual thing does exist, possessed by everyone, which is valued and which most would like to see increased as much as possible: Reputation. Even today, reputation in business is of great value. And it is a commodity which can be increased or decreased based upon one's own actions. In addition, those actions - what one offers intellectually to others and their evaluations of its value to them - is also embodied in that reputation (as is the value of your efforts in any trade as repressented by the gold or other monetary forms you receive in exchange). As such, in a nanotech society, one in which value is primarily intellectual, I wonder if 'reputation' accounts and 'reputation' stock markets and the like would become the medium of exchange when men seek to pursue the most productive efforts and seek to interact with other productive members of society. When first considering this issue, I was worried that it might be too second-hand in approach to the issue. But the more I considered the concept of money, the more I realized it is no more second-hand valuation than the valuation of gold or whatever material value is used as money. -- Would anyone care to comment on the feasibility or advisability of an economic system based on reputation? Or - does anyone have an idea for some form of 'currency' other than reputation, which would not involve material values? I would be very interested in your comments or ideas.

I really appreciate Betsy. She is like my own personal Google. I think the quote that probably touches upon the area I am interested in most is the book review of "Aristotle" in 'The Objectivist Newsletter'. As AR makes clear, Aristotle "laid the foundation and indicated the method by which a full solution could be reached." I'm trying to find out if someone did build upon that foundation and reached a fully explained solution - identifying how the A - the red tipped match, cold and hard to the touch becomes what Heraclitus said is nonA - the black, charred match, warm and crumbly to the touch. Both the same match and not the same match. The rest of the quotes indicate the principle, but do not describe necessarily the 'mechanics' of it (a la potentiality and actuality, etc). And that is where I need more information.

While that is a good premise, it is not an explanation, argument, or proof such as I am looking for. I am seeking something much more in-depth. Issues that involve things like potentiality and actuality, as well as differencess in form, as they relate to identity, etc. Thoyd - did you happen to find anything on the tapes I might have missed?

Unfortunately, Aristotle made a couple (I emphasize just a couple) metaphysical errors when formulating his concepts related to change. As such, his explanation, while certainly better than most throughout history, has some flaws in it. That is why I am searching for any specific Objectivist explanation of change (and the rejection of change as contradiction). I want to make certain I understand the principles involved and do not inadvertantly accept some of those errors.

Quick question - are there any good sources out there which present the objectivist argument against change being an inherent contradiction (ie - the idea that after change we have a thing that is the same as before the change, but is not the same as before the change. In other words, a thing has an identity of opposites and is thus contradictory). Now, I know the general argument against it. In fact, I have presented that argument elsewhere on the forum. What I am looking for is something a little more in-depth. I do not recall any such presentations/essays/etc specifically addressing this issue. Any suggestions?

Im not a fan of Yes. However, I don't think one has to attribute dishonest motives to his claims. The linked site's design is such that the file may not have started playing on his system. And in the middle of the window there, it asks you to email if you want a copy of the file. If the file didn't play, for whatever reason, it is conceivable that Yes concluded he had to send an email to them to get the file. So I think Yes' post can simply be atributed to sloppy observation of facts and therefore erroneous conclusions (which is very much in line with what I remember of his previous posts). One doesn't have to infer he was lying. Thus, while there are possibly a number of posts which could justify Yes' dismisal from the site, I don't think this qualifies as one of them. If it does, then ALOT of other people here would have to have their posting priviledges suspended as well.

LP - Since I had already declared I was not going to pursue the issue with him further (BECAUSE he was either being intellectually dishonest or ignorant), if your supposition were accurate, his post would STILL be inappropriate - especially for a moderator. It would be simply a personal swipe/attack/resort to ridicule. Put simply, no matter how you 'interpret' his post, it is NOT one a moderator on this forum should have made. Combined with his previous posts to me, it (as I have already stated) calls into question the standards for moderators and moderating on this forum. Concerning Swig's newest post, I will simply point out that his characterization of my position and behavior are outright lies. I present my posts from this point: http://tinyurl.com/6booh as proof of his lies. At this time I request Administrator intervention to prevent further libel against me by a REPRESENTATIVE of this forum. In addition, I request REDRESS against these current slanderous statements.