Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Spano

Regulars
  • Posts

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Spano

  1. In Opera, try setting the encoding to UTF-8 under view/encoding. By default, Opera appears to render the site in Western, which gives those funky characters instead of the correct ones.
  2. 1. In the big picture, I'd say North Korea is a natural ally of Iran and others if global war were actually to occur -- this is similar to the "Axis of Evil" idea. Both are anti-West and share a common goal if not a common ideology. But absent a WWIII, I'd classify North Korea as simply another distraction or front that stretches diplomatic capital yet thinner ("We're too weak to deal with both N.K. and Iran at the same time! Whatever will we do?"). 2. Lately I've come to regard both Russia and China as bigger threats than I have in the past. They have consistently sided against the West in every conflict, only serving to frustrate our efforts. My understanding of their recent actions leads me to consider them as essentially powerlusting pragmatists fundamentally opposed to the West, because the ideas of Western freedom threaten their tenuous hold on power. The big question, of course, is what they will do when the chips are down -- will their pragmatic side win, leading them to helplessly watch and not take sides, or will their frantic powerlust win, driving them to use force in order to preserve their regimes? It's a good question. Certainly in the realm of diplomacy, they are enemies. 3. I don't see Venezuela taking any action in a conflict in the middle east or Asia -- they may offer moral and possibly financial support, but I don't see Chavez sticking his neck out for the Islamic cause. He seems full of hot air to me. 4. It would take something major for the West to break ties with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- it is simply too convienent and comforting to pretend they are our allies. Therefore, I predict the U.S. and others continue to deal with them and ignore their role in furthering Islamic terror. 5. I agree with the above list of allies, but would add Canada and subtract Italy. 6. I doubt this is the beginning of WWIII, because we (the West) do not have the will to recognize this fact or act on it. We will do anything we can to broker some semblance of stability by compromising. For example, I believe that given their kidnapped soldiers back, Israel would probably cease hostilities rather than continuing to wipe out the threats posed by Hamas and Hezbollah. A world war requires two sides intent on fighting. There is currently only one. 7. Depends on what you mean by "win". If it came to world war, I have no doubt that the U.S. and its allies would not lose. But I don't think we have the moral certainty required to premanently destroy the enemy. Again, we would view a "win" as a return to tenuous stability with minor, tolerable violence.
  3. I wouldn't go too far with the physical appearance of Ayn Rand's characters as far as their significance to her ideal man. If she says anything in Atlas Shrugged, it's that the ideal man is ideal by choice. The physical appearence of the characters, I believe, are inserted for literary effect. The descriptions of Galt and Rearden as tall and strong versus the villains like Boyle as short and pudgy suggest to the reader, more immediately and concretely, the qualities of the characters. Imagine if Galt was described as pudgy and awkward with eyes that seemed cloudy and distant -- how many more pages would it have taken to convince the reader that this is, in fact, the ideal man despite his sloppy appearance. Remember that Ayn Rand viewed art as selective -- she was adamantly opposed to painting a beautiful woman and adding a blemish, just because most women have some blemishes. She did not deny there are beautiful women with blemishes, but held that an artist shouldn't focus on blemishes when portraying beauty. Likewise, she would not deny that you can be supremely moral while short with a round face -- she held that artists shouldn't focus on such things when portraying their ideal man in novels. If I could guess Ayn Rand's view of fitness, it would fall under the distinction of the metaphysical versus the man-made: to the extent one's appearance is metaphsically given and therefore unchosen, it is unrelated to virtue. To the extent one's appearance is the result of his actions, it is subject to judgment according to his chosen values.
  4. Corpse, schmorpse. Who's to say being a corpse is an inferior mode of existence compared to being alive? That's just your subjective viewpoint. To each his own...
  5. I disagree. Basically, my question for the NYT is: what is your motive in publishing this? Have they any evidence of wrongdoing by the government against innocent Americans? Have they found a secret and illegal program carried out with malevolent intentions? No and no. By all the accounts I've seen, this program was a legitimate tool against terrorists and it's confidential status was important to its effective operation. If the NYT wanted to in combat terrorism, they would not have published this story. There was simply no need to expose it, other than as a petty way to cast the administration as dark and nefarious. This strikes me as conspiracy theory. Please provide evidence that the actual goal of the government is not to combat terror, even in their own ineffective way, but to actually use terrorism as an excuse to "change the American way of life." As far as I can tell, the administration seems to be honestly, if ineffectively, attempting to combat terror.
  6. And where did the wealth come from that was used to fund the activities of the WHO? What context made possible the creation of a viable vaccine in the first place, by which man's mind? Organizations like the WHO exist solely because of excess wealth of free countries. In a sense, it is possible for a poor statist society to create a vaccine here or there; the Soviets managed to get a junky satellite into space and a few other technological "innovations" (leaving aside ideas stolen from the West). Such events do not translate into the well-being of the citizenry, however, because you can vaccinate a man into a cyborg and he'll still starve to death. My point was to focus on poverty with disease as a resulting condition thereof. Poverty simply cannot be solved without production of wealth, which can only come from capitalism. This isn't a law of physics, but a law of human nature - to survive and thrive, man must be free to think and free to act according to his judgement. This is the essential characteristic of capitalism that makes long-term, genuine wealth possible.
  7. How familiar are you with Ayn Rand's philosophy? I ask because you don't seem to understand what is meant by 'altruism'. Properly defined, this means the dedication of one's life to others, and the sacrifice of one's own values. The most consistent altruist, therefore, is the man who has no possessions other than the bare minimum needed to survive, and who gives all his values away to help others -- for example, a monk. Any billionaire, to the extent he *earns* money that he keeps, is acting against the injunctions of altruism. The life of Bill Gates thus far is hardly altruistic. He has earned billions and failed to give it away. He has defeated countless "small guys" in business competition, people who Microsoft should have, under altruism, left without competition and "given a chance." He has charged hundreds of dollars for copies of his software, rather than giving it away for the public good. Apart from his charity work, Gates has certainly failed to consider the "needs" of millions of people. Considering this, do you really consider Bill Gates (of old, at least) an altruist?
  8. I'm not saying that Gates was completely selfish with respect to his business, but I think that he mostly was. As evidence, I submit two numbers: his amassed wealth and Microsoft's market share. If Gates was significantly altruistic when it came to business, he would never have allowed either of these numbers to get as high as they have. Whatever his statements about philanthropy, Gate's actions speak louder than words in showing that when it came to Microsoft, he wanted to win and win big -- and he was not afraid of beating others in the process. By the way, I'm making judgements based upon my context of knowledge. I judge that *if in fact* Gates is telling the truth about being altruistic and *if in fact* his success as Microsoft was motivated by his own desire to succeed for selfish reasons, *then* his switch from business leader to philanthropist is a moral regression.
  9. I believe that to that extent his philanthropy is motived by altruism, it *is* morally inferior to programming. I'll grant you that Gates may practice philanthropy in a more effective, business-model manner than do other charities. But his charity practices don't change the fact that he explicitly announces that his motive and purpose is altruism. I'm going to take him at his word, and regret his decision. You are hinting about Gates having a truly selfish purpose, so here is what a truly selfish Gates would do. He would decide that he wants to combat disease and poverty *for his own gain and pleasure*, not because "with great wealth comes great responsibility" and "it's time to give back to society". He would start not a charity, but a *business* with a profit motive. He would hire the best scientists he could find and demand they produce for their salaries. He would deal with others as traders, exchanging value for value, not giving away money with no expectation of any return. He would seek to eradicate malaria not to be a hero in others' eyes, but in his own. I have a lot of respect for Bill Gates and appreciate the tremendous effect he's had on my life, not to mention his own. But he did all that through a business, not a charity. I would have no qualms with Gates switching to a different business if that's what he wanted to do. But he's not switching to another business - philanthropy, in essence, is the opposite of business. Finally, the reason I said the money Gates gives through charity is "wasted" is because eradicating disease and poverty cannot be done in a primarily statist environment. Disease and poverty is wiped out by capitalism, and can only be combatted long term by capitalism. Gates can flood Africa with all the vaccines and food he wants, but without reform of the statist, corrupt governments (and philosophy) there, destitution will remain. As an example, consider Gates' "Grand Challenge #9: Create a Nutrient-Rich Staple Plant Species". There are plenty of nutrient-rich sources of food in the world. Even if a new miracle plant were created, there still wouldn't be enough freedom for people to grow it. Free societies feed themselves quite well without any miracle plants; yet to believe Gates, this is a top priority and requirement to combat hunger. Why isn't freedom on the list?
  10. When I said years, I meant it in contrast to, say, months. I don't think you can read through Atlas and IOE once and fully grasp them. I'm rereading Atlas for the first time now after about 2-3 years, and I'm seeing things more clearly. My main point is that you can't be into Objectivism for a couple months, then pick up Fact and Value or Truth and Toleration and truly, independently sort things out. You just haven't had enough time to integrate, to let things sink in. This obviously varies by individual ability, but in general it takes a while for the philosophy to turn from being accepted rationalistically to truly inductively.
  11. I second this recommendation. Until you have a solid grasp of the fundamentals of Objectvism (read: years of study and integration), trying to sort out who said what and who is right is probably a waste of time because you won't be able to make an independent judgment. You can go ahead and read Peikoff's "Fact and Value" to see if it makes sense; otherwise, reading the works of Ayn Rand is a much better use of your time.
  12. I'm curious as to what the full explanations of his motives are. I saw him on TV giving the whole disgusting explanation about how with great wealth comes great responsibility and it his duty to "give back" to society blah blah blah. I hope for his sake that he does have ulterior motives related to the success of microsoft and his own personal enjoyment. As for the latter, I very much doubt a man who spent the last 30 years deeply involved in developing technology could be happy visiting village after run-down village in Africa and trying to fight poverty and disease by spending billions of wasted money. Even worse is the gloating of all the altruists who are dancing in the streets for what they must see as one of the best things that could ever happen for their cause. Here we have one of the most successful self-made men in history, a paragon of capitalism, voluntarily renouncing his fortune and pledging to work full time in the service of the world's most primitive, anti-capitalist inhabitants. Yesterday there was a woman from a philanthropy magazine (apparently such things exist) on the news drooling about the potential for other successful people to follow Gates' lead. I don't know what's worse, the fact that the government continues to punish successful businessmen or that those businessmen accept it and publicly repent for their sin of selfishness.
  13. Be careful to remember context. The statement "Human beings have rights" is very precise and is only valid under a certain definition of 'human being', namely a rational, volitional being. You can't change the referent and still claim the same rights apply. A human being under temporary control of a mad scientist has rights because of he normally possesses volition; the scientist is violating his right to freedom. If you start talking about a man who has permanently lost his volition (if that is possible), I do think you can stop attributing rights to him. He would then be essentially the same as an android.
  14. I think volition has to be all or nothing. One of the conditions of recognizing the rights of a robot is that the robot is fully capable of respecting the rights of others. If he cannot but help himself from turning into a mindless marauder at his creator's command, he simply doesn't qualify for being able to respect rights. On a different note, there was actually an episdoe of Star Trek The Next Generation where this exact problem was confronted. "Data", the android on the ship, was discovered by the ship's crew and became a crew member. Later, a scientist comes and wants to take him away to dissamble him to learn how to create more advanced androids. They end up having a trial about whether or not Data is the property of Star Fleet. If I remember correctly, they ended up saying he had rights not because he had volition, but because he had "feelings" (apparently he once had a romantic encounter with an androidette).
  15. You can't make this stuff up. South Park needs to use this in an episode soon. To quote Cartman: "They're not people...they're hippies!"
  16. There is a rational motivation for preservation which comes from the short-term scarcity and the need to choose between alternatives. This is the subject of economics. To put it in concrete terms, a person has a strong incentive to preserve those resources on which his life depends. If I own a plot of land on which I need to graze my cattle, I should refrain from burning it to the ground or allowing the cattle to totally wipe it out. If I live in an area where water is scarce, I ought to preserve it such that it lasts throughout the farming season etc. In any case where humans stand to benefit from preserving rather than consuming a resource, they will do it if they are rational. Because preservation will occur when such a course of action is a value to individual men, a system of private property rights is all that is necessary. Whatever people find valuable, they will seek to own. Whatever is a disvalue will be eliminated. For example, in areas like Colorado where water is scarce, property rights have been implemented for water. You can buy or sell "shares" of the river for irrigation, and you will necessarily preserve water because to waste it is damned expensive. Wolves, on the other hand, will be shot by sheep farmers. If somebody really likes wolves, they ought to buy some land for a wolf sanctuary. The environmentalists try to set up a false alternative: either you are for untamed wilderness, or you want to pave over the entire earth. In reality, there will always be some wilderness because people like to hunt, camp, and hike. There are others who like to own a huge ranch for seclusion. What the enviros want is not wilderness for the sake of man's enjoyment, but wilderness devoid of man, for its own sake.
  17. I can identify with this feeling as well. It's more accurate to say Objectivism allows one to create an inner peace by means of integration and removing of contradictions.
  18. Is there a legal means to avoid the knock-and-announce rule for cases where the warning might jeopardize the effectiveness of law enforcement? If so, why do the police violate the rule even though they know evidence will be thrown out (or at least used to be)?
  19. You are being unrealistic to think you can completely reverse the course of years of decisions and thinking in two weeks. It's certainly a good idea to analyze your ideas in light of reading Atlas Shrugged, but it will take a lot more time, and much more reading before you come to a solid understanding. My advice would be to continue reading Ayn Rand's works, including her non-fiction, and being patient -- it takes time to integrate the ideas into one's life and thinking. With time, you will find your emotional responses come into line with the the philosophy.
  20. Thanks for the link to the backbone maps. The claim that the telecom backbone is a natural monopoly is simply false. The reality is a huge network of links operated by different companies pursuant to agreements among them. In the course of a packet traveling from L.A. to New York, it might cross links operated by several different companies. There are also dozens if not hundreds of routes it can take. If Sprint decided to block all Google packets originating in L.A., Google has plenty of routing options to get the packet to New York without touching Sprint's lines at all. The closest you can come to arguing a natural monopoly in telecom is at the endpoints. The closer you get to your house, the fewer possible options you may have. But as Jennifer pointed out, even this no longer qualifies as a natural monopoly. In addition to the phone network and cable, there is satellite access and soon to be WiMax wireless access covering entire metro areas. There are very few homes that will only have one choice of internet access, and those are the ones so remote they only have satellite. I see no reason why the market would encourage a fast and slow lane for access to individual websites. For every company that wants to "exploit" its customers and demand higher rates for high speed access to popular sites like Google, there are several others that will offer service with no "slow lane" for the same price. Given the option between the two services, which would customers choose? It's exactly like people choosing cell phone service with free, unlimited long distance over those who charge high costs for long distance. One last thing is the issue of traffic engineering overhead. For the backbones especially, its not necessarily beneficial to implement different speeds of service for different sources of traffic. When you consider the core routers that have to handle into the millions of packets per second, every bit of information that goes into the routing decision is crucial. Typically the only piece of information used to route is the destination address, which determines the next hop. Implementing different tiers of traffic rates according to what website it came from is a huge investment in terms of overhead. I would be surprised to find that it would be economically intelligent to treat packets in any way other than the fastest possible service. The implication of this: the traffic engineering (fast and slow lane) would not occur in the backbone, but only near the endpoints -- if at all. And it is the endpoints (ISP) where the customers have the choice to reject the “discriminatory” ISP in favor of another option.
  21. Care to justify this assertion? Whatever you think about the methods by which the government is waging war, I don't understand how you can say they actually *don't* want to win. I don't see any evidence to suggest that the government wants to lose. Unless you can offer evidence to the contrary, such an accusation strikes me as an insult to the entire military establishment.
  22. This implies that you are assuming that a pair of competing claims must be one negative, one positive. This isn't true, because two competing claims can be positive, e.g. "Apples are red" versus "Apples are green". In this case, both assertions have the burden of proof. To add to what others have said, the burden of proof rests on the person identifying a fact of reality. It does not rest on the person asserting a non-fact, because a non-fact cannot be identified; I can say God exists and then point to God, but I cannot say God doesn't exist then point to his non-existence. So to determine whether the burden of proof rests upon this or that claim, we need to analyze which claim is attempting to state something postive about existence. The statement "I can kill animals if I want to", as another poster said, is too broad or vague a statement. If it means "Animals do not possess rights", this seems to me to be a negative statement, and the burden of proof would rest on the person asserting animals DO have rights.
  23. So let's see. Seven years living in humility, selling all possessions, homeless in cemetary, weeping for prophets with deep tears for their suffering. Then one day you are curled up in a fetal position. And we're to believe that you were of completely sound mind when God decided to finally do the deed and reveal himself within you? By the way, what is your purpose in posting here, if you understand even a word of Objectivism? May I remind you of Item 11 in Hank's letter to Karl: Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you. Enough said.
  24. I use Windows XP and have none of these problems. I am well aware that these problems occur, because I've tried to clean up other computers that have just been bombed. In my experience, a lot of this problem is from the user. While its true that IE has some issues with allowing spyware installs, I'm of the opinion that the user is mostly to blame for such problems. Here's a few tips that I've found useful: 1. Try Mcaffee Virusscan rather than Norton. 2. Always have Windows firewall up before connecting to the internet, especially after reinstall. 3. Do not install fire-sharing programs. 4. Do not install any program you don't have to. Anything downloaded free from the internet is likely to include spyware. Judging from a person's computer I had to deal with, porn sites are especially guilty of taking over your computer. Basically, you should be wary of ever clicking "Yes" to install anything unless you know what it is and where it came from. 5. Try the Firefox or Opera browsers. I use Opera, which is getting very good lately. If you follow that advice, and most importantly use the firewall and don't install crap programs, you won't have any problem with Windows. That, at least, is my experience.
  25. I have SuSe 10.0 installed as dual boot with Windows. It does install fairly painlessly, and recognized all my hardware...except the wireless card. To get that to work, I had to spend a couple hours searching Google for a solution. Once that, I found my Microsoft 5-button mouse didn't work right. I've spent hours on that, and still don't have it working correctly. I have to ask what problems that Windows itself is causing you. My experience is that you will understand how easy Windows is to use once you try Linux. I get the impression the the open source community gets a kick out of making things complicated...I mean, c'mon, who wants to install programs with a single install file? Don't you want to start up the command line, read through the makefile and compile a custom version for yourself? I'd second the recommendation of dual-booting. After you use Linux for awhile, perhaps you can report back on whether you feel better or worse about Windows.
×
×
  • Create New...