Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tyco last won the day on June 8 2011

Tyco had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    Training to be a programmer / IT specialist
  • School or University
    University of Glasgow
  • Occupation

Tyco's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Interesting prediction here: http://philosophicaleconomics.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/the-single-greatest-predictor-of-future-stock-market-returns/
  2. The laws against bootlegging were immoral, but I think there's some suggestion that Gatsby's parties are a way for the mobsters to engage in corruption and scams with high society. Anyway, when Nick says 'you're worth the whole damn lot of them' it's never quite washed with me. Some readers think Nick is infatuated with Gatsby so that is one possible explanation.
  3. I think it's a bit murkier than that though, because most of Gatsby's wealth on display is just a front for someone else's criminal empire. He may have had admirable qualities of self-improvement but he goes astray somewhere along the line. Values the wrong things.
  4. Well, to the original question, I would point out that it's not really just a few eggheads trying to topple the fiat money system with their own currency. Bitcoin has harnessed the awesome power of the internet. It's a matter of the different pieces falling into place: cryptography, P2P networks, online transactions. The internet has brought upon us a paradigm shift and it's not outlandish to think that once powerful agencies can be disrupted. Think how Twitter makes a mockery of all the press injunctions the British courts have been trying to impose.
  5. Nicky, I found your replies slightly objectionable... and all too typical of replies in Objectivist forums. Tbj2102 said he did not find the quantification (ie. counting, which is a common and legitimate sense of the word) of profit (through money) was worth obsessing over, and that he would rather cultivate goodwill through his social interactions or services. Further, exchange of money may be objective in some respects but it's not the final arbiter of how 'profitable' or rewarding (and hence worth pursuing) an activity is to an individual. This is not a very controversial point - someone could much prefer winning the Field medal in mathematics with its million dollar prize* than to winning the Euromillions Lottery with its 50 million Euro prize. I think if you'd employed the 'principle of charity' or whatever then you could have acknowledged these points instead of telling Tbj to go 'look things up' or 'ask questions', which is the behaviour I find objectionable... @Tbj2102, I think you might be on to something. Direct exchange of services is definitely one way to avoid taxes, and your services can be rewarded in different ways. It's interesting that you find this preferable in terms of your happiness. I have often thought along similar lines. One problem I foresee though is that without accumulation of income, you will find it difficult to plan ahead and achieve longer-term goals/projects, and will also will be less prepared for a 'rainy day' when it comes along. Yes, your cultivation of goodwill shall count for something, but you surely can't rely on that as you could rely on a bank account. Arguably it is irresponsible of you to neglect money in this way, as you are jeopardising your independence and your long-term progress. *can't remember if there is prize money for the Field Medal, or how much it is, or if I was thinking of another prize, but you get my point
  6. Nas - Life is Good His most enjoyable album since Illmatic IMO. Lyrically and vocally he'd been back on top form for the lSt few albums, but thus one really delivered with the beats and content where the others weren't quite my cup of tea.
  7. Yeah, Catwoman and her romance with BW don't stand up to much scrutiny. Thankfully it didn't ruin the rest of the movie, like Gordon Gecko's daughter in Wall Street 2.
  8. Wayne Enterprises had an Applied Science division... not an Applied Philosophy one. (just wanted to say that)
  9. I think Bane paid lip-service to anti-capitalism with his trials etc, but like someone else pointed out ultimately he planned to nuke the place so that could not be his end goal. However he did explicitly state that he was fulfilling the goals of [the Batman Begins villain], which was to destroy Gotham city because it had become amoral and corrupt. And that's a leaf straight out of the Islamic fundamentalists' book - their hatred of the Western way of life and its materialism, greed etc. Also with a tinge of those eco-nutcases who think mankind is an aberration and a threat to the rest of nature.
  10. But Batman's not ultimately on a moral crusade, he's just cleaning up the streets. On a bigger scale this time, with bad guys who have a fundamentalist tint to make them slightly more interesting, but in the end it's just a physical struggle. On a slightly deeper level it's about how much Bruce Wayne values the lives of ordinary, decent people and how this motivates him to pursue the, uh, vigilante lifestyle. But high level philosophical debate... Just doesn't come into it IMO.
  11. Well he was linked to the villains from Batman Begins and was promising to fulfil their objectives. They seemed to be driven by a sort of anti-Western, anti-materialism dogma, which in reality we usually associate with Sayyid Qutb and his disciples. The storyline also mixed in a sort of Occupy-Wallstreet-inspired anti-capitalism, making good on the otherwise empty threats to put the wealthy on trial for their 'crimes' and tear down the 'system' for a new start. People throw those ideas about but everyone realises that only a bloody revolution would achieve them, so they reside in the territory of fundamentalist coups. Bane is just a mix of anti-Western and anti-Capitalist fundamentalism, two things which are hot-topics these last few years. The point is not to explore these ideologies in any detail, it's just a little bit of shading to make the villains more believable.
  12. I think these types of films have a fairly simple formula to them: bad guy hatches plan to destroy [some part of] civilisation, owing to some 'fundamentalist' belief. The fundamentalism make the character more interesting, as they're not just randomly mischievous but driven by some ideology (which they usually abandon towards the end, as the film seeks to morally bankrupt them). I suspect this all stems from public awareness of Al Queda. Fundamentalists are the movie-threat *du jour* since the Cold War ended, and mafia types became cool. In other words, fundamentalism as a choice for villainry in movies isn't worth dwelling on too much. Whether it's Eco-terrorism or anti-capitalism or rogue patriotism or religious fanaticism it doesn't really matter, it's just a formula. Bad guys have to be more than just bank robbers these days. It's not symbolism over substance, it's formula over substance.
  13. I'm not 100% sure that there's not a circular argument involved with the 'survival of man qua man' idea which says that because man must use reason to survive, he can derive all his values by identifying what lets him survive/thrive as a rational being. Man must do what is rational, which is defined as what allows his continued existence as a rational being.
  • Create New...