Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GoodOrigamiMan

  1. Our website is finally ready to be introduced! There are still many improvements to be made on its appearance, but it's fully functional. DrexelObjectivists Any comments are welcome including problems and suggestions! Also, there is a link on the blog that goes to this page: DrexelObjectivists This was the older version of the site without the frameset. I prefer the frameset, so this version of the site will probably be removed... The banner was nice, but it was too big to put on top of another webpage (which is what the frame does). To play fair, it will not look good loaded thru the blog in the frameset - it is best to hold down [shift] so that it opens in its own page.
  2. You can use the same method with any repeating decimal – but you will end up with the fractions that represent them (1/9 for .111111, 2/9 for .222222, etcetera - see below). But just like .99999 these repeating decimals do not equal the fractions or in your case 1. This is because as Rational One said, they are limits, so a repeating decimal is always approaching it’s limit (the fraction or 1) but technically it will never get there. What is happening in the subtraction is you are erasing the indefinite series by subtracting a lower power from a higher one; you are then left with the result and the factor of the power (9). So the answer becomes a fraction – representing the limit (becuase in the process you erased the reapeating) of the repeating decimal. X=.33333333333 repeating 10X = 3.3333333333 repeating 10X - X = 3X 9X = 3 X = 3/9 Therefore .33333333333 repeating = 3/9
  3. I got in some major arguments over this movie with my family, they loved it, I thought it was unbearable to watch. My evaluation was that it was a movie about a guy who: Has no choice where to eat - McDonalds Has no choice when to eat - Breakfast, lunch and dinner, every day Has no choice what to order - I forget the reason why he couldn’t stick to the McSalads... guess there would be no reason for a documentary Has no choice how much to order – one of the rules was he couldn’t decline the supersize question Has no choice how much to eat – had to finish everything every meal For the people who found the movie hilarious, it is all of those *choices* that they are stepping on (demeaning their metaphysical importance). Considering how important choices (free will) are to me – I couldn’t stomach Supersize Me anymore than its protagonist could stomach force feeding himself (both events were easily predictable ). I don’t even think he had a choice to stop the diet... his nutritionist made him! (too bad)
  4. Grammatically it would seem fine to say “the new house is the same as the old one” but it would not be ok to say “the new house is the same house”. In this context the standard for judging the house’s sameness is, (as taken from the definition) whether and entity remains one without addition, change, or discontinuance. This is what we mean when we say “it is the same” – it means that it is what it was and it hasn’t changed in the mean time. However if we are talking about two separate entities, then “same” becomes a way of comparing their attributes, or you can say “same as” which seems to specify such a comparison without the context. I wouldn’t worry about the issue too much, all that is needed is a objective standard – then it is a simple yes or no answer. The root of the house problem I’d say is being unclear about grammar... it isn’t a problem until we start thinking about it.
  5. While I don’t have time to properly respond... I found this useful: And another collective noun: “existence” (as used in existence exists). One question that will come up is - what is the difference between “existence”, as a collective noun, and “universe”? And another question: Is there rule for which concepts may be used as collective nouns, or can they all be used as such?
  6. You can get to by googling Atlas Shrugged "Chicago Tribune"; for me it was the first link.
  7. Joshua, the group of guards imprisoning John Galt where chosen, (I am paraphrasing here) “for their ability to follow orders no matter what, without asking questions”... that is the mentality that made the holocaust possible. The guard in Atlas Shrugged was the moral equivalent of a Nazi in the holocaust. Considering that you condemned Dangy for killing the guard, and in the same paragraph condemned the Nazis, you are a hypocrite. And if you believe, “we should do unto the Nazis as we would have them do unto us” – well then you are insane. oaktree, as for why not shoot the guard from behind a bush. I interpreted as a testament to her not being a cold-blooded killer. She gave the guard the choice.
  8. If human life is the standard - evil people are those that destroy it - either directly by initiating force, or indirectly by advocating (implicitly or explicitly) the initiation of force.
  9. Am I correct that easements only apply to access – or so to say: ‘right of way’? An easement is applicable to any right of way scenario – like satellite orbits and radio waves – is it not the same principle involved? Now the company couldn’t have an easement to the lease local condos or buy food from local restaurants and supermarkets – which presumably eco-terrorists could buy as well, then refuse service (this would take exponentially more money and be more insane then the first scenarios – maybe about as possible as me jumping over the ten foot wall Capitalism Forever built around my house, or him dogging a bullet matrix style… his wall, my bullet ). So while a store and road are both private services the difference is that the right of way on the road belongs fundamentally to the travelers who make use of it to access there land, and this is in fact what gives a road -qua road- it’s value. I still find easements a little superfluous because I still don’t know where the line is drawn. Do you have an easement to access the road? To drive on the street? To take the highway? Take this example, if I accessed my land via route A and built a house and claimed the land as my property while I didn’t explicitly claim the whole strip of dirt road back to town thru the only gap in the mountains I have an easement on it, no one can block my access to my land. Now more and more people like my location so I sell of some of my land and the new owners inherit the same easement any land beyond mine either go around my land, get permission to go thru mine (granting an easement – which I guess becomes lasting whether I like it or not). Someone paves the road and starts charging tolls*. Then we get so many people that a high speed tunnel is built that is much more direct and the owner charges a toll – this is now route B. Then there is and earthquake and route A becomes unusable. Do the people of the town now have a right to use route B? I don’t think so. This would be the same principle for an airline, buss company, or any ‘secondary’ means of access – created before use, for profit, and owned exclusively. *On the matter of tolls what would be the relationship between the right to access the road and the toll on the road? Would property owners not need to pay tolls for the street in front of their house if they didn’t want to?
  10. A brick wall is blocking me if I want to reach the other side – regardless of whether or not I have the right. Blocking qua blocking isn’t illegal – I think you would concede that I could legally block you from entering my house.
  11. I considered that but dismissed it because “blocking” could either be active or passive. Meaning I could build a big wall around your property, or I could have a big wall and sell you the property in the middle without an easement. I still hold fast that the latter case is not a rights violation.
  12. Betsy, I agree with what you are saying – I’m just trying to figure out if I was more wrong or not right. So in regards to what Bryan said at the begging of this thread, The answer to this depends* on whether, A: there was a easement or contract. Or in absence of either, B: whether or not the property doing to blocking was previously used for travel. ? If someone used a road to access his land and then that road was made unavailable or blocked – that would be violation of this rights via a non-contractual but inherent easement. This would also be the case for the land in-between the road and the house, albeit private property the rights remain to the original owner (the person or people who used it productively) and new owners could not come in then deny passage. Fair enough, and you can put it in writing just to be sure, makes sense. Now if you buy a house that was accessed by a road you retain the same easement since it is attached to the property. And once again, having it in writing is a good thing. My last question, unless you spark another one, is: Can you think of any circumstance where a person could block another man’s property, or access to, without violating his rights? *I'm assuming there is a 'yes' answer to my last questoin.
  13. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend - at least not if he wasn't before. If someone does the right things for the wrong reasons, it doesn’t make them moral. Fundamentally there is not difference between the libertarians and the other enemies of reason.
  14. Sorry, I wasn’t responding in the context of having an easement present – just noting that if there was a situation of ‘trespass or die’ – I would trespass, then do my best to make up for it. These easements sound to me like contractual agreements – which would makes sense if you are exchanging a service with lets say a road or power company. However are you making a distinction between a right to access your property and a contract that promises access to the road and sidewalk? It seems an easement would guarantee you the right of way, but if you did not have one would you say that it is inherent in owning any house next to a street? If is it a contract that was originally made with the house and road owner that is passed down, then isn't that all it is? If so then I don’t see how it conflicts with my original position.
  15. This is what I don’t understand though... Now if you have a right to do something – it means in effect that you do not need under any circumstance to ask for any type of permission. Now I am not saying, as some people have misinterpreted me, that I should shrivel up and die if I was trapped by private property – but if I did have to trespass I would recognize my action as trespassing regardless of whether or not my life was in danger.. I would see myself in the wrong – more or less so depending on my actions that led to that situation – and would seek to compensate whoever’s rights I violated. Now in a capitalist society pretty much anyone who owns land is going to be surrounded by private property. So where does your right to go thru someone else’s land stop? Is it your right to go thru one person’s private land to say hi to your friend on his private land? I mean the stores are private property, the roads are private property, and this presents no problem because they like good capitalists want your business. But my objection goes like this... lets say you gain property rights to land by accessing it, then you retain the right access it, so you are retaining the right to get to the road, to take the road to the airport, to take the plane to Los Angeles, take the gold line to Pasadena, and then to walk on the sidewalk to your bungalow home? I’m just noting – where does your right to access your land stop? A special “right to access” would seem to need go no farther than once the realm of the irrational liberals who are trying to trap you – all you need is to get to one privately run express way and the rest of the world is in your reach. Anyways, clarification would be appreciated.
  16. Welcome Demetrius I’m studying Chemical Engineering at Drexel University and loving it. Although it’s a long way ahead of me I’ve read Susan Crawford’s pamphlet on parenting and would recommend it. Alex
  17. I could "grr" at you if you'd like... But in all seriousness, I have become dissatisfied on my thinking so I’m going to take a break. I am still sure of my first couple posts but I lost it in the last couple... I’ll be back.
  18. I Didn’t mean to give you the wrong impression, I need subtitles at this point too. To avoid hijacking this thread I have another two movie suggestions in the anime relm: Pre-First - the last two episodes of Cowboy Bebop (they don’t count as a movie) (also better in Eng.) First – Akira …now this is a movie I don’t understand (never read the manga) but I absolutely love it! Second – Ghost in the Shell …they messed up some of the philosophical issues around artificial intelligence, and so have I already in this sentence.
  19. Princess Mononoke saying, “I’m a wolf you hear?!” is about the equivalent of me saying “I’m Asian you hear?!” ; we both are in sprit. I think Princess Mononoke has a good plot, and Ashitaka is in a lot of ways similar to Gihero. For me Princess Mononoke does have the edge – quite literally. It has sword play, archery, guns, lepers, brothel girls and giant wolves! They are both great movies though. As a curiosity, do you prefer the English or Japanese dialogue? There is not much anime I prefer to watch in English but these two movies are among the few.
  20. Well it looks like I have trapped myself… go figure. All in all I think these hypothetical situations about trapping people by surrounding them with private property, are ridiculous – and the consequences of accepting the argument as valid seems to be my current situation. There is no right to access your land thru anyone else’s land! Grr… I’m going to resort to grr intimidation now. Grrrrr!
  21. This brings one thing to mind… I don’t remember the exact exchange but there was a point in the debate where Dr. Bernstein made the point that Dr. Robertson was a socialist, Dr. Robertson’s reply was, “…well… I wouldn’t label anybody…” or something along those lines. Dr. Robertson was either afraid to wave the flag of Marxism openly or he actually thinks he is something new – more likely than not he thinks because he is afraid – regardless I don’t like him.
  22. I wrote this shortly after – just never did anything with it. Here it goes: On Friday I went to the debate ‘Capitalism: Is there a moral alternative?’ For everyone’s distaste I have copied Dr. Robertson’s “Top ten problems with Capitalism, and corresponding requirements for a moral economy:” I have to say what really amazed me though was the split between the Capitalists and the Socialists, I was sitting in the front but from what I could hear it was about 50/50... so much for USC. I felt bad for Dr. Bernstein because had this been a private conversation he should have just walked away, there was really no point arguing with that socialist weasel. Anyways, on to the list: 1. Capitalism induces dysfunctional competition among human beings. A moral economic system would encourage and reward the kinds of collaborative endeavors needed to assure the peaceful, healthy development of society. 2. Capitalism is undemocratic. A moral economic system would be under the control of the people, society at large, rather than under the control of only the rich and powerful. 3. Capitalism is inherently unjust. A moral economic system would be designed to promote greater equality among all of the world’s people, and thereby improve the conditions for an possibility of a long-term, peaceful coexistence. 4. Capitalism is driven by the capital markets at the expense of the real economy. A moral economic system would focus first and foremost on the requirements of the real economy, rather than letting human well-being be determined by the speculative dynamics of the capital markets. 5. Capitalism places no value on the future. A moral economic system would value the future and thus insure that current economic activities don’t prevent future generations from being able to meet their needs as well. 6. Capitalism is a very wasteful and inefficient system. A moral economic system would be oriented towards minimizing the amount of waist produced through processes of production and consumption. 7. Capitalism creates a materialistic, consumption-based society. A moral economic system would take into account the fact that continuous consumption is not a necessary or sufficient condition for human happiness. 8. Capitalism abuses the natural environment. A moral economic system would promote a healthy and thriving natural environment as a necessary precondition to the survival of the human race. 9. Capitalism values money over people. A moral economic system would put people before profits. 10. Capitalism is based on an old, outdated, obsolete philosophy. A moral economic system would be designed to reflect the contemporary conditions of our postmodern, post-industrial society. /// Back to present If anything else strikes my mind I’ll post it... but for the most part this was the argument against capitalism that was presented point by point and in fact quite rudely past the designated time limit of the debate. There were plenty of people who went right along with this viewpoint and took plenty offence to Dr. Bernstein because sure enough controversial issues came up about Iraq and some people took it quite personally. One of my favorite moments was, after the rules for asking questions had been laid out, including “questions only, not lectures” and this one cubby social planner gets up and starts lecturing about how what he does is good for communities (Dr. Bernstein made a point about how social planning creates slums) so anyways this guy was a crybaby and kept talking after politely being asked by the moderators to ask a question or step down – so the point came when he said “Hey! I have a right to...” then simultaneously every smart person in the room said, “no, you don’t!” Anyways, interesting it was. Sorry I didn’t see you Dagny. I always get carried away with things anyway (observe appallingly excessive use of smiles in previous post ), it was a little unrealistic to think that a whole group of people from the forum would show up and hang out, but my imagination gets carried away some times. Still for the most part you people are cool.
  • Create New...