Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

corristo

Regulars
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About corristo

  • Rank
    Novice
  • Birthday 10/16/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Iowa
  • Chat Nick
    CapitalistSwine
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    My avatar picture was created by Bob Keller. Credit goes to him, and his other products and designs can be found and purchased here: http://www.zazzle.com/patriot_resistance/gifts?cg=196458640684767387
  1. Hello guys. I am currently having a little debate with a friend of mine via a facebook note and I was curious if you guys could help me out with this argument because I am pretty weak at arguing this kind of thing specifically and I am interested in a more in-depth Objectivist take on such things. I took the TIA Daily article e-mail I received today and since I liked it so much I put it in a note (and gave proper credit btw) and a friend of mine debated me on this: Here is the article for anyone that is curious that doesn't get the TIA. Since it is long I will help with that by putting it in a quote box: COMMENT SECTION: Chris W Robinson I respectfully disagree with the author of this almost entirely. ========================== Ryan Bell In what way? The disagreement hardly matters if you don't explain why your disagreeing. ========================= Chris W Robinson moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior "The basic outlook is: when it comes to our really important, life-or-death needs, to hell with thinking and logic. Which means: to hell with principles. This is amorality disguised under moral posturing." That is his opinion. His basic outlook is: when it comes to capitalism and the needs of the economy, to hell with the basic needs of people. Which means: to hell with principles and morality. That is my opinion. "The basic moral principle that limits the actions of government is the fact that other people's lives and livelihoods are not yours to dispose of." This is true, but we are not talking about the disposal of life, were are talking about the moral principle which is the duty of government to protect and save it's peoples lives. =================================== Chris W Robinson In my opinion if the government had done their job of protecting the American people from capitalist corporations they wouldn't have half the health problems they do. Look at atrazine, PCB's, trans fats, deadly prescription drugs (in some cases), carcinogens, thimerosol, bavarian growth hormones, etc... all substances that required/require government intervention as the companies pushing these things put their profit margins before the well being of the American people, and all people across the globe. Look at Monsanto, Bayer, Nestle, Coca Cola, Caterpillar... A constant history of human rights violations, false "scientific" reports, false "independent" studies, and intentionally suppressing information about the potential side effects and health hazards related to their products, thereby putting consumers at risk. As mentioned, I respectfully disagree with the author of this article. I have many reasons, but very little time to express all of them. ======================================= Anyone want to help me with this? I find its easier for me to get a better handle on these things and debate them better myself later if I can get into a debate or get help with one (as I am now) on areas or topics I am less familiar with or what have you like I am right now. I appreciate any help with this. Thanks fellow Oists.
  2. How exactly would this be done? Health Care costs money, it requires equipment, it requires professionals. It requires work of others for your benefit. Notice that Speech, Bearing Arms, Petitions, and all other things considered rights are not dependent on others to be fulfilled. How is this "right" to be held without extortion from unwilling others? Also, the right to life, as it is meant in the Constitution is not the life of the individual in the way of basic needs, but his right to have the opportunity and sanction to live his life the way he wishes as long as it does not infringe on someone else's life. If you want a more in-depth view of what the Founding Fathers intentions were and what they meant I suggest you pick up a book titled "The 5000 Year Leap". You must also keep in mind not to fall into the false dichotomy of "it is either socialized health care or the robber baron HMO's/insurance companies" there are other routes to take, such as a free market health care system, which we used to have and it worked out very well for everyone. If you don't believe me look into it a bit.
  3. I received that feeling as well about economic justice. The other one seemed much more fluid, economic justice just felt forced and grasping out for lyrics to me. I would like to see this song I am quoting on your myspace though if/when you ever get around to recording it. That seems much better and more along the lines.
  4. I was wondering if, since this is one of the hot button issues right now, and since it will affect everyone in country greatly, we could amass a lot of links/information here of *quality* content that combats socialized/single payer/what have you basically non-free market health care systems. Anything from research on other countries to things here at home, and especially things about how things were before the government intervened in health care here and how government screwed it up. This would also assist people discussing this with people that disagree on the free-market system for healthcare in providing content/sources to back up their positions. Something especially necessary in this matter given all of the "nonsense" all over the place. Not sure if this is the proper place to post this but if not please move it for me and I apologize. Thank You. I have a few here to start things off: Sweden's Government Healthcare http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/S...tHealthCare.htm The Real Right to Medical Care Versus Socialized Medicine By George Reisman http://www.capitalism.net/articles/SOC_MED...20Medicine.html AARP Town Hall Meeting on Health Care - Dallas, August 4, 2009 AARP Refuses to Answer Questions, Ends Meeting Early, Members Continue It http://soitgoesinshreveport.blogspot.com/2...wn-hall-on.html One Doctor's Perspective on Healthcare http://soitgoesinshreveport.blogspot.com/2...-obamacare.html
  5. I would say I suffer from a mild form of arachnaphobia. I don't get in sweats or anything like that but when I see one big or small I tend to have somewhat of a shoulder shudder. I think the way they move is what bothers me most frankly. Phobias are interesting because they usually do persist regardless of knowing yourself that the fear (to that extent) is irrational. Since my phobia is rather mild I usually just deal with it. Usually if I need to take care of a spider and I don't want to have "real" contact with it via a kleenex or some such I will grab some windex or some other kind of household chemical or even like Glade Air Freshener and spray it down so it dies and then I have no issue with "removing" it from the premises.
  6. My uncle actually lives in California and does sound work (effects, etc) for a lot of celebrity singers and bands, he visited often when I was younger so he helped me get a better grasp on what is good music. I would definitely say this is some good stuff, the lyrics could use a tiny bit of work but they are certainly acceptable and not much of a problem. I was expecting something more amateur or trashy, and this left me quite surprised. You guys are good enough to "make it" to at least some degree in my opinion. I would certainly like to hear some more of your stuff and would love to see this video you are referring to once it is finished. This is great stuff and I have often pondered about Objectivist based media/art of the newer kind such as punk/rock etc. This is excellent. It honestly seems like Objectivism is starting to have an unprecedented, albeit a little bit slow so far, cultural uprising and this is just one of those examples. Much credit to you guys and thanks for sharing this, this made my morning much better. I will post your myspace on my facebook status etc. and help you guys get a little bit more of an audience, even if it isn't local it helps. While I doubt she would be much of a fan of punk rock, I think Ayn Rand would appreciate it to the same degree simply for the interesting medium and the effort and the sincerity of it all and so forth. I think she would approve wholeheartedly.
  7. Not sure why I can't edit my original post but you are welcome to invite friends that are interested in Objectivism to the group, however those who have no interest in the ideas and/or are generally closed minded in their views it would be best to keep out. I also invited Yaron Brook, not sure if he is a big fan of facebook groups or not.
  8. Hello everyone, Some of us in the objectivismonline chat were speaking about making a facebook group for the members of this website as well as for other people that are advocates of Objectivism & the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you would like to join this group please visit: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=115959666590
  9. Is there a youtube video of it or something? I would like to watch this but I missed it.
  10. Whats with the symbol in your avatar Charles??? http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/groups_kkk.asp
  11. I was on another forum earlier today, where there are people of another philosophy, and I was asking what their opinion was of Objectivism. Eventually the owner of the website chimed in, and this was his response: I was curious as to what the response is of people better informed with Objectivism. I am relatively new to the philosophy, as I have read Atlas Shrugged and I am in the early chapter of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal currently. However, his conclusions in regards to the "dog eat dog" result seem to be wrong and a result of a lack of obtaining more information on the philosophy past The Virtue of Selfishness, which I have not read and in turn, unfortunately, am oblivious towards its content. I would even more specifically like to know the response of my friends here, the Objectivists in regards to the article on MotherJones. I would like to clarify I do not hold to the philosophy of this website or its "followers". Thanks a bunch, I appreciate it.
  12. Unfortunately I have reason to suspect this as such NAS. I would like to see this expanded further.
  13. I am also curious as to people's opinion of the cigarette industry. Let me know if I am on the right track here, keeping this brief. Why does it need to be regulated? Does the consumer not decide such things? You may say that the cigarette industry should be regulated for ethical reasons, as these companies incentivize bad habits. However is it not the consumer who decides whether or not to partake in such habits? Again it was a little difficult for me to wrap my head around these specific examples he suggests as I am not familiar with either of them. I am familiar with a fair amount of these types of things and have found they have been due to government regulation, however as you may notice these people often tend to use relatively the same arguments, and out of general curiosity I would like to know the specifics of these cases as they tend to interest me.
  14. Excellent point Jeff. I will admit, and it may also be surmised from my new forum account, I am a new objectivist. I am still learning the ropes but I have yet to find any disagreement with the philosophy. I have watched Peikoff's intro to Objectivism lecture, read Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and I am just starting into Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. However, it seems that this is a shut case more or less if my information is valid, if we are to argue Capitalism in general and not Laizze-Faire. This credibility of this site is questionable but the information seems to be pretty detailed/etc. Apparently, GM made concentrated efforts to destroy public transporation. This explains what happened: Whole Article is here: http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm You get the main gist in the first few paragraphs, the rest goes into the real details. This is the *main part* of the conclusion at the end by the writer: From what I am understanding from reading the first few paragraphs and the conclusion I don't see how at least some of these activities would not be ruled fraudulent or unethical in some fashion by the Government (monopoly on force/regulation of fraud/etc). I am reading the rest of it now.
  15. Thank you for the excellent and hasty response eficazpensador. I would agree with your suggestions for argumentation and you also make some excellent points about the rail vs. auto event. Unfortunately it is a bit difficult to analyze it without getting to the specifics, although it is quite libertarian minded it is a relatively useful source for free-market related articles, I went about checking mises.org and was not able to find something specific to this. The other articles I have found have been very short and useless on the details or otherwise are quite left leaning and the language shows obvious bias in their effort to make it a scandal of capitalism. If someone else is more familiar with this time period being referenced and essentially this whole competition of auto and rail then I would very much appreciate some clarification here. The general gist I get from my research is that rail was basically exploding at the time (much like in Atlas Shrugged) however the Auto Industry sprouted up and went about systematically buying out the rail businesses (I am unsure if the reason for them accepting in this was via unethical means, pure profit motive as eficazpensador suggested, or because for some reason or another the rail business was having troubles of some sort. Essentially the idea many of these articles are trying to pass along is that the auto industry preyed on the rail industry, bought up the ventures and then liquidated them (i.e. destroyed them) so as to eliminate competition. I do agree however this analysis is suspicious as I don't see how there could have been any real coercion, no less to make such an industry wide impact, as the government wasn't exactly like it is today, where it can force businesses to do just about anything for personal or other private interests. My best guess is that there was a lack of profitability/some sort of downturn for rail which led to its demise via purchases among other things. What caused the downturn in that industry I would have no idea.
×
×
  • Create New...