CoolBlueReason
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CoolBlueReason
-
-
2046 has mentioned the homestead principle which has given me a lot more to think about. I'm going to do a lot more reading before I comment again on this topic.
-
Evidently I have strayed from Georgism. In my previous post I was defending my own views and not those put forth by Geolibertarianism. You and volco have helped me come to a conclusion compatible with Objectivism; it helps to have people to talk to.
Edit: took out unnecessary reply quoting 2046.
-
If I am unable to own unworked resources, then I cannot be said to own them when I work them, and thus the worked goods logically cannot be owned either. The entire point is that: If I cannot own land, then I cannot own what comes from it when I work on it. I cannot even work it, as not only does it belong to "all of society" (that which is being worked upon) but also because I need land for standing room that belongs to "all of society." If observed, the entire human race would die out. This is world communism. No thanks, Henry George, I don't have a death wish.
As a rule, "each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor as their private property, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community." So once you add your work, you own that resource. Also, collectives do not have rights, and therefore a community cannot own anything. Nature is simply unowned, until you add work.
How would the free market be unhindered if a "government within a large region" (which?) has the monopoly on land? How is it different from monopoly on sugar production or software?
I wouldn't say there's a monopoly because no one owns it.
To shed more light on the position, here's a quote from Wikipedia: "if individuals claim land as their property they must pay rent to the government for doing so. Rent need not be paid for the mere use of land, but only for the right to exclude others from that land, and for the protection of one's title by government."
When you fence land you are improving it. If you don't pay for the fence's upkeep, it will be violated and rendered obsolete if not by man, by nature. I am no expert, but I believe that the Objectivist stand would be that if you settle or otherwise render productive, or add value, to a piece of unclaimed land you have the right to own it.
This makes sense. You can own land if you add value to it. I'll have to think more on this, but this seems more reasonable right now. For this area, would you pay a single tax for police protection from force?
-
If all land is owned by “all of society” in equal quotal shares, then no independent action is possible, where I require the use of the land if only as standing room. It's also not clear how this is economically laissez-faire because if no land, air, water, and raw natural resources can be originally appropriated by any individual, then the logical culmination of such a system is communism in all branches of production, as the production of anything requires not only the use of land for standing room, room for machines and tools to work, that is, basically room to exist and engage in production, but also all commodities and goods being produced themselves come from original appropriated land, air, water, and raw natural resources.
I apologize, I did not explain enough. If an individual uses work on natural resources, then he owns the product of that work. It is solely his and no one else has a right to it. It is only the unworked, metaphysically given Nature that would be unownable according to Geolibertarianism.
-
By the nature of the endeavor only the ablest most integrated individuals will do it and it will be theirs (or mine!) on their own right - to the extent that they can develop it or defend it.
So in an Objectivist system, correct me if I'm wrong, could someone put up a giant fence all around a previously unclaimed area and have the right to control whether anyone can come in or not? It doesn't seem just to allot land to the first person there to defend it. They own the fence, but do they necessarily own the land contained within?
The Geolibertarian stance fixes this by saying that the government within a large region has sole authority to allot land and has the right to charge a single tax for police protection. The free market is unhindered as people could build whatever they wanted and do whatever (not force) on the land without government regulation. If I were to adopt this stance, could I still call myself an Objectivist?
-
In response to 2046, please remember that this is a form of libertarianism and the individual has the right to do what he wants without initiation of force.
So my question really comes down to, how does one (if they can at all) claim (come to possess) natural resources (such as land or air) according to Objectivism? Because if one defends land that they don't own, they are actually initiating the force.
-
Here's the thought experiment that made me really consider this: Imagine a man (or woman) is building a railroad. Another man runs a mile ahead of the railroad and claims all the land in sight to be his. When the railroad executive tries to build the railroad, must s/he build around the claimed property? The reasonable answer is no, because land cannot be arbitrarily claimed just because you're the first there. If you answer yes, then I claim for myself all of Mars, and anyone who tries to build there is infringing on my property rights.
-
As far as I've looked into it, Geolibertarianism is compatible with the laissez-faire capitalist stance of Objectivism. Is this something worth looking into or does it seem unreasonable? It basically contends that we all have a right to the fruit of our labor, but "land, air, water and raw natural resources are not the fruits of labor," and the state has the right to tax you for your rent on the land.
-
Well the latest news on Penn is that he is still very interested in Objectivism, but hasn't exactly denounced his anarcho-capitalism views. He also thinks Rand is a whack-job, but I'll take what I can get. His latest vlogs are called PennPoint, and I really enjoy them.
-
Yes, except it would be online accessible to anyone interested. We shouldn't plagiarize OPAR, but take its structure, reword it, and improve upon it by adding more information where appropriate. That's pretty much what the rest of the site is like. You can take a whole Intro to Sociology class without buying a book.
-
Yeah, I know about the wiki, but the Wikibooks is different. It would be set-up in a text-book format so one could read from start to finish to learn everything they needed to know about Objectivism, almost like a class. The wiki could be useful for specific subjects, but not an online book like Wikibooks could be.
-
I've already set up the page on Wikibooks I don't know enough about Objectivism to write at length on it, but I know some of you will be interested. All we need to do is work on chapters, subsections, and most importantly content. It'll be similar to the Wikipedia page but it will go much more in depth and set to educate, rather than provide an overview.
-
So far, I have found at least four things to live for.
1. Pleasure - This is the most basic physical pleasure that you can get from your five senses. Some examples include sight: looking at a beautiful painting, hearing: listening to music, taste: eating desert, smell: smelling aromas, and touch: feeling stimulation or anything good. If I were to stop here at pleasure, as some do, that would be hedonism.
2. Knowledge - Discovering interesting and relevant truths about the universe is always satisfying and a great reason to live.
3. Achievement - There is reason to suffer a great deal of suffering for achievements. Someone climbing Mount Everest might suffer from the cold and exposure, but it's all worth it in the end.
4. Relationships - Having a deep, meaningful relationship with others is important, especially because humans are social creatures. Make sure, however, not to sacrifice your other 3 values for someone else.
Now, just fill in the specifics for each of the 4. If anyone has any general things to add to the list, I'd love to hear it.
-
Ah, nevermind. It's working now. I think I had to have at least 5 posts which I didn't before I posted that.
-
There are two different questions going on in this thread. One of them is whether or not we would want to extend our lifespan as long as scientifically possible. I think it is rational to do so, as long as our future is not filled with pain or boredom. However, the other question is whether or not we would like to live eternally. This is irrational because when the earth is consumed by the sun billions of years from now, the immortals would still be alive and suffering. They would float aimlessly alone in space for all eternity, incapable of death.
-
Whenever I try to vote, I always get "Action failed: You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day".
-
It's been a few months. Are there any updates to this?
-
I would like to go back to the original conversation and provide a summary. There were a few words suggested as alternatives, and I would like to rescue them. First of all, we cannot let 'selfish' fall into the pejorative. It leads to contradictions if it used like the way Merriam-Webster defines it. You cannot look out for your long-term interest if you behave without regard for others since humans are social creatures. Also, being narcissistic is a virtue. How can you lead a good life if you don't love yourself?
I think 'elitist' would be a good term to describe any one who is being irrationally selfish. To think that your needs are objectively more important is irrational and against the Objectivist theory of value. Taking all the shrimp at that party is elitist because the guy who took them obviously did not deserve or need them. Other good words include mooch, jerk, predatory, inconsiderate, any swear word, and parasite.
-
The page leads to a 404. Is it dead or just down? No one has said anything in 2 years.
-
I used to agree with Hume about goals being non-rational. However, I have been persuaded to believe that goals are either rational or irrational. A great example of this was Hotu Matua's post about schizophrenics. If your goal is to protect yourself from aliens, the goal would be irrational simply because it denies the truth. Inversely, if your goal is in accordance with reality, then it is rational. The ethical value of goals is another matter entirely.
Another point I'd like to make is to argue for the rationality of suicide in certain cases. Imagine you are a spy for the CIA and you've been captured. You are certain that you will be tortured for valuable information and fairly certain you will be shot and killed regardless. Unless you have a reason to believe you can escape or have rescue on the way, it would make sense to save yourself from unnecessary pain by taking your own life quickly and painlessly. Life itself, as in the state of being alive, is not valuable. It is merely a neutral container for experiences. If you reasonably expect your future to hold more positive (read: goal-worthy) experiences than negative (non-goal-worthy) ones, then it is rational to live and irrational to commit suicide. I hold the inverse to be true also.
Detroit Objectivists looking to hang?
in Detroit Metro
Posted
I'm down, but you have to make the plans.