Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

chuff

Regulars
  • Posts

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chuff

  1. Only a few of them are ready. @softwarenerd i pmed you
  2. And here is the disclaimer he wrote for us:
  3. I heard back from Dr. Peikoff a week ago: He attached a .doc file to this email. And then again from him today: I could use some help in answering his questions.
  4. I agree here. Each post need not have the same assumed knowledge; it could be "for more about rational self-interest, read VOS," etc.
  5. I'm shocked that you would suggest such a thing.
  6. I retract my statement in light of evidence of which I was previously unaware.
  7. My thoughts: Just this week in my home state texting while driving has been illegal. Infringements of this kind are imminent once "pre-emptive force" is enough for a new law. Soon, I'm sure, talking on the telephone will be illegal while driving; but why stop there? Really, not being tongue-in-cheek, what is the reason for stopping there? Eating a burger or taking a swig of the last sip from a Coke can keeps you from operating the car at full efficiency; should these also be something cops should use their time to keep you from doing? Plus it makes people criminals for texting in their cars while operating it. It's not the actual damage you've done that you must pay for. It is the fact that you were in your car's driver seat while it was moving and you were texting. The DUI law sets a standard of BAC that not every body works with. Some people with low alcohol tolerance will have a BAC below DUI level and still drive dangerously. Others who have much higher tolerance can operate the vehicle normally with above the accepted BAC.
  8. IMPORTANT UPDATE: Is there a way to hide the post with the transcripts in them?
  9. I've already done Episode 30 and Episode 112. I've also done Episode 12. I asked a member who wanted to help in any way he could to do Episode 11. I'll await both his Episode and the status on the first five episodes before continuing posting them, so that they aren't out of order and will force me to go back and edit each post to be the one before it, etc.
  10. I second this idea, as it's a great one. Also, this could be the thread for posting errors found in them that need editing.
  11. I have created such a thread. I foolishly went ahead and posted several without the new log-in that can edit old posts. If you would not mind setting such a one up, I would be grateful.
  12. My email to Dr. Peikoff: Dr. Peikoff's response email to me: So I propose we do as he asks. I have finished six episodes of his podcast. I'll let a moderator or someone pin the thread or take the mantle on how to organize this, since it will be (as per request) in the site's name and not in mine. Also, I'm not sure how to do #4.
  13. From the same author, in response to exactly this TAS review: available here
  14. I read this response and sent it along to the author of the five-part criticism. Very good.
  15. Something about knowing something is the truth (or even being convinced something is objective truth, as in the case of Christians who are) makes you want to share it with everybody.
  16. Shouldn't this be a huge concern of students of Objectivism, especially the ones with a great understanding of it? There is no doubt the United States government needs significant changes. If these changes can only come about through others accepting Objectivism (through the vote, which requires that big voting blocs vote in favor of objective law, etc.), shouldn't one of our very important goals be to share Objectivism with others and explain to them why it is the best philosophy there is?
  17. Right; I yield this point to you, since my complaint was against current government, rather than government made up of individuals which are, itself, governed by objective laws. The main problem in my mind is taking government workers to court, using government judges... how could anyone that isn't the government win? I yield this point to you as well, I acknowledge my mistake in using the FDA as an example. We cannot fire policemen; only their bosses can. That means the onus for that is on someone other than, for example, the affected party. This point also brings up a point on the necessary revisions (or entire re-drafting) of the Constitution. I will look for a thread on this, and if I don't find it, I'll probably create one. What I've seen and use for this reference is not Rand's advocacy; I yield to you there. However, I have seen and do not think I am amiss in thinking that many people working together on a project to continually better it is one of the demonstrable benefits of things like science (improving on former knowledge by correcting errors, always open to new discoveries based on new evidence) and Wikipedia. For example, the Constitution will not be flawless, I assume, in its first drafting... to say so, I think, would be a little bit evasive of the reality that its drafters could and will make and have made mistakes. Here you are also right; I yield. Again my complaint is with the current government (which, it does not seem likely, will be overthrown apart from violence or massive 'enlightenment' if you will). On a related note, I think a small step toward an Objectivist society would be to make the U.S. government not as federal, i.e., have state sovereignty. This would make changes in government that need to happen actually plausible.
  18. This was the only point of yours where I didn't see the reason behind it. If they are provided by government, they are not provided objectively. A government is a group of people: people are not the source of objective laws. A government in Objectivism is a private one: it is not funded by "public means," i.e. taxation. It is funded voluntarily. What you are asking for as Objectivists is a system in which persons can voluntarily choose to fund a means of protection for themselves, but can ONLY choose ONE. That is not a choice anymore. Alternatives (in this case competition) must exist for there to be any choice in the matter. And it cannot be "choose this one or choose none," as that's the same as "choose life as a lawyer in my firm or choose death" = not a real choice. These firms would not provide protection if they do not provide retaliatory force. What are they going to do, ask a burglar to leave? No, they have to make him leave to protect my house if, for example, I'm not at it. They are shams without recognized legitimacy in their use of force.
  19. I thought that, especially for people at my level of understanding of the philosophy, it would be a good exercise to have a go at refuting even the 'silly childish' stuff that the heavyweights justifiably refuse to consider.
  20. Yes, it is clear that the author of the criticisms does not understand the nature of axioms.
  21. I am sorry to have made that unfounded assumption about you or any user, and I take full responsibility for doing that.
  22. It's true that I've read OPAR and it's true that I see the distortions in his attacks. The refusal to refute it is just odd to me that since it is 'so easy' to refute. This isn't an attack on you guys for making that choice, it just seems like a different reaction to me than the natural one if it's the simplest objection to see through. I mean, at one point in my life, I was a Christian who would not have accepted plenty of the points of Objectivism. Now that I have seen their validity and realize the truth of the philosophy, I do. To refuse to refute the people that disagree with you seems strange to me.
  23. I am said user from the first post. The two most troublesome parts to me concerning a monopolistic government. I am willing and open to hear new thoughts on this matter, so feel free to contribute on these admittedly messy propositions: 1. When it messes up, what can the people it governs do about it? (ex: if the FDA approves salmonella peanut butter, no one gets fired... after police brutality) Objectivism supports free market economics and capitalism, and one of the good reasons for this is in inherent in the nature of competition: constant betterment. The failures of businesses cause them to go out of business, and a better alternative to take its place or to add to its achievements. This kind of approach to science is similar (constant upward motion). When monopolistic government fails, the people can do nothing but sit on their hands and accept its failures. (A person can't vote it out, he must have the other 48.9999...% of the country to do so) (Leaving the country is not a real solution, especially if the only alternative is... other monopolistic and failing governments). This idea that we "just have to deal with" the corruption in (the persons who work in) government is totally against the rest of Objectivist ethics. 1a. If our government REALLY messes up and does something immoral that causes another government to bomb us and kill innocent people in our country (which Objectivism finds moral in war), Objectivism proposes that it is our fault for not overthrowing the government we had and making a new one. 2. Governments are made up of individuals who work for it ("Government" is no more a "thing" than "black people" is a "thing." It's just a collection of individuals we label by a common attribute. I may be off on my specific language usage, but the point I am making is not linguistic, rather metaphysic(al?)). This means that some people are, monopolistically, and unbridledly (as #1 shows), governing other people. A support of such a system is inconsistent with the rest of Objectivism in regard to its beliefs about man's nature. When do men become untrustworthy/Biblical by nature? The nature of man, the individual, has not changed suddenly to a starting-from-distrust total depravity sort of thing has it? If man is a heroic being, he governs his own actions and his business dealings. Why not his protection? 2a. What makes the people who work for the government sufficiently better than the ones it governs?
×
×
  • Create New...