y_feldblum

Red and Cap are actual words; once past the initial stages of learning to read, I started to recognize words without picking them apart letter by letter and mentally compensated for any errors in spelling or grammar that may pop up. Wow - I never bothered to look at the Code Buttons bar; I just hand-coded all my tags. And also, I prefer my tags lower-case, whether bracketed or angle-bracketed.

I suppose I should point out that one values and loves another person for his/her virtues.

I propose a combination of Daniel's and Sedriss' solutions. Respectful questions by commies, etc, can be put anywhere (so long as they are not overtly "I disagree with you and nothing you say will convince me"), just as for anyone who is not currently a full-fledged Objectivist but is a student of the philosophy or just has a passing interest in it. Violators of that policy will be banned from every section but a certain designated one, where they can do as Sedriss suggests. If they violate Sedriss' rules, ban them permanently. Therefore I shall promptly vote no.

Mordecai, you cut me in line; I was referring to the user with the degrading handle.

Richard Halley - right again.. "A contradictory statement is ..." - to what is it contradictory? To itself or its own identity; to another statement; or to reality?

Why do you allow yourself that degrading handle (username)?

One of the few times I've seen the corporations name or acronym spelled only with alphanumeric characters.

Breach of contract is a kind of fraud (which my post covered). The value traded in insider trading is not the difference in knowledge; that is only the context of the actual trade. Although I was not explicitly clear in this, my question did not consider the context of a prevalence in trading fraudulently-gained information.

The concept insider trading as opposed to outsider trading is invalid. There is no such thing as outsider trading; there are only degrees of how close to the inside one is. [1] All mutually voluntary trade between two individuals is moral. There is no reason to consider insider trading (where one party knows more than another) as immoral (unless one party defrauds the other - but that isn't limited to insider trading), since it is by nature voluntary, uncoerced. [2] The "economy", like "society", (gotta love scare quotes) is nothing more than the sum of the individual relationships among individuals. Both individuals party to insider trading benefit or they wouldn't have volunteered to trade. What would happen to the GDP? Well, people are now engaging in an additional form of trade: the GDP (as a placeholder for total personal wealth or something actaully meaningful) will increase. [3] One cannot call insider trading as such fraud; it is only fraud if one of the parties deceives the other. GreedyCapitalist: Want to buy my company? Mordecai: Only if it's not on the verge of bankruptcy. GreedyCapitalist: [lies] It's not. Mordecai: Ok, I'll sign. [4] I can't answer the fourth question, it's asking me to hypothesize what the universe would be like if gravity were repellent, not attractive. Whether I knew the answer or not, the answer would not make the slightest difference: gravity is and will always be attractive. If something that weren't the case were, what would be? To cripple the economic system means to initiate force against the individuals who engage in trade to force them not to trade - that is the moral basis to ban crippling the economic system. If people trusted each other less, perhaps they would trade less; but, how does the degree of difference of knowledge lead people to a difference in degree of trust?

Moral Positive No Abitrary speculation

A contradiction cannot exist - no need to say "in reality", as all things that exist exist in reality and all things that exist in reality exist.

LOL

And the socialist produces value - by leveraging oppression? Now you show yourself to be wanting an education in basic economics. Therefore I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, a brilliant writer. Read it after you get done with Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. Until then... Jow does human labor add value, but capital (specifically the labor of a machine at the same cost) not? And more importantly, how does the muscle create value but the mind not? Which concept is epistemologically based on the other and how: value, market? Why would anyone voluntarily agree to a trade in which he loses? or take any action whatsoever by which he loses? Why did you quote my entire post in yours?

The socialist rich get rich by pull - they manage to get government to strangle their competition and leave people with little choice but buy their expensive yet defective product or buy nothing. They use mindless brute force. The capitalist rich get rich by creating quality goods at low cost and leaving people with the choice to buy their quality products cheaply or buy some else's slightly poorer or slightly costlier product. They depend on the virtues of the producer and the values of the consumer. The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impoverish one's fellow. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to enrich one's fellow. The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impose the class system on others and banish their minds. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to banish the class system from this world and introduce reason to others.

I could have sworn the Marxists were supposed to be complaining that we were exporting the cushy jobs.... Natural resources have nearly zero effect on a country's wealth (or the wealth of its citizens).... Economics is not a zero-sum game but a very much positive-sum game, and each entity that voluntary engages in trade profits; no one can lose if it is freedom that has its way.... Investment capital tends to flow to where its return is highest - and that means to where it is most lacking and where it has the most to grow. Let us be honest, this time around. The difference between developed countries and the third world is increasing. And it can't be solved under socialism. Even despite our demands for governments there to let their citizens be, it does little to solve the misery of totalitarian oppression from increasing. What does a country need to be able to develop? First off, freedom as a moral principle enshrined in its constitution and enthroned in its philosophy. But this poses a problem, because authoritarian regimes sustained on fear cannot survive the introduction of rights as right into the minds of the citizens and so deprive them of consciousness; and in many places religion poses a yet more monstrous obstacle. Attila and the Witch Doctor. But if the people could find a way out of this dilemma, their revolution would create a paradise of opportunity, prosperity, and happiness; and an oasis of the new intellectualism we here sorely need. Individual traders and businesses from every corner of the world would flock to them: newly freed people have a great appetite for goods and services and every kind of luxury which they can buy with their newfound ability to create wealth. Who could hold them out? Only under capitalism could such countries develop; only under freedom can man's mind be free.

The stolen concept is not a kind of concept at all; it is the name of a mistake or fallacy in logic. It doesn't deal with abstraction/reduction per se, but rather with the hierarchy of knowledge. "The fallacy consists of the act of using a concept [in an argument, say] while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends" (N Branden, link). "An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept" [Ayn Rand, "Credibility and Polarization," The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1] (link). An anti-concept is one that is designed to refer to nothing. Independent of the above, a concept either refers to a specific entity or it does not; there is no middle. One can use a concept incorrectly, of course, but for the concept - to refer or not to refer, that is the question.

Yes! Correct about something - woohoo!

Justifying migration laws on the basis of the nanny state requires you to justify on the same basis complete government control of your life - of course the government knows better than you where you will be most productive, the best house for you, the best spouse for you, who should raise your children, the best time for you to die and not strain the social security system, the social security system as the best way to use your income, the best safety practices re crossing the street, how many stories buildings have, and on and on .... in short, everything. Cubans who want to flee Cuba know the risks and are perfectly aware that the benefits more than justify the risks. Why do you think living under tyrannical oppression is necessarily preferable to attempting a dangerous escape or rebellion, or even suicide - and how can you impose your heirarchy of values on another like that?

I think it's fine, semantically. All you has to do is keep in mind the difference between entity and concept. Identity and Causality are corrolaries: "An atom is itself"; the way that an atom acts depends on its nature; "A concept is itself"; the way a concept acts depends on its nature. Do concepts have any identity that they can contradict? There can be no contradictions among entities, among things that exist. There can be contradictions among concepts: that only means one or more of them is invalid and doesn't refer to anything. To assert contradictions among concepts is to confess that one or more of them refers to nothing - and that is to confess that the entities it refers to do not exist - and that is to confess that one has given up one's mind.

I admit, I haven't seen it, or the vast majority of AR's or Objectivist writings. (Where I am in my remote location I have little enough access to English books - or bookstores in general. In a few months I will be back in America though.) So ... how does she address my argument?

Yes, SFEcon is my basis for presuming the Vienna Problem is solved. How did you find them? Clue 1: A Google seach for ["Vienna Problem" economics] yields only four results, the first two of which are to SFEcon. (Although I'm not sure what specifically CF's clue 1 was.)

RadCap, You're right, of course. But ... Given that there are many public schools (ie government schools), and that government initiates force in demanding that everybody between certain ages attend, and that the evil is already there - it is not right that the principle forbids fighting in the halls and installs hall monitors, but it would be even more wrong if he did not.

The answer to the question is it is wrong, if it is not in response to the initiation of force.

Daniel, "Handguns are too dangerous to let people have them unlicenced and unmonitored - and ideally at all." Is that not the justification for regulating or banning handguns? And is that not essentially the justification offered here for regulating wmd? The issue is not contextual, at least in the sense you mean. Having a handgun in one's pocket, or strapping an M16 to one's back, is by no means aggression or its intent, whether then or now, in school or in public. Pointing it at people, on the other hand, is. Having an ability does not constitute a threat to use it; otherwise we would be killing of every computer expert we can find lest they hack into banking systems and steal money. Threatening to use constitutes a threat to use it. The moment one violates another's rights, one loses all claim to one's own (though society may restore it to some degree). Mass-murder by negligence follows this standard. Normally, we punish murder by negligence not with torturous death but with some time behind bars. Though there is no reason murderers by negligence deserve, by absolute justice, such treatment, there is no reason we must punish them at all except to serve as a deterrent to keep others less negligent. The harsher the penalty awaiting a person, the less likely he is to commit a crime inviting that penalty. Make the penalty for mass murder by negligence torturous death, and it is quite a deterrence. Geezer, Ultimately, it is up to the people to keep and guard their own freedom. If government cannot guarantee to do it, then let the people take up arms and do it themselves.

Dan, That's exactly the same justification for banning all manner weapons - now "assault rifles", tomorrow handguns, the day after even scissors in third grade will be too dangerous to be acceptible in society. Meanwhile, a hundred years ago, kids brought their shotguns to school (football hadn't yet replaced hunting as the popular after-school activity). We can also guarantee that government will summarily execute in a particularly painful manner anybody who commits mass murder, whether intentionally or by accident - and no guarantee against vigilante justice, and confiscate any wealth he may have and donate it to the vigilante who comes up with the most torturous method of execution. "Any seriously hazardous object", "Documented and verifiable safety measures" - subjectivist (what is the line for hazardousness? documented and verifiable according to what standard?), and would tend to promote shoddy documentation and cheap measures, like all government regulation does.