Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

KurtColville

Regulars
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by KurtColville

  1. I don't see how FDR and Obama are distinguishable in their goals. Obama has not said he wants to wreck the progress of America. He hasn't said anything like that. His political philosophy is pretty closely tied in with the FDR administration, so if you want to say Obama is out to destroy America, you must believe the same of FDR.

    Obama isn't some boogey man out to wreck America. Hey may well do it, but I don't think he wants to. He is as contradictory to our founding principles as George Bush was, as Carter and LBJ and FDR and Wilson were.

    Of course Obama holds the idea in his head that he doesn't want to destroy America and wants America to be great. I've even heard him say that he wants America to regain its place as the world leader in science and technology. But his policies and values stand in direct opposition to those goals.

    When someone's wants are disconnected from the rational means of achieving them, what they want no longer matters. What they do is all that counts. A mind that functions without regard for the nature of reality or man, without regard for the necessary steps between wish and accomplishment, functions on the level of an infant, on a primacy of consciousness.

    Obama wants good things to magically happen, because he doesn't care to identify the way that the good truly does happen, and he can count on Americans not caring either. Oblivious to the nature of reality, he fills in the steps between with any pet whims that he wants. If they benefit someone, somehow, that must make America stronger. Billions have to be wasted on failed auto manufacturers, in order to save auto workers' jobs. The government has to cripple the oil industry to support alternative energy businesses. Guantanamo has to be shut down to get the world to like us again. Global warming must be combatted, or polar bears will drown. We must double our national debt to save future generations. How? Blank out.

    Because Obama (and this goes for anyone in Washington) acts on the primacy of consciousness, he holds no principles, good or bad. Instead he starts with values cobbled together from a life of passive collectivism. Today, he promotes those values, and makes them real by pointing a gun, with pragmatic compromises and feel-good slogans. His admirers, and those who don't know any better, laud his "intelligence". This man isn't intelligent. His speech is a mesmerizing fog of contradictions, non-sequiturs, and second-hand pap, accented by a few out-of-context facts, and strung together just well enough for those who can't think to mistake it for intelligence.

    The reason to fear Obama is not because he wants to destroy America. The reason to fear him is because he can't tell the difference between good and evil, and neither can Americans.

  2. To answer the question, you have to assume the premise that the U.S. is no longer the best country to live in. In that case, I would guess Australia or Hong Kong. Switzerland wouldn't be too bad, either, although their zoning laws are horrific compared to ours. Even Canada is conceivable, if things got so bad that the able had to leave and every other country stayed the same. Not too many other places to go.

    The best solution, in my view, is not to look for a country that will allow you to live free, or to try to turn a bad one around, but to create a new one.

  3. I agree with Eric Mathis.

    The antagonism to capitalism is very deep, sadly. In addition, it is the fact that so many cling to two ideas antithetical to freedom and individual rights: the idea of sacrifice as a virtue and the idea that the mechanism of taxation is the only way to provide "infrastructure" for "such a big country."

    Even people who agree with Objectivism on many points have a difficult time coming to grips with how a government could possibly be funded (and fully funded at that) by voluntary methods.

    With a small developing nation, or a brand-new island nation, I think we would have a better chance to enjoy capitalism while at the same time providing an example to the world of "how it's done."

    I agree completely. I am ready to participate in such an undertaking.

  4. Here in BC/Vancouver the terrain is as such that snowshoeing is hiking in the snow (not much flat areas to be found). Without the snowshoes you would be falling so deep into the snow that you would not be able to walk. Just this past weekend it was so sunny (unusually) that I was snowshoeing in a short sleeve! When we got to the top of the mountain there was not a cloud on the sky and absolutely no breeze.

    That does sound fun. One of these winters, I'm gonna make it out to Whistler to ski.

    Ovechkin is definitely a great one. But it looks like Alexander Semin is at least as key to the success of the Capitals lately.

    The Wings have had some of the greatest Russians in the game - Fedorov, Konstantinov, Datsyuk, Larionov, Fetisov - but now they have nearly cornered the market on great Swedes, with Lidstrom, Holmstrom, Zetterberg, Franzen, Kronwall, and more in the pipeline. Great European scouting has kept Detroit afloat, in spite of always having to draft at the worst position -- since they are perennial President's Trophy winners.

    It still boggles the mind to think that Fedorov, Mogilny, and Bure were once on the same line on the Russian national team they played on. That had to be the fastest line ever.

    That Wings team that won the Cup with Konstantinov is still my favorite. And the wars they had with Colorado -- unbelievable. Lidstrom will go down as one of the three greatest defensemen ever.

    Well, Sabres pick up another win! :). I believe that makes the last ten games 8-2. So, I'm sorry Penguins, but in 8th you'll remain even if your next game picks up a "W", and the Sabs get a litle bit of breathing room as they go against the second worst team in the league.

    Man, Miller is a master in the shoot out.

    Definitely helps having Connelly back!

  5. I'm not much for skiing, and hockey is a sport for goons and miscreants (:lol::P) but I will echo the endorsement for snowshoeing!

    That reminds me of the old adage: soccer is a gentleman's game played by hooligans; rugby is a hooligan's game played by gentlemen. And hockey isn't just for goons -- you can play hard and clean. :dough:

  6. Sorry, Zip and Sophia, I have to proclaim my love for hockey, too! :dough: I play and ref here in Kansas City -- I just wish we had an NHL team. So I pull for the Wings (mom's from Hockeytown) and the Sabres (I went to Syracuse Univ.). We get a lot of Blues games here on TV. I'll second that about Ovechkin -- he's just sick. Christmas, skiing, and hockey are the only good things about winter!

  7. Also, just wanted to point this out, "Islam" literally means "Peace", and "Islamists" are "Followers of Peace".

    "Islam" means "submission". From Wikipedia:

    The word Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m, and is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit." Thus, Islam means acceptance of and submission to God, and believers must demonstrate this by worshipping him, following his commands, and avoiding polytheism.

    Submission is what they want of everyone.

  8. So then I would just ask you, KurtColville, about your statement:

    Do you understand that "freedom" here is something that can only be violated by physical force?

    Absolutely.

    And that if someone owns the only watering hole in town, they are not forcing you to drink their water. Or if a man owns the only factory in town he is not forcing you to work for him?

    If so, I think we agree.

    Absolutely. This isn't force, because I'm still free to exercise my own judgment; the owner isn't depriving me of a value that I have earned.

  9. I think it is a semantic issue. I have no quarrel with people saying that they are forced to pay taxes rather then saying they are threatened with force if they don't pay their taxes. That's a perfectly normal way to talk. What I object to are philosophical attempts to detach the moral notion of force from physical force. For example if you try to define "force" in the moral sense as something like "not leaving a person a choice", which fails to distinguish actual physical force and a lack of realistic negotiating options.

    Actual force and threats have to be treated differently in a moral and legal context, because of volition. Of course threats of force under color of law in society respecting the rule of law should not be treated different from actual force.

    I've gone back and read this thread several times through to see where the disagreement lies, and I agree that all we are arguing over is semantics. If I conveyed the notion that physical force was not essential to the concept of implied force, that was not my intent and may have been the result of poor wording. The only sense in which I was making a moral distinction between the two is that implied force adds the concept of "threat" to physical force -- hence the need for two different terms to denote two different concepts. Sounds like we agree on the nature of the two.

  10. I think the main problem with this is that the threat of force is not the same as actual force (even if it is treated similarly in a moral system for rational beings), and yet because of the "give no choice" problem, force and threat of force are both violations of rights and to be morally condemned. What makes it imperative to treat threatened actions like actual actions is because reason tells you that the threat will become actual force. Whereas actual force is an axiomatic concept, a threat is often a very high-level inference, and the inference can never be certain when dealing with rational beings (since we have free will). Just because force and threats of force are "as good as the same" in terms of a system of rights, doesn't mean that force is a non-physical concept.

    I agree. The threat of force amounts to actual, physical force. It is implied, as distinguished from a physical act taking place, only in that it is delayed by some indeterminate period of time. Someone threatens you, the harmful act is coming, and maybe immediately or maybe well down the road, but what matters is that it's coming and you will suffer harm as a result.

    I'm not sure, though, that I understand what you mean by saying that "force is an axiomatic concept". My understanding is that there are only three axiomatic concepts: existence, identity, and consciousness. Do you mean that force is ultimately metaphysical?

  11. I didn't mean any insult, Kurt.

    My spur of the moment idea is that you should read "Introduction of Objectivist Epistemology" before you try coming up with further definitions.
    You don't think that's insulting?

    You admitted yourself that your definition was a "spur of the moment thing", and I found that a little frustrating. I expressed that, but I wasn't going for an insulting tone.
    I could understand frustration with it being in error, but not simply on the basis that I came up with it off the top of my head. I don't claim that it is flawless, but I can't say that I see a problem with it. Do you find it in error?

    Anyway, David is on the right track, the threat of force isn't an axiomatic concept, and that must be the source of our disagreement. I don't really see the need to further discuss the reason why the threat of force is the same as force (in a political context), I find it obvious that a credible threat has to be treated as a violation of rights, therefor I see no reason for trying to express that by introducing new concepts.
    Nope, that isn't the source of our disagreement, either, because I don't view force to be anywhere near axiomatic; there are tons of more fundamental concepts upon which it depends. The source of our disagreement appears to be that you regard the threat of force to be described under Newton's Second Law of Motion. I don't know how you think that, but you argued it here and in earlier posts.

    There's also nothing more that I can think of to prove that Ayn Rand defined force as physical force, and never saw any reason to introduce a definition in a political context, of a political concept called "force" the way you are trying to do. I think force as it is defined in physics, whether inferred or actual, is the right concept to use when describing the political system men should live in, and any other concept would be the wrong one.
    Okay, but why? Why is the change in an object's velocity sufficient to qualify an action such as brandishing a knife as force? I maintain that such an action is force, but not because the victim's velocity has changed due to the knife being brandished, but because the victim must focus his mind on the possibility of this maniac stabbing him.
  12. In my opinion Donald Sutherland is the best bit part actor alive today.

    I used to loathe him, bcause he'd play all these hippies or iconoclasts snarking on America or something good. But in recent years, I've seen him take on some terrific roles, and he is a terrific actor. My favorite role of his is as Mr. Bennett in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. He's fantastic.

  13. You've been posting for pages now, so you probably could spend some time to think your answer through. I've made the effort, you replied with a "spur of the moment" definition. I gave an example in my previous post that contradicts your idea of what force is, you didn't even address it.

    So, after I took a quick glance at your "spur of the moment definition" I think it doesn't qualify as a definition. I'd explain, but I'm in a rush.

    My spur of the moment idea is that you should read "Introduction of Objectivist Epistemology" before you try coming up with further definitions.

    Which example are you talking about, the starving man? I did address that. I said that "he's screwing himself" by not being able to eat. If someone is preventing him from eating, then that is force.

    Insulting me is not going to elicit my interest in discussing this. I have spent plenty of time thinking this through, I have directly addressed the flaw in your conception of Newtonian force vs. force in a moral context, I think the definition is pretty decent and you haven't named what you find wrong with it, and I have read ITOE three times. If insults and snarkiness have to part of your comments, don't bother.

    Jake, I see that you're talking about your post from 4:20 yesterday. I haven't addressed it because I haven't had time to get to it. I wasn't blowing it off. I haven't gotten to David's post, either.

  14. Those are all examples of force being threatened (except for the fraud example, which is a form of theft, and thus involves physical force). I made it very clear that someone making a threat of force is using force. (actual physical force, the way Nweton described it) If you're disputing that address it directly, not through repeating examples.

    But you are rejecting my definition, so define force, as you see it, please. By define I mean mention the category from which you are selecting all existens with the set of specific, fundamental characteristics that you also provide, as part of the definition.

    But force in the moral sense is not the same as the force that Newton describes in his Second Law of Motion. That physical force requires a change in the velocity of an object. It requires the physical interaction between two objects. Some physical event must take place for force to exist. There is no part of that law that includes the idea of implied physical force. If a change in velocity occurs, then force happens. If it is "implied" ("potential" in physics terms), no force happens.

    In the Newtonian sense, there is no force occurring from someone pointing a gun at you; the force is implied. Here is my spur-of-the-moment definition of force (in the moral sense): an action that requires a person to act, because to do otherwise would result in harm to that person. It means that someone presents you with a situation which, in order to be rational, you must consider it and evaluate a course of action, because if you ignore it, you'll suffer harm. It is a person causing you to use your mind against your will by exploiting the relationship between facts of reality and your nature as a human being. (I'll provide examples of what I mean by this, if you wish.)

  15. I'm not all that passionate about this subject, plus there isn't any actual knowledge to be drawn from the whole thing. I was kinda posting on it for a fun, superficial discussion, and it's pointless to continue if you can't drop this technicality about "everybody hass a chance to become President". It's clearly unrealistic to think that other parties have a chance, because the two ruling parties are too entranched both on a local and federal level. It is so clear, that it's not even fun to argue it (especially since there's no easy way of proving it, because of the large number of variables).

    If you think that political parties are immutable, metaphysical givens that have no connection to the prevailing cultural philosophy and that these philosophies can't and don't change over time, then you're right, there is no point in discussing it. It's obvious, though, that even the conservative and liberal establishment are subject to philosophical change. The current ideas behind environmentalism, political correctness, multiculturalism, Just War Theory, and many other cancers plaguing our politics were non-existent and unthinkable not too long ago. People's ideas do change.

  16. Not according to Newton. He seems to think that force is that which has an influence on a mass, changing its direction or speed. Exactly the same as when a tree hits an object or 10 objects, and gives that object/parts of the object an acceleration it didn't previously have. When it hits the groung, the acceleration is not significant enough to actually move the object (the Earth), but parts of the Earth (the surface soil) do move as far as they can go before another, opposite force is applyied by the soil under the surface.

    Newton rightly described the natural phenomenon of force as that which changes the velocity of an object with mass. As a technical aside, when a tree hits the ground, it does move the earth (in the direction that the tree hits the ground), but it moves it such a small amount that it's regarded as trivial. When a tree hits the earth, that kinetic energy has to go somewhere. The earth isn't attached to an object that absorbs the energy and pushes back on the earth to keep it in place (like if I push on a house); it's floating in space, so it has no choice but to move.

    The reason why I'm giving this physics lesson btw is to stress what force is. (not because I think you need it) That is what force is (whether magnetic, gravitational, etc.), and that is all it does. It cannot be different from that influence which gives acceleration to a mass. Ever. Whatever implications that may have, those implications are not part of this definition, and they most certainly don't allow for the phrase "force can be different, when humans come into the picture(i.e. in an ethical context)".

    Yest, that is still force.

    No, it isn't force because someone is faced with the inability to escape it or to use his mind. It is force because the bullet from the gun applies an influence on your body which will accelerate parts of it into other parts, destroying your organs and your cells, ending the process which is your life.

    The threat of force is not force per se, but it is the use of force, if the threat is real. (I still do find it useful to say "use of force and the threat of force" as often as I can, even though I think "use of force" would mean the same thing.)

    There is a different sense in which physical force is used in a moral, social context. Not to be repetetive, but force exists when one person gives another person no choice but to deal with him. When you lose your freedom to act rationally according to your own judgment, you are being forced to act.

    Unlike natural phenomena, physical contact is not necessary for force to exist in this context. If someone points a gun at you, you are forced to act, even though no bullet has touched you. If someone defrauds you, you have had force initiated against you, even though you never saw the guy again after you happily handed him your money. If someone says to you, "I'm going to kill you," and they mean it, that is force, even if they never touch you. Someone uses their mind to present you with a situation in which you have to take a certain action, because to do otherwise would mean harm to you. That is force, and it requires no change in the velocity of your body.

    However, someone being allowed to die of hunger (because he is unable to provide for himself), is not force, even if he is faced with the inability to use his mind to escape his predicament.(your exact words)

    That's right, because no one is preventing him from using his mind to act. He's screwing himself.

  17. Obama ran against the record of the previous administration, and people rewarded him for that. Beyond that, both candidates offered up pragmatist solutions that would confuse the hell out of Einstein if he decided to give them credence. You can't say that Americans consciously chose higher taxes and more government, out of that mess.

    Most people vote for the message, not for the nuances in the small print.

    Obama's message was clear: Republicans suck, vote for change.

    Obama didn't just run against Republicans. Lots of other poltical candidates ran, and run, against Republicans, but they didn't get elected, either. Obama ran against Republicans and for Democratic socialism. Obama didn't say, "Vote for whatever change I bring you." He didn't say, "I want change that gets government off your back, upholds your individual rights, and makes you take responsibility for your lives." He said, "Vote for change, and here's the socialist laundry list I mean by 'change'." He advocated public service, renouncing selfishness as a virtue, negotiating with enemies to get the world to like us, higher taxes on the wealthy, crippling regulations on the oil and coal industries, sweeping green policies, radical undoing of the Constitution, he swept personal and public scandals under the rug, and much, much more. And Americans said yes. Whether they support that by conscious identification or a subconscious response to their values is irrelevant to what they chose and the danger it poses. If Americans can't be bothered to tell good policy from bad, and regard serious, consistenly advocated threats to freedom as small-print nuances not worthy of noticing, then they cannot be counted on to defend freedom in this country.

    McCain's message was clear too: I can't say that Republicans don't suck, since I'm a Republican. Vote for <insert unintelligible cliché's here (including some weird concept according to which we can't know whether Abortion is right or wrong, so such moral issues should be left up to the states, to which Whoopy Goldberg (a comic with no political experience or too many signs of intelligence for that matter) replied: According to that principle, should slavery also be left up to the states? McCain's answer: you tell me Kurt, because I'm still watching The View hoping to hear it.) >.

    Okay, so your point is that McCain is an unprincipled moron. No argument.

    I believe Americans (especially independents) chose the Republicans suck part of those messages. ( the only true part by the way)

    Again, if Americans voted out of rejection of Republicans, why did they choose more socialism over more freedom? And why have they been doing so for over a hundred years and continue to do so? What is it about Republicans that they hate and wish to replace? It isn't freedom, because they don't support principled defenders of freedom.

    In fact to me it looks like Americans have been choosing lesser government, when given the option, and then they keep turning away from the Republicans, when they refuse to keep that promise of lesser government. (or screw up the economy in general)

    When the economy was improving due to actual lesser government (in the 80's), the Republicans stayed in power. When the two Bush's screwed it up (by promising lesser government and not keeping their word, but rather overspending and screwing up the economy), Americans turned to the only alternative.

    If there was a Republican president, who actually kept cutting both spending and taxes, and kept the economy going strong as a result, there's no way most Americans would react negatively to that, in the name of some Marxist rhetoric about the poor being taken advantage of. Unfortunately the Republicans are too busy pushing the Bible, driving up spending on pork to their home states and altruistic wars for that to happen.

    The alternative that Americans are faced with is not limited to who ends up on the ballot on election day. They face alternatives all day, every day. They have the chance to learn about what made this country free, and about Ayn Rand's ideas, and other similar defenders of freedom and moral integrity. Political elections are statements about a society's moral values. The reason their only alternative to corrupt Republicans is corrupt Democrats is because they have spend the last hundred years joining the world in rejecting freedom.

  18. What an interesting question! If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't do much differently, but there are a few things that come to mind. Once I started reading Ayn Rand, I took it in at a slow pace. I already implicitly grasped and practiced the Objectivist ethics, so my reaction to her fiction was more or less, "Yeah, that's how I think. I wish others felt the same, but finally I've found someone who thinks like I do and puts it all together like I never could."

    Because I started out a little lethargic, I would get a hold of Dr. Peikoff's "Objectivism Through Induction" series right away. I didn't listen to it until almost twenty years after I discovered Ayn Rand (reading "Anthem"), but it propelled my grasp of Objectivism and ability to seamlessly tie concretes to principles like nothing before. I think it's accurate to say that it did more for my epistemology than Atlas Shrugged, OPAR, or ITOE, and they did a ton!

    I'd also seek out other Objectivists, either through online forums or through clubs. I did jump into Objectivist Usenet groups when they first started, but I was in school, was just learning Objectivism, and didn't participate with much gusto. (Experiencing it in the context of the birth of the Internet was fun, though!) I would have tried to find other Objectivists at school or right away after school. I waited too long, and really envy those of you who are super-active in college or even younger. Objectivism should be a social force in your life, not just abstract ideas that you agree with, alone in your dorm room.

    I didn't get much into this (thankfully), but it's good for new students to avoid and it goes with avoiding rationalism: avoid using Objectivism as the means to one-up others in debate. I can't tell you how many young people I see do this, simultaneously demonstrating that the idea of using Objectivism as a guide for living means little or nothing to them. They use it basically as polemical ammo. Bleh!! Debate for debate's sake is garbage, even if you're good at beating people. I understood it generally right off the bat, but it still took years of integration and premise checking to feel it in my gut, as though it were an organ or appendage, that Objectivism is for living.

×
×
  • Create New...