Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by coirecfox

  1. Let us look at the issue of wage regulation from the standpoint of individuals. You have two people who are concerned with their own well-being and able to think for themselves. One man has a need for the other man's labor, lets say, to clean up his yard so he can hone his skills as a brain surgeon. Now, the brain surgeon offers the man $3.50 an hour to the laborer to clean his yard. The laborer says, actually I'd like $4.50 and hour. They will reach a compromise and the laborer will be paid $4 an hour. Both come away happy. A beneficial mutual exchage has taken place between two men wh
  2. I just wanted to point out to a few people that infinity is not a number. It is a concept. It is used to represent the fact that the number series is non-terminating. You cannot count to infinity. If you say to yourself I am going to count to infinity, and then begin: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7--you have stopped at seven. In essence infinity has become seven. Not to say that infinity=seven, but that is where you stopped. "Infinity" is the potential number to which you could have gotten and "seven" is the actual. The concept 'infinity' bears no relation to things that exist, because everything that
  3. Allow me to say this: Before I started reading Objectivist literature, fiction and non-fiction, I was a very different person than I am now. Though I was always actively searching for a standard by which to live my life(morality), the content to which I was ascribing cause many problems for me rationally and emotionally, so much so that I went through a time of depression. I was being treated for it with Prozac when I first picked up Atlas Shrugged. By the time I was done with the book, my depression had begun to fade away because I knew I had found the object of my searching. I never too
  4. Cole: ...I'm speechless. This: Accompanied with a picture of a Jewish internment camp from the Holocaust?!?!?
  5. Necessary: I know what you mean. I actually found the lack of philosophical discourse interesting. I do not think it detracts from the movie at all. I saw the movie almost as a piece of artwork: you cant have a lengthy philosophical discourse in a painting, it revolves around one theme. The movie takes the pleasure of ones own life and asserts it as GOOD, something I find lacking in our culture in general, except as almost a dirty secret between friends("Yeah we are going to help lots of people( and make a world of profit doing it, but shhhhhhhh).") Like I said, it also shows, though sub
  6. Hal, I have to disagree with you here. I would say that it is possible that SOME academic philosophers may use such questions in the manner you suggest. It has been my experience thusfar however that MOST philosophers do not use such questions in this manner. They do indeed use them to "undermine [rational and intelligent peoples'] self-confidence, and induce in them exactly the kind of uncertainty [he's] experiencing now." My current philosophy professor derives extreme pleasure from introducing such questions, watching students fumble around trying to answer it(because they have never be
  7. That would be "Philosophy: Who needs it?" in...Philosophy: Who needs it?
  8. The first time I saw this movie (before I discovered philosophy) I didnt think much of it. I just finished watching it this evening and I must say that I was 'pleasantly' suprised. ... But seriously--this movie may be one of my new favorites. The way it depicts human pleasure as good seemed a refreshing change from some other movies of its day. And while the movie emphasizes the idea that pleasure is good, it does not do so in a hedonist manner. The girls dont become whores, and there are no orgys in the streets. Not only that but it has the classic story of Government oppression and a p
  9. coirecfox


    I had never heard anything else by him except Claire de Lune. Thanks for the info!
  10. coirecfox


    Does anyone here have an opinion of Debussy? I really like Claire de Lune.
  11. Has anyone seen this movie? It's out in selected cities, and the reviews look promising. I was wondering if it's worth the ten bucks to go see it.
  12. Hal, who is Robert Nozick and where did he disprove that such a suggestion is impossible?
  13. And people say Objectivists don't have a sense of humor...
  14. This is the same problem I had in my initial argument--the definition of life. Is it biological only, or does it have a philosophical influence as well? I contend that human life is defined both biologically and philosophically, and the philosophical part is what gives meaning to life. "Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death" Thus, if the attainment of values is not possible, human life no longer has value. For a rational person to realize this, suicide would be an affirmation of ones own life because you would be affirming that the attainment of (proper) values is good, a
  15. 1. Ayn Rand (100%) 2. Aristotle (96%) 3. David Hume (91%) 4. Cynics (84%) 5. Aquinas (82%) 6. Nietzsche (81%) 7. Thomas Hobbes (81%) 8. John Stuart Mill (79%) 9. St. Augustine (77%) 10. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%) 11. Plato (74%) 12. Jeremy Bentham (71%) 13. Spinoza (67%) 14. Stoics (64%) 15. Epicureans (63%) 16. Nel Noddings (46%) 17. Kant (42%) 18. Ockham (30%) 19. Prescriptivism (19%) 1. a high 2. d high 3. e medium 4. d high 5. b high 6. a high 7. c medium 8. d high 9. a hig
  16. He also often uses the principle of eminent domain to "acquire" others' property. Not to heroic if you ask me.
  17. He wrote a book called "The Myth of the Robber Barons" in which he articulates the difference between market monopolists and coercive monopolists. Excellent read and full of great information.
  18. I'm glad to hear that he still believes his own essay. My question is still: Why is he the Fed chair? Why didn't he refuse?
  19. LOL...okay McGroarty you win that one. To be honest, I had no idea that precious metals had achieved the type of market that you guys are talking about. I would definitely agree that some of these other solutions are more sound than the Liberty Dollar. I still want to stick it to the Fed though...to the mints I shall go...
  20. Thanks for that definition. I think the reason his mark-up is so great is that there are not a great deal of people offering the kind of product he offers. And he does a decent job marketing it. I'm sure if he had some more vocal competitors his prices would fall. To be honest, this is the first I have heard of people attempting to return to a precious metal standard (though relative to most of you probably, I haven't been around all that long). I was excited just to see that. The initial appeal to me was the effectiveness with which Bernard claims the currency can be used. My problem
  21. McGroarty: I wasn't saying that you had done any banking in any of those places. And I was not suggesting that you must exchange your money in that Marx house. The way you presented that information however made it seem like you were objecting to the currency merely because people of objectionable moral standing utilized it. I was not able to find where the NORFED sote said they had only two paid employees. If you could point me in the right direction I would be much obliged. Why is that so objectionable? The costs of minting currency must be absorbed somewhere. They don't jus
  22. You can buy the Liberty Dollar as $10 silver coins. As to all of this: You are not buying just the silver, you are buying the silver plus minting costs plus storage costs. You don't get angry when you have to buy bread for much more than the cost of wheat do you? Silver bullion and silver coins are two different commodities. The change over does not work the way McGroarty says it does. If you have a ten $ certificate when the change over happens, you can exchange it for a 20 $ certificate right away. That is because your old $10 certificate is backed by one ounce of silver, and th
  • Create New...