Capitalism Forever

Y, we need to distinguish between "nothing" and "nothing material." In other words: "empty space" != "nothing" Empty space does have at least one attribute: to wit, it is empty.

A portion of space (such as the space between two material entities) has dimension attributes, such as length or width; these attributes have finite values. The totality of space does not have dimension attributes.

What I am saying is a bit more than just that. I am saying that we should be intolerant towards communists; that we should ban them for what they believe.

My pleasure.

Freedom for communists to disrupt the forum by filling it with their propaganda is definitely NOT integral to an Objectivist forum. It is precisely the banning of disruptors that is integral to an Objectivist forum that is to be kept Objectivist. Rational self-interest doesn't mix with blanket tolerance.

Thanks!

(emphasis mine) If someone refuses to overthrow a government that tyrannizes him (i.e. he has an opportunity to do so, but he chooses to keep his tyrant instead) that definitely makes him evil. However, all that the simple fact of being tyrannized makes you is a victim. If an armed robber threatens to kill unless you give him your wallet, the fact that you comply does not mean that you don't respect your own rights and therefore forfeit them; IOW it does not even imply passive support for the robber. Besides, the justification for risking civilian casualties is NOT that the civilians have forfeited their rights. It is that the moral responsibility for any deaths in war lies with the initiator of force.

Love and hate are results of your value-judgments. If your value-judgments are rational, you will evaluate bad things negatively, and you will hate them. Thus, hatred is an inevitable consequence of applying rational evaluation (which it is proper to do) to the evil (which, like it or not, does exist). Of course, a rational person will do his best to gain and keep what he loves, and avoid that which he hates. Thus, he will spend as much of his time as possible enjoying the good things in his life, and will not waste any more time than necessary on thinking about what he hates. (Leftist "anti-hatred" types, on the other hand, devote all their time to their hatred of "haters" !)

This is absolutely wonderful! Hope I can make it.

I took a glance at it and it sounds like one of those Babelfish translations of a German article...

They are wolves in a sheep's clothing (albeit a rather transparent one, for anyone who understands Objectivism).

Don't forget that the government has NO BUSINESS knowing how much money you make. (Besides, it has no business operating roads and deciding on speeding fines, either.) Why do you think so? In Germany, there is no speed limit on the Autobahns, and there aren't more accidents there than elsewhere; acutally, the roads are said to be even a bit safer. Obviously, having the freedom to choose their speed makes motorists think more about how fast they should be driving in order to still be safe.

1. By accepting the truth--namely that, when it's over, it's over. 2. By trying to make the most of my life; by living well and living long. This is the only rational approach. You can practice wishful thinking and delude yourself into believing some unsubstantiated assertions about how you'll be rewarded with an afterlife in Heaven if you do this / don't do that--but that's not the way to go for a man who is interested in real life. Letting a religion shape your actions will make your life on Earth incomplete--and what do you get in exchange? An unsubstantiated assurance of an afterlife.

So how do you explain your consciousness?

Why would a neuron's identity have to be "negated" to allow volition?

Ah, I see. So what's the URL of the North Korean government's webpage? Do I need to speak Korean in order to read it, or can they afford an English translator?

This thread is a good example of what happens when commies are allowed to post here. We get the same old bromides about exploitation and sweat shops etc. thrown at us again and again, ad nauseam. We address and refute their points, but they don't listen. They just go on talking about greed, the impoverished, the minimum wage, and the rest of it, for ever and ever. Face it, folks: These people won't think. They act like talking automatons on Energizer batteries. They produce output but accept no input. They are not here to study Objectivism; they are here to disrupt our forum. They are not motivated by a desire to live; they are motivated by a wish to make life miserable. They have no value to offer us and they don't believe in trading value for value in the first place. They are the kind of person who would volunteer to serve Saddam as a "human shield." They are the ilk that will take to the streets waving hammer-and-sickle flags and puke for peace. They are the brothers-in-soul of the Nazi officers who found pleasure in torturing and murdering innocent Jews. They are the kindred spirits of the Dark-Age figures who declared women witches and had them burned alive. They are the kind who would have the word "I" disappear from our language and tear out the tongue of and incinerate anyone who dared to mention it. What are we doing talking to them?

I think you still don't understand our concept of "ether." When we say "ether," we do not refer something that science has to "find." We do not refer to a material object. Our concept of ether simply means "all space in the Universe put together." You agree that there is space in the Universe, don't you? You agree that one can form a collective concept that subsumes all the space there is? Voila, there you have ether. There is nothing wrong with simply naming something that you know exists. What is wrong is to ascribe attributes to the thing arbitrarily or from another meaning of the name given. Thus: "There is space in the Universe. Let's call all the space in the Universe 'ether.'" -> OK "Ether is filled with purple-haired unicorns because I say so." -> WRONG "The ancients thought ether was a rarefied element. We call 'all the space in the Universe' 'ether.' Therefore, all the space int he Universe is filled with a rarefied element." -> WRONG

Once we have identified its existence, it isn't arbitrary. Ether does have at least one attribute: namely, it is the thing that material objects move through. That is how we have identified its existence. Ether does affect us: it allows us to move through it. Here, you are effectively saying that a concept is valid if and only if there at least two instances of it. Now this is an arbitrary assertion. There is only one Universe--does that mean that "universe" is an invalid concept? There is only one reality--does this make "reality" an invalid concept? (Note that the word "ether" has multiple meanings. One of them is "a rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space." This is clearly not the sense in which RadCap used it; he used in the sense of "that which we move through"--IOW it's a synonym of "space.")

Maybe, but so was Vernunft's taking insult at the negative judgment. I mean, if a person comes to an Objectivist forum claiming to be a Kantian, he shouldn't be surprised if he is poked fun at.

A person who is honestly interested in Objectivism will first read as much material as is necessary to reach at least a basic understanding of the philosophy, and then sign up and ask questions about anything that remains unclear. His tone will be polite and respectful, and he will inquire about Objectivism's answer to his question rather than simply assert some (false, arbitrary, or unintelligible) "conclusions" he has reached. It isn't hard to tell a troll from an honest student if you try, and I would prefer to keep this board one where a small (but growing) number of serious students of Objectivism exchange rational ideas, rather than let it become an empty debating society where every non-objectivist gets to post his favorite excuse for not living qua man.

LOL Sorry for laughing, but you make so little sense and you seem to take it so seriously it's actually funny. You're new to this forum all right.

Forcing people to pay taxes in the name of "public health" is in conflict with Objectivism.

If you put a strong fence all around your property that will assuredly prevent inadvertent entry, AND you keep all doors constantly locked, then booby traps are OK. Anyone who ends up on your property despite all these measures is definitely an ill-willed trespasser. However, if you only label your property, without securing its perimeter, then you leave open the possibility that children or people who cannot read English--or ones who simply don't happen to see your signs--might unwittingly stray onto your land and be killed, and that is an initiation of force.

Exactly. If someone is trying to rob your store, you have a right to shoot him in order to prevent the crime. However, if the aggressor is lucky enough to get away without being killed, and to live in a society where thieves are sentenced to less than death, his rights will be restored and he will get another chance. My life would not exist without water molecules. Does that mean water molecules should have rights? Clearly, a contribution to one's life is not the basis for rights. (Looking at it the other way: John doe has done nothing to contribute to my life--but that does not mean I can rightfully kill him.)