Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Fred Weiss

Regulars
  • Content Count

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fred Weiss

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 03/03/1945

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewYork
  • Real Name
    Fred Weiss
  • School or University
    Brooklyn College & The Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Occupation
    Book Publishing - The Paper Tiger, Inc.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.papertig.com/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Catskills - NY
  1. I wonder if RSalar thinks any concept can be valid if there is not some authority who can declare what it means. The question then becomes how do we decide who is the authority and by what standard do they acquire that authority? If our own judgment isn't sufficient, then whose is?
  2. No, the different countries are all "monopolies" in a specified geographic region. Within that geographic region they do not allow any competition. So, law most certainly does assume "one all powerful government to enforce it". If a "private agency" assumed the mantle of such a gov't, enforcing its laws in a given region, then that agency will merely have taken on the role of a gov't. Look, in reality, anarchism means rival gangs, tribes, warlords. Each of them does have a given "territory" which they will fight to protect. The difference between anarchism and gov't therefore is not whet
  3. PeteyRimple asks, "1.)How would there be a uniform law under anarchy?" This is a stolen concept. Law presupposes a gov't which enforces it. (Without enforcement there is no law). In other words, if there is law, there isn't anarchy. "2.)How under market anarchism can there be a resolution of competing claims?" "Market anarchism" is a contradiction in terms. If you have anarchism, you can't have a market. A market presupposes the existence of law which presupposes the existence of gov't. Some entity has to enforce the rules of the market. "3.)Under market anarchism won’t “goon
  4. The fundamental point you are missing is that gov't is subject to restraint. Recognizing the danger of force and the threat it poses to individual rights, an ideal constitutional limited gov't is strictly limited to protecting those rights. Various procedures are implimented to reduce the liklihood that gov't will overstep its proper bounds, e.g. checks and balances, separation of powers, courts, etc. Ours obviously is not ideal, but it is certainly vastly better than Somalia - and the means exist to change it for the better via rational persuasion. What restraint governs private gangs othe
  5. Then so does anyone else in regard to you - and that includes the type of people whom I don't suggest you rub the wrong way and toward whom you had better show proper deference. They are prepared to pay far, far more than you are for "protection and retaliation" services and they are not too concerned with the niceties of civilized legal procedures. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. You said that only you had the right to take the law into your own hands. It doesn't apply to anyone else and not in regard to getting even with you. Is that right?
  6. There is no right to vigilantism - no right to take the law into your own hands, whether you do it yourself or whether you hire a hit man to do it for you. It is you therefore who are initiating force, not the gov't in stopping you. The gov't in this instance would be protecting us against vigilantism and the breakdown in law and order which would ensue as a result of it. The idea of a "rational man" or of a "fully rational company" engaging in vigilantism is therefore a contradiction in terms. No one rational would take it upon himself to be judge, jury and executioner in his own case - an
  7. Furthermore, the existence of private "standards and practices" and a whole host of other private agreements and understandings which govern our various associations is entirely irrelevant to this issue. Most disagreements can of course fortunately be handled without involving the law. If that weren't the case the courts would be even more clogged than they are already, but now with petty disputes. That isn't the issue and it's a smokescreen when anarchists bring it up. The purpose of the law is to govern serious disputes and/or major violations of rights where private resolution is eith
  8. "Market anarchism" or what anarchists also refer to as a "market in force" is a contradiction in terms and rests on a stolen concept similar to "property is theft". A market is a place where people can *freely* exchange goods and where no participant can force his terms or goods on any one else, e.g. force someone to buy his product vs. someone else's. As soon as force is introduced it is no longer a market. It is extortion. But by definition then there is no market, i.e. no choice. As soon as force becomes a product to be purchased with supposedly competing vendors, the winner becomes t
  9. Actually, asking the question "Am I dreaming?" when you are fully awake makes absolutely no sense. Any evidence you would consider as applying to the question presupposes that you are awake to consider it. There is of course a facetious use of the question, when you experience something highly unusual and unexpected. Hence the expression "pinch me". But that, too, presupposes that you are awake and can tell the difference. The example Jennifer gives of delusions are a special case because they represent an incidence of abnormality or malfunction. The problem is that someone suffering fro
  10. Hallucinations and dreams can certainly be vivid enough that while one is experiencing them they can seem to be real. But the reverse is not true. except perhaps under highly unusual circumstances. When one is fully awake one knows that one is not dreaming or hallucinating. It is precisely the experience of being awake - and fully in touch with reality - that enables us to distinguish that state from dreams or hallucinations. One *awakes* from a dream. One *realizes* that something we just experienced was an hallucination, i.e. was *not real*. It is clearly wakefulness and alertness whic
  11. The only pathology in this story is Michael Prescott's, since he blatantly distorts Ayn Rand's journal entries concerning Hickman and seems to take obsessive (and entirely gratuitous) interest in the excrutiating details of the mutilation of one of Hickman's victims. Prescott is clearly on a mission (which has been going on for some years) and he will clearly use whatever means he thinks he can get away with to smear Ayn Rand and Objectivism. One important thing to note is that he never actually bothered to read AR's journal entries for himself. He bases his smear entirely on *another autho
  12. I was wondering about Hong Kong. Used to be the flow was all - or predominantly - one way: to Hong Kong from Red China. Now with China booming I assume the flow has stopped - or possibly even reversed. Plus, with Hong Kong now under the control of China, I assume freedom has lessened reducing the appeal of that element of the former Hong Kong also. Does anyone know?
  13. Yeah, I wonder how many S. Koreans are clamoring to get into N. Korea. Probably about as many as W. Germans tried to scale the wall to get into E. Germany.
  14. Daniel, in the way in which you seem to be viewing it, anything we say to you in response to your question would interfere with your "freedom"! You're mixing up the psychological meaning of the word with the political meaning. There are even other meanings, such as financial freedom, so you have to be clear what you mean in the question you are posing.
  15. Our only point is that it is not anything "paranormal" and that there are good explanations for it. Nonetheless I wouldn't for that reason denigrate the experience. It does suggest that you two are very much "in sync" and I would guess that it manifests itself in other ways.
×
×
  • Create New...