nimble

Well it is called the pythagorean theorum, so my guess is pythagoreus. My spelling might be a bit off.

Well, if someone would like to contact me ASAP we can get this debate going. I would like to complete it before I take a few days vacation. I leave on the 18th of August, and I get back about 5 days later. I don't want to have to end the debate early, so if someone will pick up the other side, that would be cool. Hopefully, I won't be ostracized for my views, but I will forego the need for a pseudonym. I don't mind people viewing what I say, as long as I say it. There is no sense in hiding a fact that I am participating in a debate.

Why should I use a devilsadvocate name? I will do it if I am playing devil's advocate. But if I take a stance that I hold, then I think it is appropriate to use my name, unless you think it is a bad idea. I am just curious about why you said I should use a different name.

I have a question for you, because I have also felt that way from time to time when I muse about ideas. I was wondering if we shared those same thoughts based on the same ideas. The only time I have ever considered nihilism, or rather just failed to see the point in all things, has been when I thought about the universe. First, I thought about how big it is, and how small I am in comparison, much like an ant must feel. He may seem big in comparison to all the other ants, but really he is just an ant. Second, I thought about that the universe is composed of matter that can't be created or destroyed, which means that the universe has always been and will always be. In a sense, it will last forever, or infinitely long. Yet I am only a finite being whose time in the universe is finite. No matter how long I live, be it 5 years or 5000 years it will still be but one small point in the infinite line that is the universe. Basically, no matter when I die, there is still an infinite period of time after my death that I will not be around for, which makes this life seem very pointless in the overall scheme of things. This is much like a calculus problem, where all non-infinite numbers are unimportant to the equation and are just crossed off. However, the important thing to notice is that you do have a life, that it is here now, and that the good is to live it. A philosophy of nihilism or apathy will not enhance your life and the quality of it, but rather ruin and destroy what little time you have here on this earth.

I read an interesting article today that claims from a strict constructionist view of the Constitution that the Supreme Court is not granted the power to rule things un-Constitutional, and not only is it not granted that power, but that power was instead to be granted to the executive branch through the veto power. The article argued that Washington considered the president's main function to be the watching of Congress and the States to make sure they didn't try to pass un-Constitutional bills, thus the veto power. After reading this article I skimmed the Constitution until I got to Article III, which deals with the judicial branch's powers, and I found no clause granting them the power to overturn laws. I intend to investigate this further when I have a bit more time, maybe tomorrow, but I was wondering if anyone else had ever heard this argued or maybe knows the Constitution by heart and would have an answer or response for me. I just found that to be a bit shocking, since I consider judicial review to be pretty important and I thought it to be the norm for our country. Thanks Nimble

Michigan or Ohio would be best for me, in fact I could even arrange that the MSU and UM universitys' Objectivist clubs host the event, since I know both leaders of those groups. But let me know what I can do to help, and if it is elsewhere in the Midwest then I will try my best to attend the meeting.

Well, I am not here to make enemies, as I have said before, if people are likely to hate or loathe me based on either my convictions or on my devil's advocate arguments, then I would prefer a caution statement next to my posts (when I play devil's advocate). I don't think that any debates on this forum have gone no where. Even in my most lengthy debate about fractional reserve banking, almost every post was filled with content, and by the end of it, I think we came to some sort of agreement that fractional reserve banking is not morally wrong/fraudulent, but the fractional reserve bank's fiduciary media would be valued at the fraction of gold that backed the fiduciary media, making the process moot. So the point is, that if I am wrong (like the case that above about fraudulence) I will admit it. And even the other party admitted that the banks fiduciary media would not be valued as highly as other currency, which is a point they conceded. I think rational people will find the truth, and we happen to have a forum full of rational people, which helps our situation.

I would be willing to take an un-Objectivist position, either through conviction or devil's advocate. The only known ideas of Objectivism that I disagree with through conviction is intellectual property rights (in the legal sense) and anarchy, and maybe the Objectivist stance on the killing of civilians in times of war (this probably stems from my anarchy views though). Any other position I would be willing to play devil's advocate, because after going through college, I feel that I know all the common arguments against Objectivist positions. If anyone wants to debate, that would be fine. Before I enter into any debate though, I would like to know that expressing my views will not harm my status on this site. I really like it here (the intellectual atmosphere). Also, whoever I debate against, please don't take anything personally...I don't want to make enemies. I respect just about everyone here (except for a few condescending know-it-alls).

Wait, is Capitalism.net an Objectivist site? If not, then I don't see why they wouldn't be "tolerant" of anti-Objectivists, or simply non-Objectivists. Plus I think their goal is to reach people who have otherwise never heard of Objectivism or maybe capitalism in the true sense, so they allow reciprocal links to places that other people might just be browsing through.

Thank you for that post, that was very well written and insightful to A. West's point. I just never know what to think when West replies to me, mostly because I think he doesn't like me. So I always feel as if I need to be on defense when he leaves a vague remark like that.

I agree with Cole. Is it permissible to argue from non-Objectivist positions?

Burgess isn't against interrogation and torture, he is against doing it in a system where it isn't open to the public and it is not subject to checks and balances. You are leaving the torture to the irrational whims of government and military officials.

I do. But then again I can see why the two parties involved made this a big issue. However, I don't see how that concerns any of us. It is not as if we are involved in any way with issues that these two had with each other back in the day.

Is this true? Can someone get a link or something?

By predict, I meant general statements.

My girlfriend and I love Little Red Corvette.

Thank you for the link, and as for A West's remarks about economics...why do you think that economics does not adequately represent that people act how they believe? I don't think economics solves or explains everything, but I believe it can adequately predict, represent or explain the area of human actions.

Thank you for that link. That clears a few things up a bit.

The essay isn't incredibly harsh. It mostly deals with aspects of psychology that Rand never addressed, because she admitted that she knew nothing of psychology so she never made claims she couldn't support. He just talks about how moral condemnation is appropriate but will never change the morally wrong person, thus some other approach has to be taken to get people to change, which Rand never endorsed. And this passage struck me as interesting: "Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path. The true believers might respond by saying, “How can you call it dogmatic religion when we can prove every one of Ayn Rand’s propositions?!” My answer to that is, “The hell you can!” Prior to our break, Ayn Rand credited me with understanding her philosophy better than any other person alive—and not merely better, but far better. I know what we were in a position to prove, I know where the gaps are. And so can anyone else—by careful, critical reading. It’s not all that difficult or complicated. This may sound like a trivial example of what I mean, but it’s an example that has always annoyed me personally. I would love to hear some loyal follower of Ayn Rand try to argue logically and rationally for her belief that no woman should aspire to be president of the United States. "

Brandens Criticism in Essay Form This is Brandens criticism in essay form. Follow the link, then scroll down to the bottom of the blurb and click read article. Im about half way through it. I'd like to know what others think. Branden claims that Rand didn't like much of contemporary science and was very skeptical of the theory of evolution, she found it a bit unbelievable, and so refused to study it.

Here is his site and a lecture on the Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Branden

I am very supportive of cryonics, and I think that anyone who values life over death should support it too. However, I think my generation will be fortunate enough to never need cryonics because anti aging medicine seems to be on the way in plenty of time.

I was just curious, someone told me that I should listen to his lecture/speech which gave credit to Mises, Rothbard and Rand as the ones who brought capitalism back into the intellectual arena. I was wondering if anyone knew of this man or had read him and liked him. He wrote "Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics."

The answer to your question is yes. An increase in gold would cause inflation. However, this would only be a short run effect. Once inflation set in, the price of gold AS A MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE would drop, once it drops below the usefulness of gold for INDUSTRIAL/RETAIL purposes then people would withdrawl their gold from the banks and invest their gold in other markets. These actions of taking gold out of banks and circulation and putting the commodity into retail and industrial uses would then decrease the money supply back to its equilibrium and cause deflation. Basically, in a commodity based money system the value of it as a medium of exchange can never fall below its other uses. That is the point of using a commodity based money supply, it has an objective value other than its uses as money.

I don't know what I think is right as of the moment, I believed the classical model to be the correct one, until I read General Theory. I still don't like Keynes in general, but he kind of made me question classical theory. So that is the reason I wanted to discuss this issue with someone.