eficazpensador

I recently came across this pro-anarchy argument: "Man's right to liberty implies that individuals should be able to set up their own system of rights protection. A government initiates force when it disallows individuals from protecting their own rights. Therefore, the existence of a government inherently contradicts individual rights." What is the Objectivist response to this?

Sure, there are times when an individual company's stock price becomes irrationally depressed, but to call financial markets "highly irrational" is a little dramatic.

I agree this would be helpful. Unless there is already a system in place, I don't understand how people remember what topics they've posted in! I barely post at all and still can't remember. In fact, I'll probably forget that I posted this.

What do you mean "price depression"? The monopolies learned how to make stuff better and sell it for cheaper. Prices went down. Is that a "price depression"?

While it still may be a terrible time to buy gold, your reasoning is wrong. Just because the price is up doesn't mean anything (out of context that is). Who cares that the price is up, if it is going to keep going up.

So what happens when you outlaw child labor? I'll tell you. The children, now unable to produce for themselves, starve to death. Sounds like a wonderful regulation. And remember when debating with this guy not to concede the point that child labor is brought about under a free market. The free market inherited child labor. Children worked (and died) on every family's farm before the industrial revolution. It was the free market that allowed parents to become productive enough to provide for their children. Also, the pollution he is referring to comes about from a lack of properly defined property rights. I don't know what your definition of socialism is, but all taxes violate individual rights. First of all, the services don't benefit all (I don't receive welfare checks). Even if they did, it still requires stealing money (taxation). Second of all, since the "populace" is made up of individuals, his statement should read: 'Money is taken from certain individuals and put into services that benefit other individuals'. I'm not really sure what the purpose of that statement is, but if the rich are taxed 99.9% and the money given to the poor, his statement is wrong. He's corrupted the concept of rights. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action. The right to life is the right to seek nourishment, not be given it. The right to property is the right to create and thus own what you create, not to have someone give you property. The right to the pursuit of happiness is not a right to be happy, but a guarantee that no one can stop you from trying to achieve it. He's trying to create the right to health care, by which he does not mean the right to acquire health care but rather the right to be given health care. This violates the right to property and thus is invalid. Also, make sure you show him where the right to property comes from. Man has the right to his life. In order for the right to life to exist, freedom is necessary. Only under a system of freedom can a man take the actions necessary to sustain his life. Thus you have liberty. Since the items necessary for human survival are not laying around waiting to be picked up, the only way for man to survive is by producing. What he produces must be his property. If man does not have control over his property, he doesn't have control over the product of his labor, and thus does not have control over his life. Ehh, thats a shitty description of where rights come from, but I'm sure you can state it more eloquently . Just make sure he knows that by violating property rights, he's violating the right to life. Also, challenge him to tell you the difference between a mob of people stealing your wallet, and taxation.

Have you ever seen the Big Lebowski? Edit: Warning: bad language:

Aren't they whylin liberals?

Behavior without rational thought cannot automatically be classified as "instinct." Instinct is defined as: "an unerring and automatic form of knowledge." Man does not have instincts.

God me too. I couldn't believe it was the same guy at first. Looking at his paintings is like watching that movie, "A Space Odyssey: 2001" again and again. I'd have to say, his "mercury" illustration is my favorite.

Your sentence structure and typos make this unreadable. I think you should read through it yourself and fix some stuff. [Mod note: no need to quote the whole thing. Or any part of it]

I guarantee it's not real.

Weird, I always thought it represented the "who am I to know?" mentality.

Amen. I've got a final Thursday too. I just study till I find that I can't finish problems at my normal speed. Then I get something to eat, play some video games or talk to the girls down the hall. Just take your break and get back into it.

If you want to see real decay in Detroit, just look at the people. There are literally people standing around staring at the ground. I used to wonder what they were thinking but now I know they aren't.

I know there have been quite a few Objectivists who've changed their name because it wasn't fitting. I've never really understood that though. If I were you, I'd be delighted to have the name Ben Skipper. It sounds bad ass. But if changing it makes you happier, then of course you should do so.

hahahaha. That really made my night.

I don't mean a "concept of value," I mean an economic theory of value. Objectivism's theory of value does not explain prices. That's a great point, I've never really thought of that! Though I still don't see where his philosophic errors have lead to economic errors or why his ethics discredit his business cycle theory. Can you expand on that more?

Now that is just plain false. First of all, it's quite obvious that altruist ethics are far far far more popular than Objectivist ethics. To paint the U.S. in the 20th century as some sort of Objectivist paradise is intellectually dishonest. And, Capitalism was NEVER "realised as a moral imperative." That's just an idiotic statement. So this big long post is basically an assertion that success is always followed by failure, as demonstrated by your personal life?

If you don't ascribe to the Austrian theory of value, what do you hold as the the origin of value? It is indisputable that he value of an economic good is different for different people. Value is based on individual value judgments. Is this what you disagree with? As far as ethics go, Mises certainly made many errors, I remember noting quite a few when I read Human Action, but as adrock said: His proposed ethics really don't have anything to do with his economic theory, just as Newton's ethics weren't involved with his work. I think we both agree that it is far more important to defend capitalism from a moral standpoint than to defend it from a utilitarian stand point. Objectivism explains the moral side of the equation, but we still need to have the utilitarian side.

Could you explain this a little more? What subjectivism are you referring to? The theory of value?

The consumer gets screwed by the "protection" when they are left with fewer choices/inferior products/more expensive products. That's what happens when you don't let free individuals decide what's best for themselves. Someone (consumer) gets sacrificed.

First of all, why do you think McCain is going to be so much better than Obama? Second of all, What makes you think that Obama is going to be gone in four years? Most likely it will be 8 years. And based on our direction, the president after Obama may be a lot worse. Are you going to sacrifice a possible 20 years or more of your life?

Mature markets tend to have a lot fewer fluctuations and the United State's economy has definitely matured a lot from 1854-2005

Haha, it was excellent. What time is he coming next week? Or did they not say?