brian0918

So in other words, you will pretend that the conceptual faculty does not work in any particular manner, in order to avoid having to use concepts in the contexts for which they are valid. You do not require any evidence to conclude that "effect" is a property that can be assigned to "existence" - the mere fact that those two words can both be used together in a grammatically-correct sentence is sufficient evidence to form that conclusion, in your mind. Words can have whatever meaning you want them to have, and can be used in whatever context you like, in order to support your predetermined conclusion. And colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Popular monetarists like Milton Friedman are to blame for creating a generation where so many people believe in a simple form of the Quantity theory of money, and ending up further undermining the intellectual underpinnings of monetary standard that is outside political control. The Fed's monetary policy is an enabler of poor fiscal policy. Doing away with the gold standard, and making the Fed dollar the base-currency also undermined the liquidity of banks. It also allowed the government to more easily control what banks do.
Also, force was used to get away from the gold standard. Physical gold was confiscated. Major contracts used to be written in dollar terms, but always had a gold-clause. The government simply refused to enforce such legitimate contracts. About two or three generations later, the force was removed, but the country is used to the paper-dollar, and universal acceptability is a key attribute of money.

If we had a gold standard, we would not have been in this prolonged recession. Firstly, it is unlikely that we'd have seen such a steep nominal boom, akin to the 1929 boom that came after the U.S. came up with the idea of having a Federal reserve. Even if such a boom had taken place, it would be far more difficult for the government to cushion and prolong the downturn. Instead, we'd have had a sharper and shorter decline. More important than that aggregate is the fact that the differential in outcomes for good and bad behavior would have been sharper. Hoover and Roosevelt prolonged on great recession, while Bush and Obama are prolonging this one. Neither could have done so without a government that was able to mess with money supply.

Regarding purchasing gold: we still have yet to pass the inflation-adjusted record high of around $2400/oz. You'll also find that not only do the folks who believe the Fed/government will rapidly devalue our currency (e.g. Peter Schiff) recommend buying gold, but so do the folks who believe that we will experience rapid deflation due to credit destruction (e.g. Bob Prechter). Either way, I wouldn't recommend going all-in. While gold may ultimately play a much bigger role as money in the long-term, the interim is uncertain. I would hold gold, silver, cash, guns, foodstuffs, and trade skills.

This assumes the government-adjusted CPI is accurate, which it is not. You can check out ShadowStats for a more historically-accurate estimate of CPI. You can also read up on the assumptions, algorithms, and hedonics used to concoct a stable, low CPI. (e.g. this CPA)

I will also note that even IF you assume the CPI is accurate (which it isn't), one couldn't even keep up with inflation just by putting one's money in a bank savings account, due to the Fed's continued ZIRP.

Well, 800 posts later, the rest of us are tired of the childish God squad.

So in other words, you will pretend that the conceptual faculty does not work in any particular manner, in order to avoid having to use concepts in the contexts for which they are valid. You do not require any evidence to conclude that "effect" is a property that can be assigned to "existence" - the mere fact that those two words can both be used together in a grammatically-correct sentence is sufficient evidence to form that conclusion, in your mind. Words can have whatever meaning you want them to have, and can be used in whatever context you like, in order to support your predetermined conclusion. And colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Regarding purchasing gold: we still have yet to pass the inflation-adjusted record high of around $2400/oz. You'll also find that not only do the folks who believe the Fed/government will rapidly devalue our currency (e.g. Peter Schiff) recommend buying gold, but so do the folks who believe that we will experience rapid deflation due to credit destruction (e.g. Bob Prechter). Either way, I wouldn't recommend going all-in. While gold may ultimately play a much bigger role as money in the long-term, the interim is uncertain. I would hold gold, silver, cash, guns, foodstuffs, and trade skills.

Then buy it.

Since you seem to use "inflation" ambiguously to mean both increased Fed money-printing and rising US prices, I cannot make sense of your statements.

And besides that, you are not even arguing with anyone here. Certainly Objectivists are not simply in favor of returning to the gold standard that we had up until the '70s - i.e. a government-mandated one. The free market should decide what form our money should take. Gold certainly has ideal properties as money in certain contexts, so it would likely be popular in a free market.

Where did you download an older copy of Adobe Premiere Pro from, given that Adobe no longer hosts that version on their website as a trial?

The point of contention here is what Ayn Rand was referring to when she used the term 'tabula rasa.' Thus, it doesn't help at all to show how other people use the term. Rand made her claim concerning tabula rasa very clear: people are not born with any conceptual knowledge. To saddle her with some other claim just because other people use the same term to refer to different things is equivocation.



The point here is that if we have been successful in identifying true moral principles, then they apply whenever their context obtains. They are absolute within that context, like scientific principles. If you find yourself defying one, you know that you're harming your own life in the long run. 'Adapting yourself to Objectivism' in this case means taking those moral principles seriously and attempting to use them to better your own life, rather than pretending they aren't true when you don't feel like following them. Of course, applying these principles to concretes often involves a lot of individual context, so it is also true that concrete applications of principles are highly individualized.



I disagree. Biological altruism, to the extent it is true, is a fact about human nature. It cannot be wished away by any philosophy, including Objectivism, and no philosophy should seek to. It must be taken as given when constructing a moral system. Philosophical altruism, on the other hand, is a man-made position on the fundamental nature of morality, one that should be rejected in the strongest terms. Objectivism is a fact-based philosophy, and biological altruism is a fact. There is no conflict there. Philosophical altruism, on the other hand, is in direct conflict with Objectivist moral philosophy. Any 'reinforcement' that occurs between different usages of the term altruism is only due to confusion about the issues and unclear thinking.

1. "Tabula rasa" refers to the knowledge/value content of the brain, not to one's genetic tendencies, so you are misusing the term.
2. See Rand's discussion on emotions. Nowhere does she claim that the internal functioning of one's emotional system does not play a factor in determining one's emotional responses.
3. What is the relevance of this? Our bodies are hard-wired to do many things that may be contrary to our goals - e.g. allergic reactions, programmed cell death, etc. That does not change how we *should* act. The fact that we have a lot of evolutionary baggage does not mean that baggage takes precedence, nor implies what goals we should aim for.
4. Natural selection does not have a plan, and thus there is no goal to be "hindered" by modern medicine.
5. See 2.
6. ???

7. I don't see how your "conclusions" follow from the statements preceding them. And regarding those conclusions:

A - Nobody is claiming to "deny" that we have different tendencies which we must consider when striving to be rational in determining our values and the proper course of action to further those values. It is not Objectivist philosophy that must be adapted to each individual - it is each individual who must adapt to Objectivist philosophy. For example, a person with a tendency to alcoholism must recognize that that tendency is due to an inherent trait which is self-destructive, and that he must learn to continually fight that trait in order to act rationally.

B - ???

C - ???

1. "Tabula rasa" refers to the knowledge/value content of the brain, not to one's genetic tendencies, so you are misusing the term.
2. See Rand's discussion on emotions. Nowhere does she claim that the internal functioning of one's emotional system does not play a factor in determining one's emotional responses.
3. What is the relevance of this? Our bodies are hard-wired to do many things that may be contrary to our goals - e.g. allergic reactions, programmed cell death, etc. That does not change how we *should* act. The fact that we have a lot of evolutionary baggage does not mean that baggage takes precedence, nor implies what goals we should aim for.
4. Natural selection does not have a plan, and thus there is no goal to be "hindered" by modern medicine.
5. See 2.
6. ???

7. I don't see how your "conclusions" follow from the statements preceding them. And regarding those conclusions:

A - Nobody is claiming to "deny" that we have different tendencies which we must consider when striving to be rational in determining our values and the proper course of action to further those values. It is not Objectivist philosophy that must be adapted to each individual - it is each individual who must adapt to Objectivist philosophy. For example, a person with a tendency to alcoholism must recognize that that tendency is due to an inherent trait which is self-destructive, and that he must learn to continually fight that trait in order to act rationally.

B - ???

C - ???

Before asking a new question, please see if someone has already provided an answer. Also feel free to reply to any of these threads with more specific questions.

If you do not find your question here, please use the forum's Search function to see if it has already been asked. Or, you can try using Google to search this forum.

Metaphysics

What is meant by "Existence exists"? Isn't that just a tautology?

Epistemology


Is free will an illusion? If we are made up of particles, how can we make choices? How does one validate volition? (threads: 1, 2, 3, 4) (keywords: volition, determinism)
Is induction a valid means to knowledge? (threads: 1, 2)
How does the choice to focus occur?
What is a law of nature?

Ethics


How can you derive an ought from an is?
Why not steal if you can get away with it? (prudent predator, threads 1 2)

Politics


Do babies have rights?
Is forced taxation wrong? How would government function without forced taxation? (threads: 1, 2, 3)
How would the Constitution be rewritten from an Objectivist perspective?
How would roads be handled if all land is privately owned?
How would a water supply be handled if not by a city government?
How could lakes and seas be privatized?
How should criminals and punishment be handled by a proper government?
How would prisons work in a free society?
Is intellectual property actually property?
Is preemptive war justified? (interventionism)
What is wrong with anarchy/competing governments?


Science


Does quantum mechanics violate identity or causality? (1, 2, 3)
What is space, and in what sense does it exist?
Is global warming or "climate change" really occurring? What effect are humans having on global temperature? (see also: One Minute Case Against Climate Alarmism)

Economics


Are we moving towards greater inflation, hyperinflation, deflation, or something else? (1, 2, 3)
What effect will the "quantitative easing" of the Federal Reserve have on the economy?

If anyone would like to add to this list, or if there are better topics to link the above questions to, please leave a reply.

It's definitely photoshopped. I can tell from the pixels and having seen quite a few shops in my time.

In general, I have to agree completely. In fact, my wife is of the same mind with you in such a way that it creeps me out a bit. And I realize that Ayn Rand was VERY stern on this issue - there are some Q&A's I've heard that fully transmit her feelings on the matter.

However, Miss Rand died in 1978, and the political context has changed dramatically in such a way a to make lip-service to the anti-abortion crowd no more than just that. I would venture so far as to state categorically that the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned, either de jure or de facto, are effectively nil, no matter who attains the Presidency. The only use for such rhetorical devices now is as a means to mobilize or de-mobilize certain (relatively small) sectors of the electorate. A given candidates position on this (and similar subjects) is effectively meaningless. Pay it no mind, and focus on the stuff that a candidate actually has a chance to achieve.

If employing strawmen and ignoring gigantic swathes of history that seem to strongly suggest you are anything but not completely wrong on this point is how you are going to attempt to teach children how to thing critically then you have already failed them miserably.




They broke no law.



Jefferson was one of the greatest activists for freedom. The ones who weren't respecting the memorial were the cops, causing a huge ruckus and disturbing the peace. There was no need to ensure "safety" or "security" until they decided to get involved. You can clearly see at the beginning of the video that no one touring the memorial is even giving these people a second thought. This is the same bullshit argument that resulted in things like the Patriot Act. So if a cop tells you to stop doing something that isn't illegal, and you don't, and then you "taunt" them, that's a crime? How is this not the definition of a police state styled-event? How is this not morally evil?

I also find it interesting that the fact you learned martial arts, whatever was going on with your sister, and all of that other crap has any relevance at all. I don't care about your personal achievements and experiences, I was talking about condemning political actions that, historically, have had numerous successes with respect to these types of things, whilst you are not assisting in bringing about political change in any sense.



I have an uncle that is part of SWAT, I have a cousin that is a police officer, and I have a family friend that is part of security for national park and memorial grounds in D.C., i.e. the area of jurisdiction that this memorial falls under. Interesting that every single one of these people seems to think that this was poorly handled, that these officers were out of line, and that they had no right to proceed in the way they did considering they broke the law by violating numerous Constitutional rights provided to all citizens, such as being told specifically what law you are being reprimanded for breaking.

With friends of freedom like you, we sure as hell don't need any enemies.

I found an article on Restore the Republic, it has a different camera view from the one in the original post so you can get another look at how things went down. It shows a lot more o the whole picture, since it's from the perimeter of the building, rather than right up close where you cannot always see what is happening:
http://rtr.org/videos/2/21418



Adam Kokesh has had his own radio show, ran for Congress, was a strong advocate against the Iraq war after having fought over there, and now has his own tv show on RT with tons of liberty-oriented guests, and Yaron Brook is fairly high up on the list of recommended guests that are suggested. What are you doing? I think he is allowed to pick his little battles that are important to him on a personal level every once in a while, considering he is doing more than anyone in this forum the other 90% of the time. So what if it is not an "important" battle, we have entire organizations like CATO, ARI, Mises, FEE, and on down a hundred times over focusing on all of the "important" battles. What does that have to do with anything? Sounds like you just want to belittle their efforts whilst you watch Spongebob in your pajamas on Saturday mornings and discuss how the government sucks online. This attitude annoys me.

I have no idea why you are so heated and insist on attacking my character, which, I'd like to add, you know almost nothing about. I brought up my personal achievements because you accused me(for no reason at all) of watching sponge bob and being apathetic from my arm chair. That you insist that the only way someone can effect change is through direct political contact tells me that you in no way understand my position.

In short, I believe in regards to this issue that
1)without the rule of law, freedom cannot exist.
2)That political change is impossible and never permanent if not accompanied and further, proceeded by a change in the philosophical outlook of the people.
3) That no political system, enacted, could be perfect in its application of the law.
4)That redundancy is and ought to be built into our legal system to minimize harm when mistakes are made by human authorities.
5)The US is not yet at the point where violent resistance is appropriate. That is to say, peaceful alterations of our government are still possible.
6)There has been a consistent and gradual slide towards statism since the civil war that has not been halted by decades of demonstrations.
7)That this was a planned political demonstration by Adam which he chose to do on government property without a permit.
8)That government property has to be treated like private property or it becomes a floating abstraction with all kinds of "commons" problems.

Those are my premises. If you would like to discuss why they are wrong, I'd be happy to, but if you just want to call me an enemy of freedom and a cartoon watcher then I don't care to continue.

Cheers

I watched another video featuring the organizer of this protest, and by listening to him it clearly is a protest, and he described what he thought the purpose of the police was in America.

Starting at about 1:12;

http://dmvallaccess....source=activity

Now, however noble he may be in his fight against the unjust banning of dancing in a public place, he clearly has a distorted aim at who is at fault. He's blaming the police as if they passed the laws against public dancing. Then he claims that only 5% of the police force are "good" people who image is tainted by the brutal thugs that make up the other 95%. His views of policing in America are nothing short of moronic.

Simply reviewing the use of force, assuming a lawful arrest, here is how I see it. When an officer gives the order to submit to arrest, anyone who is not fully compliant is going to be met with SOME level of force used against them. There are varying levels of resistance in the video, but most of the people being arrested full into the category of "active resisters", in terms of the use of force parameters. By this I mean, they are actively, physically opposing the arrest, short of assaulting the officer (pulling arms away, walking away, etc.). Passive resistance refers to a person who is not moving or pulling away, but simply remaining stiff or tense to avoid arrest. Aggressive resistance is when a person is attacking or assaulting the officer in an attempt to avoid arrest.

In the case of the active resisters, the use of "soft control" techniques is appropriate. "Soft control" techniques involve grabbing, applying pressure points, bending joints, etc. in an effort to affect physical control of the resisting subject. In addition, many jurisdictions and courts recognize the deployment of chemical (pepper spray) or electrical devices (TASERS) as appropriate responses to active resisters. Jurisdictions and courts recognize that while officers are expected to some degree to be exposed to physical hazards in the performance of their duty, they do not necessarily have to place themselves in jeopardy in these situations when circumstances allow them to use tools at the appropriate force level.

The major use of force problem I see in this video occurs when the one officer is arresting the guy in the white "Disobey" shirt at 3:00. I reasonably certain that while the "body slam" will likely be deemed an appropriate use of force by existing standards for arresting an "active resister", the chokehold is a problem in my opinion. Chokeholds are banned from use (except in exigent circumstances) by many departments. Additionally, a "carotid chokehold" is considered to be a lethal use of force by many jurisdictions and departments. I would be willing to bet the chokehold as used is not consistent with their use of force policy.

However, I would echo Dante's concern for the police bashing that typically follows an event like this. In particular I would add the tendency to view the officer as acting maliciously in the use of force as opposed to considering ignorance of policy or poor training.

Do you have all the necessary facts to determine that? Don't we appoint judges and/or select juries for the purpose of determining whether laws were broken or not?

The real problem is the mere existence of "public property"

Yes I watched the entire thing. If the people doing it have no right (have not been granted permission to demonstrate - it does not matter what sort of demonstration) to do it in the first place then the possibility or not of someone getting hurt is absolutely and entirely irrelevant. As it was, the idea was for there to be a flash mob. You know what that entails, a bunch of people performing a dance or what have you. With a number of people dancing like that there certainly is a possibility of someone being hurt and therefore there is a responsibility on the part of the security guards to prevent it.



Wrong. The security officer approached the people and told them that if they demonstrated without a permit they would be arrested. There is warning # 1, and any violation from that point onward is a direct violation of the orders they were given by those responsible to ensure the safety and security of EVERYONE visiting that memorial that day. The police were obviously informed that something was going to go on, probably because the person who had the idea to do this announced it on the internet or on his radio program or something.

At the 1 minute mark the two people who were later arrested for slow dancing walk into the frame from the direction where the police officer was explaining the repercussions -the girl was close enough to touch the person standing on the right side of the frame as she walked out. They look directly at the police officer and the camera smiling and begin to dance that is called provocation, and again is in direct opposition to the orders they were just given by those responsible for the safety and security of everyone in the memorial.



No, not doing anything would be an abdication of their responsibility to ensure the peaceful use of a national monument to EVERYONE and not let a bunch of people disrupt others use and enjoyment of that public facility.



At 2:35 one person was complying when his friend comes in and starts pulling him away the officer is then forced to take the original man down to the ground to control the situation and he then begins telling the other man to "Sir, back of, back off"

At 2:48 the man with the brown shirt who had been pulling on the other one is on the ground and the police officer is trying to handcuff him. You can see him resisting putting his hands behind his back in spite of being ordered to do so. The police then escalate as they are trained and have every right to do in the completion of their duties.

At 3:03 the guy in the white shirt walking away from and pulling away from the officer is resisting.



Actually in my opinion the police were doing exactly what they have been trained to do. I'm not a cop but I have had to deal with similar situations and the police handled themselves well in the most part.


As much as you may believe that being arrested for dancing is stupid you should realize that they were not arrested for dancing but for demonstrating without permission. The rest is emotional sensationalism.



I bet that if they had planned to do this flash mob in the middle of a field on the national mall then they would not have been stopped but they planned to do it in an enclosed space in a public memorial without permission.

It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is there is a correct way and an incorrect way of changing the law.

If I decided that drug laws were stupid (which they are) and I planned to get 100 of my best dope-fiend friends to do lines of coke on the white house lawn would you still claim that we were arrested for no reason and that it was just stupid?

Threat of force is initiation of force. Saying, "I am giving you two choices - either you quit your job, cut your family ties, pack up your things, and run for the border... or I will put you in a cage" - that is certainly the initiation of force, even if it becomes commonplace, even if the public doesn't recognize it as such, and even if the force is indirect. And these days, "leaving the country" isn't even a valid option - the IRS will find you and extradite you to the US, or empty your foreign bank accounts.