Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pokarrin

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 04/15/1978

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
  1. Don't forget that the second is a corollary of the first. Respect for the rights of others is necessary for the pursuit of your own happiness if you live in human society (and if you don't, it's irrelevant).
  2. Then they had to go and ruin it... As if property rights can be protected during a forced demolition.
  3. There is no real answer to this question. Government has already violated our rights by appropriating our property for the construction and maintenance of public roads, and a natural result of that action is that government must regulate the manner in which we use those roads. One act of tyranny, once accepted as justifiable, necessarily leads to others. Obviously, if all roads were private, the property owners would decide what is an acceptable use of their roads. In the case of public ownership, there is no standard of use that would best protect individual rights, as the very existence
  4. Is it easy to become educated and informed, if one is not already, or does it require a more than negligible investment of time and effort?
  5. 1. Actually I don't think there is anything at all wrong with co-ed showers, though males and females would likely segregate themselves anyway due to overwhelming cultural norms. Those norms are the only reason that male/female segregation is practiced. I think fears of increased rape or sexual assault as a result of integration would prove groundless, as the punishments for those crimes would remain the same, and, despite some silliness to the contrary, sexual urges are never uncontrollable (unless the person has a mental condition, which would bar them from military duty anyway). The sam
  6. My arguments were epistemological, not economic; I didn't argue that corporate or state capitalism don't work, I argued that they are not valid concepts, and therefore can't even be reasonably argued about. You seem to be confused about the nature of concepts. There is no such thing as the concept of capitalism, or any other concept, without a mind to conceive of it. The referents of a concept may well exist on their own (though not in this case), but the concept can't, unless someone first thinks of it. You need words as symbols in order to communicate ideas regarding those concepts. Tho
  7. Words matter, but they aren't primary. If someone objects to your definition of Capitalism in an argument, you can simply concede the (often arbitrary) point and see if they will accept your definition of "Laissez-Faire Capitalism", then continue arguing about the ideas that actually matter. Trying to argue about the true definition of a word is more often than not a completely pointless exercise. On the other hand, you should object to an attempted definition that either contradicts itself (state capitalism), or necessarily involves fatal equivocations (corporate capitalism). Arguing
  8. I'm sorry it took me so long to reply; we just had a big storm come through and were without power for about a day. Here's what I came up with as a critique: You appear to be advocating that people be free to do what they want to do without having to work under anyone else's supervision. The problem, as you well realize, is that that it is simply impossible for a productive enterprise to have no supervision, so you replace the business owner with the collective group of workers, and assume everyone will prosper equally and care about one another. All you can achieve by this is what is kn
  9. Would you mind asking him if he agrees with this description of Parecon before I bother to systematically expose it's inherent contradictions? I'd hate to waste the effort, otherwise. I posted the full quote as an FYI for anyone else on this forum who wants to know the face of this enemy of freedom.
  10. This only applies if the market is somehow static, which no market is, or can be. Even if a large business were to acheive monopoly status, all a prospective entrepreneur has to do is find a way to satisfy the same desires using less resources. There are a variety of approaches to this problem, including, but not limited to: producing the same product more efficiently (raise quality:costs ratio); producing a different but similar product more cheaply; providing for a small niche market not well served by the existing company, etc.. Anyone not willing to engage in this kind of thinking does
  11. According to what I read, it's actually not illegal, nor should it be, though that doesn't mean someone won't manage to successfully sue him over the sign. I think his intent is to say he's willing to give them what they voted for: less available health care. Also, in the area where he works, it also appears to be good marketing.
  12. I can see two possible senses in which the word "equal" may be used: quantitative and qualitative. The qualitative sense is the one that would properly be used in the phrase "equal rights", since freedom is not a matter of degree, and cannot be usefully described quantitatively. The quantitative sense applies to two people who, for instance, receive the same salary for their work. Misuse of the word in the context you seem to be working in would arise from confusion between these two senses. When seeking a quantitative measure to determine how to enforce an imaginary right, it is quite ea
  13. You might want to rethink this statement; religion may well have helped perpetuate the existence of certain societies, but it has never been something that humans needed for survival. Has there ever been a religious society that could have survived without the guilty contributions of their more practical, productive, and sinful neighbors? In the beginning, religion may well have been a more or less legitimate attempt to understand the world, but they would have done themselves, and us, a favor by avoiding the mystical, authoritative aspects which took it out of the realm of science and reaso
  14. In order to prove this point, all you need do is find another tool that supports survival better than religion. That tool is reason. Surely you can demonstrate the superiority of reason as opposed to mysticism for survival on this earth without arguing from authority. The only arguments religion has that make it even remotely coherent are those referring to existence after or somehow 'outside' of life on earth. If he will accept nothing other than authoritative works, then you have already lost the challenge, as he can simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of the authors you present.
  15. Actually, I'm afraid a distressing proportion of them would say exactly that.
  • Create New...