Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Individual

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Individual

  1. Ayn Rand was asked on her views on Austrian economics and her reply was "I think they are a school that has a great deal of truth and proper arguments to offer about capitalism...but I certainly don't agree with them in every detail, and particularly not in their alleged philosophical premises. They don't have any, actually. They attempt - von Mises particularly - to substitute economics for philosophy. That cannot be done."

    My question is: which particular details of Austrian economics did Ayn Rand disagree with? And so, how legitimate is the Austrian school?

  2. *** Mod's note: merged threads. sN ***

    I'm studying Business Law in school. I was taught that a company is a "separate legal entity" and it possesses (company) rights. And a company can act like a human and sue third parties (human or company). What is the Objectivist's take on this? Do companies have rights?

  3. How to refute this statement "I have a right to walk anywhere I like. Therefore I should be able to walk anywhere I like. No one should be able to stop me because it is my right. If I want to walk into a private property, it is my right to, no one has the right to stop me."

    I argued that it would be a violation of the private owner's rights. And he argued then it would violate this "rights to walk anywhere". We ended up with a conflict of interest.

    Firstly, is the "right to walk anywhere" a legitimate right?

    My thought is this: I have the right to walk - but not anywhere.

    And also this: "I have a right to breathe clean air. So no one should smoke around me because it is a violation of my rights."

  4. I try to keep a book for leisure and a book that applies to my career/constructive interests. Currently I am rereading The Count of Monte Cristo and the second largest book in my collection: Security Analysis. It's a beast.

    I currently try to read about an hour and a half to two hours a day not including school work. The time I read on the weekend depends largely on how busy I am.

    Security Analysis by Benjamin Graham I hope?

  5. I understand that a man does not lose his rights even though he does not recognize your rights.

    Let's say a man ignores your rights and initiates force and cause harm against you. Should you still recognize your attacker's rights? Or just ignore his rights and retaliate with force to protect yourself?

    And what would you guys say about shooting a person who is trespassing on your property?

    Since he does not recognize your rights to your own property and is initiating indirect force, is it moral to shoot him? My thought on this is it is moral to shoot the person but not necessary unless he was life-threatening, like a kid trespassing for instance.

  6. When is someone said to have surrendered their own rights to life? And when one surrenders his rights, that means he no longer has rights? Or does it mean he has no legitimacy to his rights?

    Stealing from a person is denying that person of his right to his own property which is necessary to his life. I could say that the thief has surrendered his own rights to his own property or his life. Does that now mean that anybody can steal from the thief?

  7. If the answer was no, then that's what that would mean, yes. They could even be barbecued and eaten by cannibals.

    But people have rights, even criminals.

    So, a man who does not recognize the rights of others still have rights?

    Was it morally wrong of the previous administration to torture terrorists?

  8. I have a few questions I hope to find some answers to.

    Is it true to Objectivism that a man loses his rights when he does not recognize the rights of others?

    So, does a terrorist have rights?

    Does a murderer have rights?

    Does a robber have rights?

    Does a pickpocket have rights?

    If the answer is "No, they do not have rights", what does it mean exactly? Does it mean that anybody can do anything to them like torture them and beat them? And can they regain their rights?

  9. Since you just got burglarized, I'd suggest selling the books. But I doubt you could make a profit.

    And there is nothing immoral about doing anything you want with the properties you own.

  10. "Determining the truth of the claim requires one to obtain knowledge without obtaining knowledge. That's why it's not science." - brian

    This nails it for me. Because the issue I have is how do we determine whether the cat is alive or dead (Now I understand it is not possible to). And The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead is a contradiction.

  • Create New...