Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

neuromancer

Regulars
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified

neuromancer's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Not necessarily. As I pointed out earlier only through total de-regulation, and allowing market forces decide, can we find out for sure.
  2. If an "unfettered human mind" can deal with the potentialy irreversable effects of global warming, does it not stand to reason that that same mind could devise ways to prevent, or reduce, those effects before they happen, with out reducing our standard of living? The burning of fossil fuels is not the only potential means of producing electricity. It's just the method that is most engrained.
  3. I agree that one cannot definitively argue if so-called "global warming" is caused by human activity. However, the cloud of smog that engulfs the city of Los Angeles is clearly the result of human activity. This shows that we are polluting the air to the point of negative consequences. Given that, wouldn't it make sense to assume that we are the culprit of "global warming" and act accordingly, rather than do nothing and realize, when it is too late, that we could have prevented or reduced it. The solution to increasing "environmentaly friendly" practices is not more regulation, however, but, as is often the case, de-regulation. If one were inclined to offer "green electricity" using wind power (I understand the difficulties and limitations to current wind technology, this is just for illustration), one would be competing with the state sponsored, coal burning, monopolies currently providing electricity. Because a state sponsored monopoly exists, further competition is excluded. Whether or not my hypothetical company would be viable is debatable. However, only through pure market forces would we be able to say for sure. We may never know.... There is one example, that I can think of off the top of my head, of a so-called "green friendly" company that is having success in the market. Honda has built its reputation from day one as being "environmentaly friendly." Where major U.S. manufaturers laughed at Honda and Toyota in the past, the American firms are now playing catch-up. Honda is always innovating to provide "greener" products, and is doing quite well as a firm. They have always been providing cars that would exceed the standards of the most stringent U.S. emmisions controls.
  4. Yeah, if someone is accepting British Pounds in New York for an Armani suit, no one cares. They had the guy who owns all of the restaurants on Fox this morning and he was very good. I think he made a fool of the two hosts. I'm not sure if they are upset that he is "encouraging illegal immigrants" or if it's because he is, I'm assuming, a foreigner running a successful business.....Most likely just a combination of both. The thing that upsets me is that if this can make it to prime time news, next thing one knows, laws are being passed outlawing money altogether.
  5. Has everyone heard about the Pizza Chain in Texas that is accepting Pesos as payment? I think I've only heard about it on the Fox News channel. Kinda weird that they are making such a big deal of it......well i guess not, its Fox.
  6. You do sell you "life" when you get up and go to work or do any kind or work for an employer in exchange for something else.
  7. I conceed that I confused the quote from the book. Francisco is never directly asked about sports. And he asks "what for" "about any activity proposed to him." I apologize for not doing my homework before responding.
  8. Remember what Franciso's reaction to sports was? He asks: Whats the point?
  9. If one were too look at this situation from a purely capitalist point of view, then the players are wrong. The employer, the NBA, clearly does not want its employees assaulting the fans, the customers, because it would result in a loss of ticket sales. If the NBA announces that players are not allowed to touch, assault or approach a fan then the player has two choices: comply or quit. None of the "I was assaulted so I have the right to fight back" arguments have any bearing in this situation. The only way this would be a factor is if the player assaulted the fan and was then fired or quit, in accordance to the agreement. Remember, under capitalism there is an agreemnet between the employer and the employee, if one or the other doesn't like the agreement, they can always part ways. So yes the Artest was lucky in this situation because he was onlt suspended. If one now looks at this situation from an Objectivist Pont of View, then the whole sports industry should be condemned. Sports are just another outlet for the "bread and circus" crowd that dominates our culture. Although I will conceed that this is an unavoidable fact of the human race, it should be up to people like us in this forum to understand the fact. The NBA id the Daily Banner, The owners are Gail Wynands, and the players and anyone else involved is an assortment of Toohey's clique.
  10. LoL They are lucky that the arenas are filled with so many people that have nothing better to do than watch a bunch of dummies run around. It makes me sick that so many peoples lives revolve around sports. It just goes to show where this country is headed. It is relevant to the issue of the fight because the players are entertainers who have to deal with fans on a nightly basis. They should demonstrate self control in situations like that.
  11. basketball players are entertainers playing a sport that has no point or value in the first place. They should consider themselves lucky that they are where they are making money for what they do. That "player" beat up a customer. For making the kind of money for what they do, they should have to let all of the fans sucker punch them on the way out of the arena.
  12. I don't know the answers to all of your questions, but I think I can help with the last one. A police officer is not schooled to understand the laws he enforces the same way a judge or magistrate is. Officers must first gather and present evidence before a judge requesting a warrant. The judge then makes a decision as to whether or not there is enough evidence to support the issuing of a search warrant.
×
×
  • Create New...