Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About NewbieOist

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

1097 profile views
  1. Only if you choose it not because you believe it's a rational value but because you feel obligated by others to choose it. In other words, you let others dictate the choice for you.
  2. I'm trying to connect this with the idea of shadow banking. So the government takes on the risk of lenders, including non-bank lenders. The non-bank lenders are still subject to lending regulations when they make loans, but what about when they buy and sell loans? Treating loans as financial instruments, that's shadow banking, right? So that's not subject to banking regulations, but is it subject to any regulations? Isn't the whole idea of shadow banking to keep all these trillions of dollars in transactions off the books and away from the eyes of regulators? So when the sh*t hit the fan in th
  3. Shadow banking is a topic I haven't heard discussed much, if at all, by Objectivists. Maybe I don't read enough Objectivist blogs or forums or listen to enough Objectivist podcasts. Anyway, I used the search function on this site and entered "shadow banking" but got no results. In a nutshell, there supposedly exists a vast "shadow banking system" that is mostly untouched by regulators. Investopedia defines it as follows: Then there's this from Investing Answers: And it goes on like this wherever you search on the subject. Every supposedly legitimate source treats this so-c
  4. The way I see it, the key phrase is "the harder their work and the less their gain, the more submissive the fiber of their spirit". The passage you quoted is comparing and contrasting primitive totalitarianism, the kind that controls peasants, with more modern totalitarianism, the kind that attempts to control factory workers, and observing that the former kind of tyrant had an easier go at it, whereas the latter kind has to resort to expropriating factories in order to keep the people under his thumb. She is saying that although the modern dictators act as though they just want to collect the
  5. Trump has been criticizing NATO, calling it "obsolete" and threatening to pull funding for it. This has rattled both liberal internationalists as well as "hawkish" American conservatives. I'm far from a Trump supporter, but I'm skeptical of the morality of NATO's purpose to say the least. It seems like pure collectivism: all these countries pool their military resources allegedly for everyone's benefit, but of course we as the country with the biggest defense budget end up pulling the most weight for the least benefit. Is that not a fair assessment of it? When I argue with NATO defenders that
  6. I would say one has the moral right to speak without being intimidated into silence by those who object to your speech, even if what you say is completely irrational and even if the intimidation from others isn't actually force. You do not have the moral right to shut down a person's speech simply because it offends you. Yes, politically you have that right insofar as it derives from your property rights, i.e., if someone is speaking on your property you have the right, at any time, for any reason, to tell them to shut up or you will make them leave. That is different from the realm of ethics.
  7. I would change the word "security" to "government protection of rights". "Security" sounds like you're talking about rent-a-cops or bouncers. But we're talking about government here, and why do you assume that a voluntarily financed government couldn't protect the rights of all?
  8. People voluntarily pay for what they value in a laissez-faire society. Simple as that. What don't you understand?
  9. If people don't want to educate themselves, how will the government's guns force them to? Force and mind are opposites. As for lack of opportunity, a truly laissez-faire capitalist society would provide more opportunities for quality education than what we have now.
  10. Your mistake is presuming that government monopoly of force can be evaluated and held to the same standard as government monopoly on anything else. Objectivism holds that only coercive monopoly (as opposed to de facto monopoly through productive enterprise) of anything other than force is evil. And furthermore, Objectivism holds that the government's monopoly on force cannot properly be used to initiate force. When government coercively monopolizes the use of anything else, it must initiate force to hold that monopoly. Conversely, no initiation of force is required for government to hold its m
  11. Because we are moral and they are not, that's the fundamental. If you're acting on the premise that we're immoral and we don't have the right to use whatever means necessary to defend ourselves in war, then we may as well end this discussion now. But by the way, I never said that no one is allowed to question the efficacy of torture. It's the part where you give the enemy the moral benefit of the doubt. "But what if we're WRONG?!" This is indistinguishable from the rhetoric I hear over and over from leftists, but to hear it from so-called Objectivists is appalling.
  12. And, I might add, the reason we don't torture common criminals is that a common criminal at least has some grudging respect for the law - when he's caught that is. You see, he doesn't have a global network of friends to fall back on who can use threats of kidnappings and bombings in order to free him. Even in the case of common gangsters we have no need to torture their captives because we know where the gang members live and we can rely on the police in the local area to capture them when they commit crimes. We don't have this luxury with terrorists who hide in countries that are unfriendly t
  13. Objectivists like Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook and Elan Journo have explained eloquently for nearly a decade and a half how we must use total war to achieve victory. I'm not saying that because they say it it must be true, but their explanations fit well with Objectivism's views on self defense and self interest (see OPAR on self-defense, I can't bring up the exact chapter, but LP writes about how an aggressor acts on the level of an animal and the victim must treat him as such if he wants to live).
  14. Again, more ignorance. The "neo con" line of thought is not "nuke em all" (and besides I never said that, so stuff your straw man), but rather sacrifice of Americans to build nations and bring "democracy" to our enemies.
  15. You put "initiated" in quotes as if it's not true, as if 9/11 were our fault, and further you give sanction to the delusional thoughts of Islamic jihadists, as if to say, "Who's to say if we're the victims? Maybe THEY'RE the real victims". This is pure moral relativism, do you hear yourself?
  • Create New...