Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Schtank

Regulars
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Schtank

  1. So I have two questions. First, would it be proper if a small town voted to quarentine itself from all outsiders inorder to keep oustiders from bringing in a deadly contagion? Second, is it proper for a government to embargo a country, thus preventing its citizens from trading with that country? Is an embargo a violation of indiviidual rights? Thanks.
  2. Ah ok, that makes sense too. Thanks, and I understood way paper currency was bad, but until now I didn't understand why gold was any better. Thanks everybody.
  3. Ok that makes sense. Thanks
  4. So why did unions arise in the first place? Because didn't most unions form in the mid 19th century, when the economy was almost completely free? Also, without unions, what will keep employers from "exploiting" their workers? (I hate to use that word, but I'm trying to play devil's advocate).
  5. Ohhhhh. Ok, that makes sense. Thanks a bunch, that really helped.
  6. In an ideal capitilistic society, what is the role of unions?
  7. Well isn't an objective value only one that furthers human life? For instance, isn't food an objective value? Since gold doesn't directly further our lives, I wouldn't consider it to be an objective value. But to answer your questions, softwarenerd, I wouldn't consider steak an objective value in a vegitarian society. And nicer clothes would only be more valuable in a society opulent enough to recognize them as such. In a society of barbarians that only need clothing for warmth, their value would be equal to the regular clothes. So I guess that that means that gold can only have an objective value in a society of opulence with a need for objective values. But doesn't that mean that gold itself value differs on the society? And doesn't that then make gold a subjective value? I think I'm only confusing myself haha, I need to think this through more.
  8. But isn't gold only valuable as long as people think its valuable, and doesn't that make it a subjective value?
  9. Why is gold an objective value? Isn't gold a subjective value just like every other currency?
  10. Yah I tend to agree. Even though they were able to communicate with him, he didn't show any signs of obeying their quarentine, and I think that they were justified in killing him.
  11. I would say, though this is just a guess since the author never gave a time frame, that the guards had under 5 minutes to act.
  12. Ok guys, thanks for the input. But what if there are other options that the guards didn't think of at the time, but thought of after they killed the sick man. For example, one of the guards thought that he could have saved the sick man's life if he'd only give him some food and send him on his way to the next town. In light of this, does that make the murder that the guards just committed wrong?
  13. The guards warned him, but he ignored their warnings, and kept walking towards them. PS Thomas Mann=Thomas Mullen
  14. I've been assigned Thomas Mann's The Last Town on Earth to read for college. Though I've only just started, the book poses an interesting question in the beginning of the story. Before I go into the question, I'll give you some background. The book is set in 1918 and the Spanish Flu is ravaging many American towns. In an effort to keep the flu out of their town, the townspeople of Commonwealth decide to put their town under quarentine and forcibly keep all outsiders from entering it. To enfore this, they establish armed patrols to guard the town against intruders. While two guards are on duty, a clearly ill man stumbles across them and tries to enter the town. The guards, after some hesitation, shoot the man and kill him. Is this morally justifiable? Both men had families to protect, and this sick man clearly could have infected the entire down with a deadly disease. However, the guards did NOT know exactly what was causing his illness. For all they knew, the man they murdered could have been infected with a harmless cold virus. All input is appreciated, let me know if anyone needs more context to answer the question.
  15. Fair enough. Is there a way you can do a more accurate search than just typing in "words" or definitions"? Thanks
  16. So a friend of mine and I were having a discussion about the proper meaning of words the other day. It seems like Rand's definitions for words sometimes differ with the dictionary or "commonly accepted" defintion. For instance, arrogance, in the Randian sense, seems to mean a complete belief in yourself and your own abilities. However, the dictionary defintion says: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. Could anyone please tell me which definition is correct (for lack of a better word)? Thanks
  17. As previously announced, Moore will return to the issue that began his career: the disastrous impact that corporate dominance and out-of-control profit motives have on the lives of Americans and citizens of the world. ^ Hahahahahahahaha. That part made me laugh so hard (oh and that part is from the website by the way). I don't know which is worse, that people will make and promote that crap, or that people will beleive it.
  18. The implication is that words do NOT have true meanings. If that were the case, then knowledge and communication would be impossible. So you might just say to your "friend" that you don't understand anything that is coming out of his mouth. Could you elaborate on this a bit? I was having a discussion with a friend about this and we were wondering which meaning is the true meaning; that is, is the Randian version correct or the "accepted version". For instance, which definition of arrogance is correct? The "accepted" one (conceited prickishness) or the Randian one (a complete belief in yourself). Thanks
  19. Hmmm, thanks for the input everybody. Cap & trade always seemed like a violation of property rights to me, but I guess I'm mistaken. Maybe I'll do mroe research on it; because I still don't think I know enough.
  20. So enviromentalists are always talking about cap & trade. I'm pretty well convinced that its a horrible idea (both because enviromentalists support it and because anytime the free market is "capped" things go bad and rights are violated). But could you all please tell me more about cap & trade? I'm curious about what it is specifically. Once I know more about it I should be able to extrapolate a more education opinion about it. Thank you so much; and links to helpful websites/articles would be much appreaciated.
  21. Amen (haha) to that Lemuel. I recently saw Religulous and I didn't care for it all. Bill Maher just came across as a jackass. The only redeeming quality in the movie was the narrative at the beginning and the end; other than that, it wasn't worth the $2.50.
  22. Thanks for the input guys; the articles you posted were just what I was looking for. Thanks
  23. Hi everyone, I'm a new member and this is my first post. So congrats me I guess? Haha. But anyways, this issue has been bugging me for quite a while. But has anyone else noticed politicians increased focus on the classifying America as a democracy; and not as a republic. I don't know if I'm just splitting hairs here, and this is really a non-issue, but does it seem like the increased focus on democracy is part of the problem that we face today. Politicians seem to be forgetting that the constitution founded America as a republic; not a democracy. What are other peoples thoughts on the issue? I really can't decide if this is a big issue, or just kind of a pet peive of mind. Thanks, Schtank
×
×
  • Create New...