Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Hernan Cortes
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    Sociedad de los Conquistadores

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

hernan's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (5/7)



  1. I now have five completed Objectivist(ish) novelettes available for free download here: www.conquistador.org. (You can also purchase print copies for $5 each.) I am looking for feedback on them and so welcome your opinion.
  2. "Then there was another section of books. Books on free enterprise economics, such as Economics in One Lesson. Roy had tried many times to get him to read it. And, as Michael had always suspected, there was Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." http://www.conquistador.org/publication?publicationEntityId=152223921604
  3. Sony could pay hackers to counterattack or something like that. But it's not clear to me that Sony should ignore the threat anymore than it might ignore taxation or regulation. If Japan had censored the movie formally would you argue that they should release it anyway?
  4. Why should the US government respond? Why not Japan or the UN? More importantly, how ought Sony respond?
  5. Is there an important philosphical difference between Islamic or NK hackers exercising a veto over movie production and the regulations and taxes from elected governments? One obvious difference is that there is known formal process for obtaining permission from governments whereas the actions of ISIS and NK are something that you just have to hope you don't provoke. On the other hand, given the uneven and politizied application of law, it's not always obvious when you are subject to regulation and when not. Is it rational for movie studios to seek ISIS or NK permission to produce movies that might offend them as they might apply for a license from the government?
  6. hernan


    Let's go with that analogy for a moment. Suppose having kids is like owning a car. Now compare two contexts: A) Living in the city with subways and busses, short commutes, and expensive parking, and Living in the suburbs with no public transportation, long commutes, and free parking. Seems pretty obvious that people in situation A would value car ownership less than those in situation B entirely apart from any hierarchy of values. There is an objective difference in owning a car in each situation. This comparison, though, is not exactly analogous to having children, though. Consider another comparison: C) Cars are a shared resource (i.e. communism). D) Cars are private property (i.e. capitalism). In context C you'd be an idiot to buy and maintain a car since anyone can take it at anytime and you can claim any other car. But you know where that will lead. That's the short term, rational choice. But you can see that, longer term, C is not a stable situation.
  7. hernan


    "Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is a belief that promotes human reproduction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism What is the Objectivist take on this? One the one hand, you could do a cost-benefit analysis to determine the optimal number of children that would provide happiness and fulfillment. On the other hand, it seems like a pretty basic application of the virtue of productivity. On the other hand, the modern welfare state has pretty much rendered children a tragedy of the commons. (Taxes support the aged.) What are your thoughts.
  8. One way to look at it is to ask: what is my return on investment for my involvement in politics? It's certainly hard to see that coming out positive for the most politically active among us. What did you get for that donation exactly? And some people are emotionally devastated when their faction fails regardless of the consequences otherwise. But there is another way to look at it: politics as entertainment or as charity. As entertainment, it's certainly competitive with Kim Kardashian. As charity, there is also some reasonableness to it. For most activities, such as voting, the costs are negligible. Giving a small donation to a candidate you like or a political organization you think is doing good is emotionally rewarding.
  9. So, if you like your politics, you can keep your politics. I’m not trying to take it away from you. I’m just saying that I wish good people wouldn’t pour their time and energy down that particular drain—I don’t think it benefits them. Why I Stopped Spending My Time on Politics… And Why I Think You Should Too Discuss.
  10. This indicatesthat she came late to the idea of productivity. Very interesting. I did manage to get a discussion on the virtue of productivity here: The Virtue of Productivity
  11. There is defintely something to this. Although I don't think it's the prevaling motivation for hatred, it certainly applies to professional philosophers and others who hold themselves up as gatekeepers of what is legitimate for the public to discuss and know.
  12. All true, but I think the point is that egalitarians view egalitarian as the historical solution to class and caste (not to mention racism), and anything that threatens egalitarianism as the same as, or as bad as, those. For many income or asset inequality is as bad as a caste system, mobility notwithstanding. Of course, they cannot defend egalitarianism objectively. Instead, they defend it tribally. If you are not an egalitarian you are an outsider, you are a danger to the tribe. You are a legitimate target of hate.
  13. What is interesing about this is that she is equally hated by those who are otherwise at each others' throats. (I think the misrepresentation is, first, and effect and not an explanation. People misrepresent that which they hate. The hate comes first at least for the intellectuals who do the original study.)
  14. This is an interesting point. I do often argue agains egalitarianism and I'm sure you can imagine the squeling this induces. But it is probably more accurate to say that Objectivism is the last remaining opposition to egalitarianism. If you go back in history you will find plenty of non-egalitarian worldviews including, most obiously, caste and class systems. In their view, Objectivists are just holdouts gainst modernity or, worse, counterrevolutionaries trying to turn back the clock. Note also that eglitarianism is more general than collectivism though, in practice, it seeme the former always tends toward the later.
  15. One thing I have noticed is that Objectivists seem much more interested in Rand's ideas on rationality and politics. There is not a whole lot of discussion of the virtue of productivity, although it is essential to her philosophy and arguably critical to her fiction. Why is that?
  • Create New...