Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

agrippa1

Regulars
  • Posts

    768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by agrippa1

  1. Just found an interesting reference to Danneskjold... Apparently Danneskiold was a family name created for several illegitimate children of Dano-Norwegian monarchs of the 17th century. I believe it translates to "Danish shield" but I'm guessing on the dannes part. All modern Danneskjolds trace their lineage to the illegitimate children of Sofie Amalie Moth, mistress to Christian V of Denmark, who were originally given the surname: Gyldenløve.
  2. I think Greenspan intentionally tried to distance himself from Rand in the book, in terms of his present philosophy. While his memoirs of his time with her are respectful and complimentary, he seems to dismiss Objectivism entirely with a single swipe at the voluntary taxation idea, one which even Rand admitted was not fully fleshed out. I found this, as well as the comment you quote, to be disingenuous. Why would he do such a thing? Well, of course, it's because he's cast himself as Francisco D'Anconia and Ragnar Danneskjold, by undermining the Federal Reserve and destroying the planned economy from the inside. Do you remember where you read that?
  3. I'm almost certain I've read her stating that she wanted "libertarian," but it was already taken, so she settled on Objectivism. (edit - misread)
  4. Quickly, but not completely. What about not freeing northern slaves? If slavery was not illegal at the start of the war, and if Lincoln, when issuing the declaration, specifically excluded non-southern slaves, how can you claim that the declaration of war against the seceding south is about anything other than secession rights? The argument that the South was immoral because it employed slavery fails to distinguish the South from the North. Since the North also employed slavery, their declaration of war based on that rationale seems about as valid as it would for invading a sovereign state for the same reason, that is, none. The argument that a neighboring sovereign state may be "hostile" does not justify invasion, and it shouldn't have justified invasion of seceding states. Is anyone here going to seriously contend that if the South had freed slaves simultaneously to its secession, that the North would have acted differently? Or are we going to claim that a "wild hypothetical" and therefore not worthy of answer? On edit: Back to the subject, though, I nominate Barack Hussein Obama as worst president.
  5. China continues to purchase U.S. debt at low interest rates, even though they know we will likely monetize our debt. China wants gold, is purchasing tonnes of it, and is making noises about introducing a gold-backed currency for international finance. U.S. has tonnes of gold reserves, which are not really reserves anymore, since all of the value of our currency is tied to future production, and not to any commodity. So, are our leaders too honest to offer kickbacks to the Chinese for U.S debt, in effect raising the interest rate we pay them, in the form of untraceable gold, which was stolen from the holders of U.S. currency when FDR outlawed private ownership?
  6. That will be interesting. I have a hunch (since they can, so why wouldn't they?) that our government has been quietly selling off our gold reserves, perhaps even to China, and that if China establishes gold-backed currency we will find our monetary situation to be a complete and utter loss. The only thing backing our currency now, the future productive capacity of our people, is being systematically gutted by Our Beloved Chairman Mau-Mau. We and our creditors will soon discover that we are bankrupt. The question is whether, as Rand described, the bankruptcy of the U.S. will spur a return to freedom and capitalism, or if it will mean a quick descent into lasting totalitarianism.
  7. I think you'd better read your history, and I would suggest The Forgotten Man, by Shlaes, as a starting point. U.S. effectively nationalized the electrical power industry under FDR, just as one example. FDR tried to increase the number of SCOTUS justices from 9 to 15, in order to push through his New Deal. It failed, but he ended up replacing eight justices, who (you guessed it) backed the New Deal. FDR backed the Soviet Union against Germany, and ended up relinquishing more European territory to Communism than we ostensibly were trying to save from Nazism, and, his inner circle was packed with communists, communist sympathizers and friends of the Soviet Union. The Civilian Conservation Corps, a New Deal program, is regarded as the progenitor of the American environmental movement. So the threats we face today that we didn't in the 1930's boil down to faith-based initiatives and creationism?
  8. agrippa1

    Abortion

    Euthanasia of whom?
  9. Yeah, they leave out the kind of statistical analysis necessary to make the claim, and include some arbitrary filters to make the case stronger. For instance, they filter only owners of multiple dealerships in one example I've seen. I'd like to see a tally of all Dem dealerships and all Rep dealerships (& Hillary supporters, etc), and the percentages of those totals that were closed. The underlying issue, however, is not whether the Obama administration actually did target Republican dealerships, but whether the policy they established provides the power to close dealerships arbitrarily. It is not even necessary to consider whether this or any future administration would actually use that power. It is only necessary to consider whether the fact of that power will compel dealerships to change their behavior based on the possibility of its use. The true evil of this power is that the government can claim innocence, much as a man with a gun in hand walking down the street can claim innocence when people "voluntarily" place their wallets in his free hand. [on edit:] Of course, your point, that most dealers are likely to be Republican, does nothing to weaken the argument that the closures targeted Republicans. In fact, it seems to strengthen the argument, if anything. When you consider whether dealerships would have been targeted at all if they were unionized, you see that closing dealerships was a "safe" action, from the administration's pro-union, pro-minority worldview. It helps "share the misery" of factory closings. Note that one of the criteria for closure was the income level of the surrounding community.
  10. There's no functional difference between hiring an individual to enforce gov't established laws, and hiring a commercial contractor to do the same. As long as there are objective laws governing the proper use of force by an agent of the government, including legal recourse against its misuse, there should be no problem replacing "agent" with "agency." The question, however, was whether "private" enforcement would exist in LFC. "Private" implies no control by the gov't; a commercial agency operating under contract to the gov't would not be considered a "private" agency. I could also imagine an emergency situation in which the government authorized private citizens to use specifically defined force against specifically defined persons. That would constitute official sanction, and actions directed by the government, and so should be consistent with government monopoly on use of force.
  11. Try this exercise: Try to meditate anywhere you damn well choose and ignore the inputs of your sensory organs. If your stomach gurgles, don't hear it; if your back itches, don't feel it. These sensations come to you involuntarily and are integrated by your facile mind in its continuous integration of sensory inputs to perceive reality. Free will's ability to control the external world without volitional action is illusory. Existence has primacy over consciousness. Earth-shattering, huh?
  12. So, if someone parks outside your house on a public road, with a telephoto lens, and waits for your wife to undress in front of an open window, it's okay for him to post those photos on the internet? Is it okay for him to sell them? Is it okay to make money from ads by posting them gratis on the internet? Is it okay for an individual to sell photos of your home? Your car? Your dog? I think this issue goes beyond simple privacy and goes into the use of your property (including yourself, etc.) for their profit without compensating you for the value of your image.
  13. You're right, he doesn't misrepresent her ideas. That would require that he represent her ideas, which he certainly does not do. The only thing he says in your examples is that Rand "sanctified" capitalism. He does not even point out what you do - that she did so on rational/moral grounds. In fact, to say simply that she "sanctified" (i.e. "made holy") capitalism implies that her support of capitalism is based on a mystic idolization, rather than a rational/moral principled argument. I'm in complete agreement with what you write here, but you give him far more credit than he deserves. Either he is wholly ignorant of Rand's philosophy (which your analysis refutes) or he is being intentionally intellectually dishonest by giving only the briefest peek at Objectivism, technically accurate, perhaps, but so skewed as to provide zero true insight, instead representing it as appealing to "rightist" (is he implying "fascist?") readers and blind supporters of big business (such as the Wall Street and Detroit cronies?).
  14. You want to talk about "blinkered escapist fantasy?" Mr. Galupo praises with faint damnation when he refers to Paulson and Bernanke as proof that Rand is wrong about government interventionism. (Not that he goes so far as to analyze what Rand has to say on the subject) There is no substance to this article that I can see. Disjointed quotes from reviews by dubious second-handers, and no discussion of Rand's ideas beyond an incurious reference to her defense of big business. Not sure what folks here mean by "well written" and "honest." This article is neither. [edit:typo]
  15. Bank-issued credit, while part of the money supply, differs from currency in two important respects: First, bank credit expands as the market price of underlying assets expands (and vice versa), unlike fiat currency, which expands based on the whim of the savage-in-chief, so the value of bank credit in real (e.g., gold) terms remains steady during the boom. Second, when the price of the underlying assets collapses, the value of the credit collapses, but not necessarily the value of currency, which often increases in value during a bust (if bank credit has replaced, not just augmented, currency). The result is that bank credit expands the money supply during a boom, but contracts it during a bust, maintaining the value of the underlying commodity currency. These, I think, are important distinctions, because they shift the issue to one of fraud, or, at least, voluntary ponzi or musical dollars, in the case of bank credit expansion. In the case of currency expansion, it is clearly theft.
  16. I dunno, let's ask Immanuel... Is that exact enough for ya? That's a good question, so I'll cut to the chase scene: Objectivists believe that logic is the act of non-contradictory identification. Reason is the exercise of logic on our perception of reality, which informs our understanding of reality. If the concept of space creates a basis for understanding what we perceive, then space is non-contradictory with respect to reality, and therefore exists in reality. There is something about reality which is analogous to the concept of space we develop as we integrate our perceptions and eliminate contradictions in all that we perceive. That something is "space." We recognize it as a valid (i.e., true, i.e., non-contradictory) concept, which therefore truthfully describes reality (there is distance between entities, and relative direction to every such distance). Kant, on the other hand, posits that space is an a priori concept in which we perceive all objects existing. Since space is a priori, and unreal (in an absolute sense), then all objects existing within space are also unreal. He went to great pains to "prevent any misunderstanding" about this conclusion of his. I won't write to the rest of your post, except to point out that you are evading Kant's own words irt A Critique of Pure Reason. I refer you back to the quote and ask that you provide a different interpretation of his words. (N.B., my translation is by J.M.D. Meiklejohn) Specifically: what did he mean by "that which has always ... occupied her powers and engaged her ardent desire for knowledge." [Edit: typos]
  17. Thus does Kant lay down the foundation of the metaphysical unreality of space and time, and thus of all perceptions and entities. Note, he assumes that any aspect of metaphysical reality must be directly perceived or else be the representation of a priori knowledge. He evades, and in fact dismisses, the possibility of working "backwards" from sensation, to perception, to conception, to reality. An infant senses a chaos of unconnected visual inputs. Through trial and error, those inputs are brought into focus and he distinguishes blobs, which he tracks with his eyes. By continuous integration of his sensations and perceptions, he perceives shapes, then the positions of those shapes. He perceives that things are in front of, or behind, to the right or to the left of, above or below, other things. Then he conceptualizes the idea that things are closer or farther from each other and from himself. Distance and direction become concepts which help him integrate the relationships between things. Finally, the concept of space, which is the possibility of infinite potential distances and directions evolves as a tool of integration. Kant assumes that space must be an a priori representation, because we think of all things as existing "in space." He therefore concludes that the existence of all things, since they are conceived as existing in the conception we call "space" must also be dependent on a priori representations, and not on any absolute metaphysical reality. Likewise, time, in his view must be either directly perceived, or must be an a priori representation. It can not be the conceptual result of perceiving that something was just there, and now it's gone, and, oh look, it's back again. How can it be there and not there at the same.... ah, time! Clearly he is missing/evading something. And as his thesis is to argue that perceived reality is no more absolute than mystical reality, i.e., that God and heaven exist even though they can not be directly perceived, it is clear that he makes every effort to evade the reality of the physical world in favor of the mystical. If you doubt that that is what Kant was striving for (and which diverted him away from logic and reason), I leave you with two quotes from the ultimate chapter of the same work... Kant is a mystic. Mysticism is the basis of most evil in the world. Objectivists strongly dislike evil. Get it?
  18. I've always thought that Rand should have separated personal altruism from political altruism, and in a way, she did. Her stand against political altruism was in defense of individual rights. Her stand against personal altruism was based on the principle that it is inherently irrational. Her argument against personal altruism was that one should explore the premises of one's altruistic tendencies, rather than accept them as axiomatic. In developing this argument, I believe she demonstrated that individual altruism is the result of tribal mysticism, whether from religion, culture or political "science," and not the result of reason. The problems with individual altruism are threefold: First, there is an inherent contradiction in holding altruism as a moral ideal, since its practice necessarily entails someone else receiving the benefit of altruism, i.e., practicing the exact opposite of altruism. Second, altruism works against your own well-being. If you can find an example in which altruism does not work against your well-being (e.g., participating in good-samaritan ethics), then that behavior has an element of self-interest to it, and is therefore not altruistic. Many mystical altruists base their actions on such superstitious rationales as karma, and are therefore embracing (false) self-interest. Third, acceptance of altruism as a personal moral choice provides sanction to those who would force altruism upon us. (as has been pointed out a few times already) If you understand that altruism-by-force is evil, then you must accept that altruism-by-choice, when embraced by a majority in a democratic society, provides not just a moral sanction, but a political mandate for the enforcement of evil. It is only by recognizing that altruism is inherently immoral (by dint of the first two points) can you reject it as an acceptable political ideal. I'm not so sure you are familiar with how Rand uses the word, since both definitions offered stipulate a lack of regard for others. Rand did not use the word as your definitions propose, and she provides explicit definitions for the term, explicit to the point that anyone who has read her would never, ever try to sneak (let alone highlight) "disregard for others" in the definition for a discussion of this type. (unless, of course, they were being intentionally dishonest) Selfishness, as Rand uses the word, entails explicit respect for the rights of others, including a rejection of all forms of force (including fraud, i.e., passing "baloney" off to customers as truth), except in defense or retaliation. Had she believed in selfishness as you define it, she would have embraced anarchy, in which the most "selfish" survive, and the least are killed. This is the law of the jungle, the moral code of animals. (i.e., no moral code at all) Atruism, as a moral code, entails sacrifice of self to the collective. It is the law of brute force, the moral code of the ruled. (i.e., no moral code at all)
  19. (parody? ) This is the mystic view of human achievement. "We are the guardians of a great human function. [argument from tradition] Perhaps of the greatest function among the endeavors of man. [ambivalent, meaningless abstraction] We have achieved much and we have erred often. [equivocation and admission of powerlessness] But we are willing in all humility to make way for our heirs. [false humility] We are only men and we are only seekers. [seeking for what?...] But we seek for truth with the best there is in our hearts. [whose truth? And what about what's in our heads?] We seek with what there is of the sublime granted to the race of men. [sublime, in whose eyes, and granted by whom?]It is a great quest. [a Holy Grail, perhaps?] To the future of American Architecture!" [i.e., to its past]
  20. Just a wild guess, but currency in circulation hovered around 4% of GDP from the late 60's to the early 90's. (It fell from over 10% in the late 40's, and has recently topped 6%, and rising fast) If that's where Friedman got his number, it's only a one-time 4% "investment" of resources to establish a standard, plus an annual increase of apx 4% of GDP growth. In a robust economy (5% growth), that's 0.2% of GDP every year, or about $28B in today's equivalent. Hey, that's less than 1% of our federal budget!!!
  21. I thought for sure Chairman Mao-Mao* would announce the GM plan today, May Day. GM owned by the Union, while the investors get the big screw... Can we change GM's name to the 21st Century Motor Company? *(The Messiah used Churchill as a spokesman against torture on Wednesday, after having sent the bust of Churchill back to the British Embassy a few weeks ago, apparently because Winnie was PM when Obama's Grandfather was supposedly tortured by the British during the Mau-Mau uprising.)
  22. Write up a detailed technical description of your invention. Go to uspto.gov and look at some actual patents for examples of how to do this. As soon as you have a good description, print it out, and have it notarized to establish a no-later-than date for the invention (in case you race someone to a patent). Find a good business lawyer who specializes in technical or patents. If you don't know where to find one, ask a local businessman who you respect for a recommendation. Have the attorney draw up a Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) which you can use to safely share your idea with an expert or two. If you don't have the cash to hire patent attorney, you can use the NDA to get someone to back you for a share or a guaranteed loan. The NDA should cost you no more than a few hundred dollars, or you can go online and find a boilerplate NDA, probably for free. I'd recommend you at least have an attorney review your NDA, though. Have your business lawyer recommend a patent attorney to do a patent search (if he doesn't do them himself). You can do a preliminary through uspto.gov, which has a pretty good search engine. If you find your idea in there, you can probably forget it, but there's a chance if something close has already been patented, you might be able to patent a modification or enhancement. If it looks like your idea is a legit new idea, and you're sure it's worth money, don't scrimp on the attorneys. They are essential to protecting your interests and giving you sound business advice. There should be attorney search sites for your hometown with ratings, and reviews. I believe the full costs for a patent search, application, etc., is about $5k. Once you have an NDA, look for advice from businessmen you respect. Most are more than happy to help someone starting out, and they will be generous with their advice. Good luck. And don't trust anyone (even friends & family) without an NDA. But be prepared to offer them a piece of the action in return for their help.
  23. Would you care to use the same rationalization to justify fraud (which, of course, you committed with respect to your grandmother's property), and murder? (after all, who would ever know if you just slipped this lil' ole satin pillow over the old girl's face?) Lying, if it gains you profit from others, is fraud, and is therefore equivalent to the use of force. Did you tell your grandmother you would carry out her last wishes? If so, and by doing so you kept her from finding an honest witness, then you committed fraud when you falsely laid claim to her estate. Whether or not someone finds out about your act has no bearing on its morality. Unless, of course, you measure morality only by the consequences you will face if you get caught. In which case, I suggest you trade your copy of Atlas Shrugged for a pointy stick, an animal skin and a bone through your nose.
×
×
  • Create New...