Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Element

Regulars
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Element

  1. You really think they are fascist? I don't think people know how crazy Mussolini's and Hitlers system was. Hong Kong and Singapore rate really high in the economic freedom index. I would call them "Right Wing Nationalists", (As in right wing economically). I would never associate them with those insane Europeans though. Even if they started out as fascists or socialists, its clear that they actually wanted their nation to be great (its weird when they mean it) and they embraced capitalism.
  2. Even with rights, democracy still suffers from other problems like the Rational Ignorance problem, or the Technocratic problem. Republics are not exempt from this. Rational Ignorance - My vote is worth one vote, and every time their are more votes my vote is worth less. since my vote is worth less, then my incentive to spend it well goes down. (That is, it is easier for people to spend one dollar frivolously than 1 million). Technocracy - We need technocrats. People who know what they are doing when they do their job. How is it I, someone who knows nothing about the military, can decid
  3. I think the nationalists and communists get along in their country politicall, seeeing themselves as common leftists but with different goals (internationalism vs pan-slavism). Pan-slavism has been the goal of Russian leaders for about 400 years, consider that Stalin and the soviet union was actually the first state to accomplish this goal. A united Slavic people, protected from the predations of the Arabs, Greeks, Austrians, and Germans. If I were a nationalist, I would admire Stalin also.
  4. Don't put words in my mouth, I never presented such a dichotomy; the original post did imply bad things out of ignorance. That being the worst end of the dichotomy that you presented, you must already know that I am in the right to be just a little weary of that sort of thing. All I said was that I suspected him of being a troll to show him that he was way off, and being offensive. Which he was.
  5. Okay, was there a single assertion in there that you have backed up with either appeals to common sense and knowledge, or actual reasoning and evidence? 1) There is no reason to care what Ayn Rand would endorse. 2) Throwing words like "Anarchist", "Subjectivist, and "libertarian" doesn't scare anyone. 3) As others have pointed out you are just appealing to orthodoxy and authority. Not a bad authority to appeal to, but none the less, on this issue she is wrong. 4) Objectivism is supposed to be an integrated whole. I don't see how accepting homosexuality as a viable life style is
  6. So you go on forums and imply bad things about communities/ideas you clearly know nothing about?
  7. Yeah, as indicated by the numbering, that should be the last step.
  8. An elite group probably has a better set of incentives to keep a low taxed, slightly regulated economy (a pretty good thing in comparison today). So the rulers of Hong Kong pretty much do that there, capitalism is exploitable, there for they keep their cow fat and happy, they get to keep milking it. Sadly this only applies enlightened people though. Inevitably a dumbass gets in power and the decay sets in. The cow gets abused, and dies. Democracy just doesn't seem to work. There isn't any incentive for presidents to maintains a tax base longer than eight years (let the economic crash hap
  9. This bizarre of a misunderstanding is way beyond the normal misunderstandings that are annoying. (Objectivism is Naive Realism, Objectivism is Misanthropy, Objectivism is AnCap, Objectivism supports the status quo, etc). Objectisivst are crypto-christians? What? When talking about any subject that you want to talk about in a forum, try reading these things first. 1. Wikipedia 2. Publications by supporters of the philosophy, especially FAQs, but youtube videos, journal articles, blogs and such are good also. 3. Specialized encyclopedias are helpful (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso
  10. You really need to figure out what an Objectivist is before you start making claims about the group. I suspect you are a troll. Someone who likes the book Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead is not an Objectivist. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservatives who like her work are not Objectivists. An Objectivist is basically someone who believes in the Fundamentals of Ayn Rand's philosophy in the five branches of philosophy. A Christian who appreciates the work of Ayn Rand is not an Objectivists. Someone who supports anti-statism is not an Objectivist. Someone who disagrees with Ayn
  11. Your arguments are good, but if he hasn't tried to get away from this life yet, he won't. He will have to get kicked out of his house and divorced before he changes, then you can explain to him what went wrong, to help him make sense of the pain. I am sorry, but arguments only change the minds of people who want to be convinced or who are dedicated to being right.
  12. The progressive era philosophy isn't really what he is remembered for from I have been told. You can read hundreds of people from the 1900-1950s saying things like that aloud, in writing. The Dewey of today, the one they want us to know about just wanted kids to learn through experience (or something nice like that), something that on its face isn't completely absurd. Just like the progressive era was all supposed to be about workers safety and women's suffrage, which on its face isn't completely absurd.
  13. I would tell them they could be wealthier and happier without a slave-based economy. A slave based system is made up of two classed that don't want to work. The masters obviously don't want to work, and the slaves usually don't want to work because they aren't gaining from their labor. So what do you think happens to productivity in that country?
  14. Whats the "reason" it is wrong other than the symptoms it causes? I have lots of germs, they aren't bad unless they make me sick (or if they do make me sick later). An action against the western world will restrict the freedom of westerners. The main reason this is the case is because we all happen to make use of the same institutions (banks, military). So we are tied together in this way. People in the same city can share suffering also by virtue of sharing the same area. If a flood or a hail storm hurts people, they will all suffer. This doesn't indicate a metaphysical unity of
  15. It is obvious to me that it is evil TO ME. I never got detached (inferred that you meant me), in fact I was trying to offer a decent explanation why a life style based on force would be bad. Risk isn't a reason not to do something btw. Otherwise we could many occupations and lifestyles immoral. Don't be a soldier, you could get killed!
  16. Why is negating freedom a bad thing for me if it is not my freedom? Why is the negation of someone's thoughts bad, when they are not mine? You can't just call one's freedom another persons freedom. You might as well join Land Buddhists and call my suffering part of all of our suffering. Its is absurd. A value only exists in relation to a valuer. Its obvious that someone initiating force against me is evil. It is not obvious that the initiator actually suffers any dis-benefit from this, that it is evil for him to do so to others. Consider that history appears to be riddled with men
  17. The thomas jefferson argument. Right. 1) Learning is ultimately done by the individual. Educators can only facilitate and aid this process in students. At worse they can impede this (which is what I expect is done by our current system). Given this it is up to a mixture of life circumstances and individual choice as to whether or he or she learns. One can not guarantee the the electorate will be "educated" for this reason. 2) Mises demonstrated the calculation problem, central planning doesn't work. So you can't guarantee the populace will be educated. 3)A state school has
  18. Using force can be harmful to you because of the fact that the more you behave like a thug, the more your life will become like the life of a thug's. A demonstration of why this is undesirable would be The Godfather trilogy. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" is the Christian simplification of this, and it is basically true as far as I know. There are a whole bunch of degrees to this though, there are a lot of live styles dependent on using force for a living. I think there are dangers to being a police officer (mental and physical), but it isn't inherently irrational. B
  19. What I know about ancient china is its philisophical texts. These texts were produced in the "warring states period", or the "period of a thousand schools". It has been compared to renissance Italy, which had many city states that patronized intellectuals and artists for various reasons. However the Warring States period was a time of extreme chaos, and it was followed by one of the worst dynasties to take power in that time period. That dynasty was driven by legalist principles and attempted to bend all humans to the will of the state through totalitarian measures, in the end they inte
  20. I think there are two issues, one is revolution and the other is the issue of how to maintain a good government (which collective decision making tools are the best). The revolution idea has been dealt with. So for achieving a society with rights protection we have three decision making tools. Monarchy or Oligarchy - We have an organization that is above everyone who acts as the executor and creator of law. Since they collect revenue or profits from doing their job, the organization has a long term incentive to maintain their countries. Monarchy has numerous problems.
  21. I do it occasionaly. Like once a month, and only when I don't have anything else going on. The physical sensation is akin (to me) to that feeling you get when you just woke up from like the best sleep ever where you just want to lay around in bed.
  22. Considering intentionality doesn't reduce to primacy of consciousness because intentionality is considered in court cases all the time. Simply we are determining what exactly was lost when this woman the fetus died. If the woman intended to bring this fetus into the world, then a human was lost, if there never was such an intention then nothing was lost other than the mother. However loosing a potential human shouldn't be considered the same thing as loosing an actual human. For instance, if a fetus was lost in a car accident, but everyone else was alive and was going to recover, woul
  23. Is there any actual proof that he hates it or wants to doesn't want to replace it with anything? The guy just seems like another politician, I think he values reelection. I present his willingness to change from left to center randomly on various issues when it is politically convenient, such as on the issue of Libya and that pro-business speech he gave awhile back.
  24. The man is convinced that people are evil, including himself. Christianity doesn't make people good at being selfless, it just makes people bad at being selfish.
  25. Eh barely anyone understand Objectivism. Those people probably liked read the Fountain Head, liked it, read the wikipedia article on Objectivism. After that they read some article about how Ayn Rand was a fan of a serial killer and cheated on her husband. Then they abandon thinking about it at all.
×
×
  • Create New...