nimble

that isn't the meaning the word has today. It now refers to any violation that can acquire compensation in civil court. So it is an injury, which CAN be intentional. If you would please explain where your definition is derived from, I think it would help your argument.

yea my friends and I play our own variations as well. We 4 players who held loads of cash, and were loaning companies, and they had to compete for our business, as we acquired properties or debts they would loan us money to pay for buildings and debts for payment with interest later. And so it created a dual game. One where the actual players were playing to win. and one where the investors were seeing who could earn the best profits.

I dont really have time to read the article, but like someone stated, IT IS A GAME! Its not like that is the capitalist manifesto. Also, it actually does represent a lot of capitalist philosophy. Everyone starts out equal. Everyone has equal opportunities to create an empire of real estate. One aspect that you maybe ignoring is that monopoly only covers one field of a capitalist economy: real estate. And yes monopolies are POSSIBLE not probable in the realm of real estate, since there is only a limited amount of land. But i would say "ITS A GAME" Let it rest. hahaha kinda interesting topic though.

This is a direct quote from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. "The fundamental difference between private action and government action - a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today - lies in the fact that the government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force." but you are right this doesnt cover a non-physical force such as the initiation of a law. But what is the purpose of government? It is to put the use of retaliatory force under objective control. How then do you propose to retaliate without enacting a laws so that people can know what is wrong? What you are proposing is anarchism, which is definitely not an objectivist view. The government may lift itself above the individual to a level, where it is granted the power (consent of the governed) that we allow it. I allow it to punish criminals since it is rationally in my best interest, and it can therefore punish criminals. You are saying that it is immoral for a government to declare itself above the individuals, who cannot make laws, yet i disagree and say it is the government's responsibility to do so. Anarchism is definitely in no one's interest.

How would this be a use of force? The government which makes the law would only take retaliatory action if one were to initiate the use of force. And i feel that it is one's right to know what is illegal in advance of taking actions. I think you are evaluating the government as if it were an individual, yet it is not. The government has a monopoly on the use of force (paraphrased from a Rand essay). So, it is therefore entitled and responsible to make those kinds of laws. Since its power comes from the consent of the governed.

Merci. HAHAHA

je parle francais un peu. Mais, vous sont sûr qu'est comment vous le dites?br

you are taking from them. Do you know what a copyright is? Well, if theissue is copying wrong? then YES IT IS WRONG. YOU DO NOT HAVE THECOPYRIGHT!!!!!! It is as simple as that. A copyright means that no one but the one with the copyright has the RIGHT TO COPY in any way shape or form without the copyright holder's permission. br

br br Well, I completely understand where you are coming from. However, I think you are letting this personal issue affect your judgement. The question shouldnt be 'is it reasonable to ask for state aid, if people become handicapped through no fault of their own?', but 'is it anyone else's fault as well, which would put them in debt to the handicapped person?' I understand the predicament that some are in, but principles cannot be sacrificed for unusual circumstances. The best that can happen is that in a Laissez-Faire Capitalist System people tend to make more money, and good will among men, may be stronger. Someone you know may have money that is willing to give. Or maybe some random philanthropist will give. But I cannot rationalize the situation to say that the government should provide forced giving. But as long as the system exists that is in place now, I would recommend using it and not accepting unwarranted guilt about it. br

nothing in a capitalist system prevents giving. Others can give to those who are handicapped, because they know or love or just want to give. But it is not right for the government to step in and force the giving. If the system is the way it is now, you may choose to use those helpful programs, or not. That is a choice up to you. I wouldnt feel too guilty for using them though. The more who use those programs, the more the funding will cost. hopefully, it will lead to a budget crisis. 

And i find Salinger a good writer because he can capture and vividly express the exact emotion and meaning that he wants. If the only book you read was Catcher in the Rye ill explain why that was decent (it was my least favorite of his novels and short stories). When you were a teen, did you have that restless, almost beat feeling? I have noticed that alot of teens do. It is a story meant to inspire action. Notice how he loves a girl, and always claims he is going to call her, yet what does he do? NOTHING! Why? Because he cant be decisive, he cant make himself happy. He would rather complain about being unhappy. I think alot of teens are that way. It is a nice, short novel that one can read and be inspired to action.

Catcher in the Rye is the worst of his books.

Rand and Aristotle are only similar because of the laws of logic Aristotle defined. Other than that Aristotle was rather defensive of some mysticism. Only because to Rand and other Objectivists, reason and logic are the fundamentals, that allows Rand and Aristotle to be considered similar. Other than that, almost every other belief and conviction of the two are different.

straight edge people dont eat caffeine. I dont think i could live without chocolate.

Well, just because you love Rand does not mean that you should shut out all other readings. Not only do most books help you expand your knowledge, they allow you to apply Objectivist principles to other situations than Rand provides. So try a few classics. Maybe Hemingway, or Dickens, or Salinger (my second favorite), or maybe read some books that Rand liked, such as Les Miserables (or other HUGO books). Expand your library so you know other philosophies, beliefs etc. and you know what is flawed in their thinking (if any) and it will help in any academic situation.Hamlet was good. Many tragic flaws in Hamlet, and Objectivist principles would have fixed, and almost eliminated all conflict in that play. It always helps to know the opponents argument. Read a Marxist book and find its flaws. Just dont be afraid to read things that arent Objectivist. Just know to look for flaws or strengths.

I am not starting from a set conviction of what prices should be defined as. It is a matter of that I see prices as an unpredictable thing, which seems very close to the realm of subjective. Just for argument i threw in the idea that our dollar is subjective, which is what determines prices. And that the owner may charge irrationally. If you have a good definition or explaination, i am willing to hear it. I just would think that prices would be very easy to predict if they were based rationally and objectively, yet they are not. To me this isnt a fact that they are subjective, I stated that i dont understand how they could be objective. If you have a valid explaination I may change my mind. Just I dont see how you can even get past the fact that money's worth is subjective.

well i deal in stuff on ebay. I see and agree with your point on "if the seller wants to sell." But i dont see how you can argue that prices are objective. not only can the owner of the product act irrational and charge whatever, but some people will offer more than the owner actually wanted to make off of the product. Then if you add in the fact that the monetary system we use is subjective, that doesnt help your theory either. The moment the worth of the dollar drops, the price of goods in the market is subjected to that. I cant imagine saying that in this market, with the way the economy is set up, that you can argue that prices are objective.

I didn't say that the owner sold his goods. I just said that the owner can charge a human life if he wants to. It doesn't mean he is going to get it. That would just be the PRICE he sets.

I dont believe that prices are objective. The fact that they are subject to the personal whim of the creator, makes them very subjective. and yes i have read capitalism the unknown ideal. But not the other two.

Just as a matter of personal opinion, i think you guys are putting to much effort and emphasis on making children go to school. First, the system of pure capitalism shouldnt be judged on what it provides for its constituents. Freedom is all that should be garuanteed not an education. Also, I have noticed that a lot of good paying jobs dont require that much education, although they do require college degrees. Why? Why do you need an education if you dont need it in your occupation? Also, scholarships are an option, for occupations that need a lot of education. Also, what would make sense to me, is that it be the responsibility of the parents. It should be a legal responsibility to take care of the children you bear. That responsibility would include feed, clothe, shelter, and provide an adequate education for the child. This should be much easier to do with the technology of computers. WE can take classes on line. I find it only fair that the possession of a minor, entail some responsibilities legally. If you dont want those responsibilities there is always abortion or adoption.

the justification is that that person owns it when they are alive. usually they will leave their copyrights to someone in their will. And if not, it goes to the company who helped produce it. It has to belong to someone. We are a country of property. Someone has to own it. And we should respect the creators right to choose who gets those rights after the creator is deceased. Alot of the times, the creator doesnt even have the rights you know. most of the time it is in the producing contract that the company holds all rights. Just thought i would help this out.

oh sorry. i didnt read the date, that the first post was made on. I have only been here for a week or so sorry.

I sympathize with his point of view. I do agree that some of your views on the death penalty are a little skewed. But i wouldnt call it an unthought out view. We just disagree. I have no need to FORCE you to think my way. I just know that i am right. And that is most-likely the way you feel as well. I hope that this argument can continue rationally, without any hard feelings held during the debate.

no but it shuts him up. why argue with someone who wont recognize the principles behind his own argument? Does it serve you to argue with someone who is irrational. you dont need him to agree with you, because you are right. He needs everyone to agree with him in order to let him "get away with it." So lets stop the pointless argument that has no rational basis, and lets not let him get away with it. Turn the kid in.

i know how to solve this problem. If he doesnt see anything wrong with downloading music, then he wouldnt mind the host of this site giving his IP address to the RIAA. The host should have it. I get all the IPs of those who visit my site. That should solve this little debate. I think you even get a cash reward for turning in IP addresses.