Eiuol

Only reason and my life, because they provide the ability to value. If I lose my freedom, I'll aspire to have it. If I lose my sight, I'll aspire to live my life in a new way. Fortunately, if I lost the ability to reason, I wouldn't even know it. The fact that if you lose reason means you won't even be able to regret its loss only further emphasizes the importance of reason.

I know/agree. But it still needs money to function. So it needs to convince people to spend money. I may be using imprecise words but what I'm trying to get at is that there is never any incentive to use force if there are any long-term considerations. I'm not suggesting there would have to be a "battle" to see who "does" government better. Just that an inefficient one *will* run out of money. It might not run out of money because it initiated force, but because it did not spend money in the wisest way. Or because it had a horrible ideas for fundraising.

I simply don't understand how that is true. A proper government *does* need a certain "quality" of citizen, i.e. a rational citizen. How does one attract a rational citizen? Rational policies. So wouldn't it make sense that two countries would only compete to be the "most rational"? To me it's no different than saying "competition leads to force because the highest profit comes through force". But of course competition doesn't mean that; it wouldn't change for a government.

Then I think the genre of television wouldn't even matter. You can't make one sweeping judgment of all works within a genre. There's a difference between shows like "The Amazing Race", "Tool Academy", "I Love New York", or "Survivorman". But they're similar enough to be classified as "reality TV". You can only appraise an individual work, not a genre.

The "size" is probably population, in which case entire "cities" could be large. You would want to have treaties, thus creating a very loose, decentralized "government", based on agreements about rights. Also, there is nothing to suggest there could only be small "city states". New York City is certainly more wealthy than whole countries. But anything an individual city is lacking could be made up for in agreements/treaties with other cities. I'm not sure why you brought up Ayn Rand with regards to her supporting such an idea, because it has nothing to do with the discussion. What matters is if it can work and support a rational society.

Can you give some examples of malevolent art? Certainly people who value rationality would tend to make a certain kind of art, but even those who have an irrational premise cannot avoid demonstrating what their ideas mean. You can see value in art that effectively conveys some element of reality, even if it is only an abstract element. What matters is *why* you like the piece of work. A malevolent premise does not mean "immoral art". Celebration of man isn't the only thing good art is allowed to be. It could also be severe judgment of evil. Or a demonstration of the importance of self-esteem. Or showing how altruism destroys individuality. To enjoy something like The Matrix does not mean you accept some Kantian view of reality.

You wouldn't really need a super-entity. No one can oversees treaties, but there is something called trust. If there is a government you can't trust, then it wouldn't matter if you had some means to oversee the treaty. A criminal will be a criminal regardless of an action being legal. "Competition" between governments doesn't have to mean war. In a very limited sense, the US and Canada are competing governments. There is no war between the US. Of course a war *could* be started, but why *would* a war be started? If the world were more free, Canada and the US would want to attract people to their respective jurisdictions WITHOUT using force of any sort. Isn't that competition? And in fact the least violent country would probably attract the most people anyway. So there is no incentive for war either. Unless of course we're speaking of criminals, in which case it should be acknowledged that it wouldn't matter to the criminal what is legal or not, what is rational or not.

"A series of dynasties clearly is a derivative concept which requires both the idea of "ruler" and the idea of "dynasty" to make sense." How many dynasties in 2009 really have any power? Until we can define a certain "amount" of power a dynasty had (and certainly in some cases we can say a dynasty lost power even before it was officially overthrown), it is little more than family lineage, which certainly would follow some mathematical patterns, as you've shown.

I'm not really sure what point he's trying to make (in the bottom most quote), it's not exactly wrong. "Rightist" and "Leftist" are quite misleading anyway, Statist is usually the best term to use. At the core of either Fascism or Marxism is altruism. I know you asked for an in-depth response, but I'm not sure if it can really be any more in-depth than that.

Of course, just the same if I developed an method without any help from the patenter. It seems that I'd have the right to what I discovered by my own ability as well, and since I'm not using the same instance of property as the patenter. The idea as it stands for both of us wouldn't be identical unless I used his information and his schematics. But assuming the two of us (as in the patenter and me) are rational people, the actual means of doing it is exactly the same (as in their reasons for using the method are different, but the actions involved are identical). I could never own all gold in a particular mountain, but I could own a particular vein of gold. I think my issue is more about "How specific should we go?" in defining how much claim people have to something. By using a vein of gold, I can claim ownership to that vein of gold, but I would not be using the *entire* vein of gold at once, so my labor isn't quite mixed into everything the first time I begin mining. I'm not claiming ownership on something so broad that it becomes ridiculous.

I was a little vague in my wording. I meant more along the lines "If I had figured out an already-patented method of seed planting on my own, could the patenter prosecute me for using the method without his consent?" It does not seem like it would be proper for the patenter to do anything to me, since all I've done is use my own mind in the same way the patenter did. I just couldn't claim that I came up with the idea, of course.

Say a person hundreds of miles away develops an extremely similar idea, as with what happened with the telephone. Would it be a violation of IP to produce an object that does the same thing that the patenter has already created, although probably made slightly differently? My confusion/question revolves more around the (proper) application of IP rights. If someone does patent a method of sticking seeds in the ground, what if I discovered the same method as well? Could I be stopped from using that same method even if I learned it from someone else? What specifically would it *mean* to have a patent? How can one decide when an idea is new, yet similar, and not a violation of any existing patent? Rand's essay on IP is all I've read about the Objectivist stance on IP.

It doesn't sound like much more than fancy astrology or numerology, at least the places where you discuss numbers. In particular, placing special significance on certain numbers for no particular reason other than "it fits together!". All people make decisions based on what they know (even if what they know is simply that sacrificing 1 person every year leads to appeasement of the gods). So anything that occurs in history will be based entirely upon what people do or think. Any corresponding numbers would at best be coincidental.

My question is essentially at what point can you say someone is violating IP rights? For example would it be proper to say a person can patent steel? Or would it only make sense to patent a particular steel with a particular name? If I were to analyze a particular product of steel and reverse engineer it, would it be proper to have any IP law prevent me from producing the chemically identical steel, provided I give it a new name?

Me too.

Not everyone has the imaginary or real benefits of capitalism because it doesn't exist right now. Nor has it ever. I'm not exactly sure what your question is. You're worried about overpopulation. So what? Capitalism is more likely to cause a decrease in the birth rate than an increase anyway.

Yeah, but that's about the extent of there being any issue. All he had to do was ask "How should I bow to greet the emperor?" The picture of Cheney is pretty dumb too, a bow doesn't even have to be noticeable, but he didn't do it at all. Well, that's only a still picture, so maybe he did bow.

Sure you can help others and still be selfish... It's just a matter of not *subordinating* yourself to others. The idea is that you have no moral *obligation* to help another person. However, there are situations where helping another person is the selfish and rational thing to do. Also, your therefore simply doesn't follow.

Because that would be immoral. That isn't a consequence of capitalism by any means, since that would hardly be a free market because there is force involved. That is a consequence of not recognizing rights of individuals. Capitalism by any proper definition *is* a system that recognizes individual rights. I don't understand your final question : "Wouldn't it not only for the sake of happiness, but for the sake of ethics be right to enslave and euthanize?" Nothing you mentioned demonstrates even a suggestion or possibility of that being true. If you're simply asking why force is immoral, it's because it necessarily violates and individuals rights. On top of that, enslavement isn't even productive, even if for some reason you believe rights are an invalid concept. "I will make the simple observation that just because people have money in a capitalist environment does mean they are free." Just because people don't have money doesn't mean they are not free. I really don't know what you're getting at. "Overpopulation" isn't exactly a good thing, but birth rate is typically higher in less industrialized places (as in , less capitalistic). Interestingly, a lot of the things you mentioned in the first paragraph of the OP are procapitalist points (or rather, issues any defender of capitalism would mention). Those are consequences where there isn't a free market. You should be a little more explicit in your questions. It's hard to tell if you are merely asking questions or arguing a specific point of view).

Why would Scrooge need to be made into anything good? If anything, it could be "rewritten" to better emphasize that *only* valuing money rather than the work it represents isn't a good thing. I don't think it's an entirely ridiculous character. Yes it is ridiculous that a person would *only* care about money, but I'm sure there are real people with such a mindset.

It actually could not be independent of their judgment, since it requires someone to actually do the valuing. An intrinsic values is simply impossible. Having a viewpoint that values are intrinsic is not to suggest that "intrinsic value" could even exist. To say only objective values exist would be say that no one values destruction. But people *do* have such values, and those values are most certainly not objective. (partially in response to John too). Such an assessment does matter from an economic perspective. Values can (and of course should) be objectively decided upon, but values will always come from an individual perspective, regardless if the value is good or not. That's why I prefer "agent-relative" to simply saying "subjective", but subjective does work for common usage of the word.

I think it's more that all values are subjective in the sense that all people value things differently, and sometimes values may be entirely irrational and based on whim alone. All values are "agent-relative" may be a better way to phrase it. However, a proper value is always objective in nature.

http://www.chartercities.org/ similar idea, but for different intentions it appears. I only think starting anew would work. It's how you attract newcomers. It may cost more, but that's the purpose of the charter city. A charter city though, as described in the link, is basically a multi-government charter. To me this is the only way taxation could be completely avoided and also be legally sanctioned. At least if the right arguments are made about your proposed city.

I still don't know if I'm "subject" to Iran's laws based upon some Fatwah, but I don't care if I'm breaking Iran's laws. You wouldn't know what law you are subject to, but you would would know whose laws you should be subject to; the ones you agreed upon. If you are being forcibly subjected to laws you never agreed to, it probably is a violation of rights. If you violated someone else's rights and another country attacks you in response, there would be no moral issue with the attack. Fortunately if laws are objective, anything your government would respond to are violation of that government's laws anyway and there never would be a moral issue with retaliation. Of course, I never questioned anything about the importance of objective law. 3 was simply to make a distinction between attacks as self-defense, and initiation of force. 2 still be a violation of rights but not lead to warfare as in guns and bombs. In any case it would not be possible to be simultaneously subject to both governments without some immediate consequence. It would be quite obvious whose laws you are being subject to. Unless there is a "World Government" and only one "World Government", these situations could still occur. Or does that mean anything less than a world government implies competing government?

I don't understand how it is necessarily true that a man cannot know what laws they are subject to with competing governments. Just as I could be subject to Iran's laws by the Ayatollah's arbitrary reasoning, I can't always know whose laws I may be subject to. But I can be sure of the laws I willingly subject myself to based on the government I am a part of (at least if that law is objective in nature). I do not see how any possible problems of "competing governments" do not already apply to the world as it is today. If a foreign government (or any similar entity whatsoever) tried to perform its functions on my property, either 1) my rights are being violated and it is an act of war, 2) a mistake was made and will be resolved peacefully, or 3) I violated someone's rights and retribution is being attempted.