[Reason alone as a guarantee for wealth?]

Every human being automatically strives for what makes him happiest, that's the nature of man, man's aim in life.

Happiness ought to be man's aim in life, but in many cases it isn't. (Not everyone strives for the actions that will result in happiness--they may say they do, but if they sit on the couch all day eating potato chips and scratching themselves, it's fair to say they aren't pursuing that which will make them happy.)

Surely there are instances you can think of where someone performs an action that will definitely not lead to their happiness.

The most important goal and the most important cause of all human automatic controls are emotions.

The most important cause of all automatic controls of humans are emotions? What does this mean? What are automatic controls?

I suggest you find a German translated version of "Objectivisim: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff.

There you will find that emotions are not means of cognition, nor means of guiding one's life. Why? B/c having an emotion towards something presupposes and understanding of how that certain something relates to your life. And how do you understand something? Through reason, NOT emotions.

I also do not wish to consider arguing with you further if we cannot stay on a specific topic: it's too hard jumping around. First we talked about reason's efficacy--which is a blatant form of concept stealing (you can't try to undermine reason w/o using reason). Then we jump to rights, altruism, and a watery-mesh of everything else.

So, to contine our aruging, please state explicitly and straighforwardly what your question is in regard to Objectivism.

[Reason alone as a guarantee for wealth?]

I don't know how objectivism defines morality. I would put it this way: Acting morally means acting according to ones values, i.e. acting in a way that whatever valuable is preserved, giving the highest value the highest priority. This makes morality something personal, because everybody has and discovers different values for himself in his pursuit of happiness.

It seems as though acting with integrity would be acting according to ones values--whereas acting morally would be doing what is right.

If you own a ship, take it out to the sea and find a tiny island within the territory of your society where somebody from your society is stranded, helpless, alone, about to die of starvation, he has been forced there, and if you don't help him immediately, he will die... What would you do? Probably save him. What if you don't? Can you still consider yourself moral then or not?

Do the benefits outweigh the risks? If so, then save him; if not, then don't save him.

But if I just consider my own life as my highest value and the lifes of all the others worthless, well, then things will be quite simple.

After reading THE FOUNTAINHEAD and THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS for the first time and at a decently young age, this was my first perception of Objectivism: Act as inconsiderate as possible and only care for yourself (in a non-contexual way)--if there are two apples on the table and you and one other person are in arm's reach of these apples, grab them both and horde them for yourself. If you hate traffic jams, buy a tank and solve the problem, don't "worry" about anyone else.

But in fact, Bobby, Objectivism doesn't consider the lives' of others as worthless, and I don't see how it could be in anyone's interest to see them as so.

But back to charity: Not supplying some support to those who due to a handicap can't help themselves to survive would mean not to value human life, which I actually do value, and thus I would have to consider myself immoral, as I would anyone else who acts the same way so, based on this value.

It's your wealth, you may spend it however you wish, but to force someone to spend their $ on someone else is absolutely disgusting, and far more of a perversion of "valuing" human life then not helping someone out. If no one has a right to what they earn, then we might as well all be dead--in which case charity won't be a problem.

Taking 1000$ from a billionaire by far doesn't restrict the life of that billionaire in as much as it does support the life of an otherwise starving person, who didn't choose to starve.

It's the principle that counts. That $1000 is rightfully owned by that billionaire. How can you say to someone, "Hey! Because you're rich, we're going to take your money." "Hey, Micheal Jordan, because you're a phenomenal athlete, were going to take away some of your talent and disperse it upon the less fortunate." "Hey, b/c you have two legs and that man over their has none, were going to cut one of yours off and give it to him." "Hey, b/c you eat 2000 calories per day, and that man only eats 200, were going to steal 900 of yours and give it to him."

F.C.O. (Forced Charity Organization) knocks on Mr. Billionaires door.

"Excuse me, Mr. Billionaire?"

"Yes?"

"We have 20 million people who are starving and need other assistance besides food, and, since you're excessively wealthy, and since it only costs about $1000 per person for the aid, we are going to take your money. But wait, before you object, don't worry--keep producing and doing whatever it is your doing that's magically making money appear out of thin air, b/c 20 million people will be saved b/c of you! And you'll only be "down," so to speak, $20,000,000,000, no biggie!"

If knowledge is what you seek, then reason is the only way to gain it. Suggest another way. Faith? Chance? Determinism?

And, if I may add, if knowledge is what you seek, you'll have to go beyond pain and pleasure too, ask any heroine addict.

There are genes that determine what kind of handicap we may have, how big we will grow and last but not least, what degree of intelligence we can maximally achieve.

I'm interested in this--where is the study that proves we are intellectually capped by virtue of genetics? I'd like to read and inspect it.

Nick.

[Black Holes]

Gotcha, thanks dond

[Sciabarra's Latest]

Oh, and one more thing, "Sciabarra" who is s/he? You gave no explanation of who that person is, as if he's to be known, so if you wouldn't mind explaining

[Sciabarra's Latest]

The author says that Rand said this: "This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government—as all of us are paying for the sins of ours."

I'm curious as to how others interpret Rand's statement when she says, "pay the price."

For instance, if, for some odd reason, the USA decides to nuclear bomb Europe tomorrow, and Europe retaliates and I somehow get nailed with European machine gun fire, would that example be subsumed under "paying the price"?

On another note:

I sat in on a lecture given about the "Just War Theory" by Yaron Brook (an eminent Objectivist), and agreed entirely with his position. He basically stated that even if the enemy were to encircle himself in innocent children, the solider would be justified in killing the children so long as his objective was to kill the enemy.

However, after reading Rand's statement above, I am having some trouble either interpreting what she's saying, or I am in disagreement with her.

Miss Rand says (according to that author from the link in the original post), "If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government."

I'm wondering what, under her usage, constitutes a "bad government."

For instance, a dictatorship would be unanimously considered a bad government. But would the US (a country that recognizes rights) be considered a bad government if they one day, for no good reason, decided to nuke Europe? Would I then, as an American citizen, fall under the "ignorant," "neglectful," or "helpless" as Miss Rand used the terms, and thus be subjected to European retaliation? (sorry I know this is basically what I asked above, but hopeflly it clears any confusion)

Ok I'm done...sorry if it's confusing to read, my thoughts are jumbled in abstractions...abstractions which probably lack context, but hopefully someone can help .

[Sciabarra's Latest]

I don't see anything wrong with what he wrote. What ar eyou guys complaining about?

[Black Holes]

What do you guys mean by "singularity?"

[Reason alone as a guarantee for wealth?]

Argh, b/c of the malfunctional quotation system, I will denote all of Bobby66's posts in BOLD/ITALICIZED writing. Also, I apologize for any grammatical errors...this quote thing is just annoying the hell out of me.

I know jobs have been gained in those countries. But how will things develop in the long run?

Why would the long run, in this instance, be any different than the short run? What makes you think it would be different? Please provide me with evidence that supports this assumption.

Well, if you're saying charities are also meant for those, and not only for the handicapped, I'll agree that reason is more likely to be a sufficient means to happiness under LFC for that group of individuals.

Why is the word "that" bolded? You speak as though reason only works for specific individuals. I really don't understand what you're getting at here, so please elaborate.

Also, charities are not considered a metaphysical--they don't necessarily exist. Charity depends on individuals who are willing to voluntarily spend their money in order to help support others (hopefully with the mind set that once the beneficiaries receive some help, they will be able to independently support themselves).

I think what you are referring to is productivity: The productivity in cloth making hasn't risen, as one cloth maker still produces only one cloth in a year. But production went up, because simply more cloths have been produced in 1998. Well, at least that's how we distinguish between "Produktivität" and "Produktion" in German. Maybe I've just mistranslated those terms into English.

Right. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page with this important differentiation.

Well, I was considering such people the main target group for charity. And I surely didn't mean to include them in my question.

"Such people," (i.e. those who are in irrevocable tragic situations) as you have referred to them here, are beyond charity. No intelligent individual will spend their money on someone who's impossible to save.

All right, capital may not be the main problem. But what about the ideas for something new? Can we take it for granted that every reasonable person is capable of coming up with such new ideas?

Any reasonable person can come up with "new" ideas...but I'm assuming when you said "ideas" you meant radically new technological advances, or simple inventions that are more productive and profitable than the old ones. Nevertheless, not all reasonable people can come up with these phenomenal ideas--but so what? Where does this tie into capitalism? How does it conflict with the ideas of capitalism? How does it prevent an individual from getting a job? If, somehow, any of those questions do conflict with capitalism (which they don't), what system would you suggest replace capitalism?

Yes and no:

Technological advancements create new markets, new demand for new products (cell phones are a good example for today), and thus new jobs are created due to the need for new employees to produce these products.

But technological advancements also enable the head of a company to replace (that is to remove) a lot of workplaces by intelligent and more efficient robots/machines etc. and only few will be needed for maintenance of those machines.

You know, I can't really say to what extend jobs are created or lost, whether the balance is a positive or a negative one.

Let me give you a simple argument, if this does not persuade you, then I suggest you read some history of capitalism in regard to your problem--and if that doesn't persuade you, I suggest you see a psychiatrist, b/c the facts will be right in front of your face but for some reason you fail to accept them.

So here's the argument:

A "job opening" presupposes production: Some sort of production must be occurring in order for their to be a job opening (else what would it mean to say there's a "job" for something when there's nothing to be done?). Thus, if new machines and technology increase production, then more job openings must be available.

But technological advancements also enable the head of a company to replace (that is to remove) a lot of workplaces by intelligent and more efficient robots/machines etc

Machines are not intelligent. And yes, it does allow for companies to get rid of obsolete workers and unproductive workers (in comparison with the new machines). But the problem is... ... ...Nothing. The workers who were fired you say...what about them? Yes, what about them? Should they be guaranteed a job by virtue of being human? What if they can't produce? Should someone be enslaved by their ineptitude? by their lack of energy? by them not being willing to learn new knowledge and apply new skills? I think not.

I would never say that a company should be forced by law to employ someone for the sake of a job. That would be nothing but controlled economy as in communism and completely missing the point of labour, which is to produce goods, not to slow down productivity.

Tell me Bobby, how does this passage fit with some of the ones you've typed above? Or should I say, does it fit?

The right to life is the only thing that must be granted for every human being. And only if private charity fails here, we must reflect whether it is legal to force some fines on certain individuals to finance some support for those incapable of living their life.

Once again, tell me if there's anything conflicting in this passage...possible the first sentence with the second?

If people are completely incapable of living their life...what good is charity?

I would never say that a company should be forced by law to employ someone for the sake of a job.......(few passages down the road)........And only if private charity fails here, we must reflect whether it is legal to force some fines on certain individuals to finance some support for those incapable of living their life.

?

It will fail, only if certain wealthy individuals, who can afford it, don't give to charity, despite the fact that they would expect charity from people like themselves in an unfortunate, definitely hopeless situation.

They (wealthy individuals) would expect it? How do you know?

Because when exactly should private charity fail? It will fail, only if certain wealthy individuals, who can afford it, don't give to charity, despite the fact that they would expect charity from people like themselves in an unfortunate, definitely hopeless situation. In other words, it will fail when people don't treat others the way they would expect to be treated, don't care for others the way they would want to be taken care of

You're simply speaking of slavery here in a roundabout way.

How can you say that the right to life is extremely important, and then go off and say that some individuals must be forced to spend their money on other individuals?

In any case, it's more of a tragety to take away an individual's right to their own wealth than it is for some individual to suffer b/c they haven't received...what you call as "their right to charity."

What the world will be looking for, is people who either have new ideas or come up with skills that outperform those of anything that can be automated, just because they are to complex.

Check your local newspaper, or whatever they have in Germany, and you'll find this NOT to be the case. There are plenty of jobs that require little skill. And, as I probably said earlier, who cares if competition is tougher? Is it a crime to have some skills in order to work?

So to find a job the skills required from you are much higher than ever.

Not necessarily. Some jobs require an individual to "push" a button (thanks to technology), rather than going through the tedious task of dividing 324234.26543634234/-235245.235325325 by hand. Technology makes it easier for some people to be employed.

In fact, I'll use your weird argumentation and say that if it wasn't for my handy-dandy calculator, I would not have passed high school. And, of course, if I didn't pass high school, I couldn't get a job....

Who has the skills required, or let's say to what degree is everyone capable of aquirering the skills required, using his reason alone? Many will be simply unable, it's genetically determined. They will be forced to live under poverty, I would expect.

What else would he use besides reason? Just exactly what is genetically determined? Show me a person who is unable to mop a floor, check out groceries, perform basic mathematics, move boxes all day, or any other simple task due to "genetic determination." (besides the mentally retarded).

Bobby, thinking can get quite complex and distracting if you do not have principles by which you follow (I'm still learning about this as we write).

If you know a principle (a basic fact of reality, as I'm defining it here) to be entirely true, like an individual having a right to his own life, then you simply apply that principle to situation X, and ask yourself, "Does this question or new idea about reality contradict with my established principle?" And if it does, then new idea or proposal should be rejected.

If you know that a man should have a right to his own life, then you ought to know that forcing his wealth into any field, endeavor, or charitable organization (regardless of the situation), is a crime--b/c it breaches the principle.

Peace,

Nick

[Good Objectivist Wallpapers]

The one with the buildings is awesome --its my new background now

[Objectivism And The Environment]

I think the moment a country went completely laissez-faire all unowned property should simply be open to the first to claim it as theirs, and if multiple people or groups claim it, say Central Park, the courts should sort it out. Nobody should be compensated because nobody owns it, the claims that somehow the government owns national parks and whatnot are even at this present time completely invalid.

Although land was claimed by the "first come first served" in the early stages of America, it would be complete chaos if we were to all the sudden abolish public property and have a race for the land--the courts would be overwhelmed. (not to mention the hospitals)

The only way I see fit to sell the land would be to have the buyer pay the public. (I know that the word "sell" is being used oddly here, as there's no one to really sell the land--which is where the majority comes in. THe majority would have to agree to the land being sold--NOT b/c the idea of public property is absurd, but b/c it has been unfortunately established in the U.S.--and the public owns it, hence majority vote as to if the property can be sold) Someone or some group of people must claim (or be recognized) ownership of the land, otherwise there's nothing to sell. If no group of people owns the land, then it seems like anyone can claim it...

You could say that were going to abolish public property on June 1, 2005, and the first person to claim Xamount of land will get X amount of land...but imagine the chaos and violence that would occur b/c of such announcement.

But...

Take public roads for instance. If we are to privatize them, shouldn't the buyer be paying the government (i.e. the people) for the roads that were established by the public's wealth?

I dunno

Just don't see any other plausible alternative

[What The Bleep Do We Know?]

I dunno, I'm trying to think of ways it could make sense because that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read

Oh no nono lol, they were definitely talking about completely NOT seeing the ship. In the movie, if I remember correctly, the shaman taps the lady on the forehead and POOF!! the ship appears!! You should see the movie though, it's a comic relief.

[The Morality of Alcohol]

Gotcha Hal thanks for the clarification

[Objectivism And The Environment]

I still do not see what's wrong with my solution.

The only way to do it would be to sell to the highest bidder and either pay off government debt or divide the money equally among all citizens. No majority voting to do it: the concept of public property is invalid and should not be allowed to continue to exist.

Noted.

Assuming we scratched the majority vote, abolished public property, then auctioned off the property with the $ going to the public (and now that I've thought it through, proportions are of no concern here, at least in relation to taxes...if an individual donated to the park however, they'd need to be compensated), would there be anything wrong with this?

[Reason alone as a guarantee for wealth?]

Bobby, I appreciate your candor and diligency you have shown throughout this whole thread. Keep up the pertinent questions as they are making me strain me brain

And I don't know how to determine, whether the gain of jobs will outnumber their losses[in relation to technological advances].

Check out the history of any country who's recently adopted capitalism (or a semblance of)--this should be a good starting point.

I'm sorry I forgot to mention, that this woman had a better job (I think she was an accountant at a bank) before she got her children, and then, all of a sudden, she got fired and was forced to work as a street sweeper.

I want the full, uninhibited context. She all of the sudden got fired? She was forced to work as a street sweeper? She had the intelligence of an accountant and was relegated (how?) to streetsweeping?

Just imagining being born there into a poor family and under the circumstances we know, would reason really be of sufficient use to escape poverty?

Reason, in an obscure sense, is not omnipotent; it won't save you when surviving is an impossibility; it won't save you when you're caught behind bars being tortured by your assailants; and it won't save you as your plane crashes into a mountain.

But!! Reason is our only means of knowledge and thus our only hope. If a child is stuck in poverty, his only hope is to use his mind to its fullest extent and then make rational decisions based upon what he knows. (You could say he could hope for someone to bail him out, but it wouldn't be his hope, as he doesn't hold that power; instead, it could be regarded as a hope.)

What I think you are alluding to here with this whole poverty issue is the commonplace statement of, "Well what about the children!?"--as if the children would be better off in a mixed economy, or a statist-like government.

The child whose born into despicable poverty and who's parents are complete lunatics, is put into one helluva shitty position--which is definitely unfortunate. Reason may be able to save him, but he won't be receiving a proper education and will probably be too worried about his immediate survival before even pondering what's outside his little world. But the fact of the matter is, is that not everyone put into an unfortunate position can be "saved."

Under capitalism, charities would exist that would help this child out (assuming his parents made his existence knowable, etc.) Reason will always be his greatest aid, but as I said earlier, reason, in an obscure sense, is not omnipotent.

Because there are more people on this planet now than there were 100 years ago, and thus production went up, demanding more jobs. But that doesn't mean that the share of jobless people hasn't risen.

P: There are more people on this planet now than there were 100 years ago.

C: Production went up.

If there ar emore people on this planet now than 100 years ago, it doesn't necessarily follow that production has gone up b/c of hte population increase. However, I must ask you, if the population has been steadily increasing, how so? Just exactly what has made this increase possible? Just exactly what has made life expectancy sky-rocket in the last 100 years?

Also, Bobby, take this next example as you will, but my brother once said to me, "Under capitalism, who's going to become a janitor?" And I said, "I will, if there's enough demand." The beauty of capitalism is this: If no one wants to do a specific job, for whatever reason (like cleaning up shit all day), then there's a high demand for that job and thus it will pay high, regardless of the specifics of the job.

As a side note, you can't expect something miraculous to happen when you've cut both feet off of someone, chained their hands together, cut out both their eyeballs, and then asked, "how can reason save this person?" or "how will this person be able to survive" or "who will save them?" or "who will hire them?" If you earnestly do not see the reasons for why these questions cannot be asked in relation to reason's efficacy, then please state why.

How open a market without the ideas? And without the capital in the first place?

Get a loan. I'll assume you'll respond with, "no one will give her a loan b/c she's poor." Then I must ask you what the purposes of loans are. If I am a banker and she shows me a well-thought out, reasonable plan for making money, and if I can see she has determination and the perserverance to succeed, I will give her that loan; otherwise, she doesn't deserve it and is wasting my time.

Poverty isn't force of nature but simply a state you can be born into.

In this instance, I would consider poverty a force of nature, since the participant had absolutely no choice in the matter; however, participating in consistent and chronic poverty is a choice.

Even the fact that the demand for goods is infinite doesn't mean that ideas for new products are being evolved at at a pace fast enough to offer an opportunity for full occupation at all times, does it?

Now I must ask you to pick a side--or to tell me where you are at. Do you agree that technological advancements increase employment, or detract from it?

If I interpret you correctly, I agree with you in that stagnation does not produce jobs. That is to say, if we don't advance, if we don't produce, if we don't move ahead, there will be the jobless. But if we pretend that our society is doing the above, but they are not happening at a quick enough rate to create employment opportunities, can you come up with a superior alternative to the problem of employment w/o detracting from what we've already established?

Actually, it is the claim made by LFC that no one is forced to live under poverty, which implies that EVERYONE can find a well-paying job in the real world, doesn't it

No. It simply means that the government isn't regulating anything that would detract from an individual's ability to produce and what have you. The simple fact of the matter is, is that people willingly (the redundacny here is appropriate) make stupid choices, and capitalism is no guard against that. Under capitalism, you have the opportunity to go out and make something of yourself with your mind as your prime-mover, but if you use your mind incorrectly or do not view the facts as they are, then you may as well wind up in poverty.

If you asked any bum on the street if he'd rather be rich than poor, I'd bet my life they'd all say they'd rather be rich. But wishful thinking gets you nowhere. Simply b/c I want something doesn't mean I'll get it--I need to plan ahead, look at the facts, create goals, etc. in order to obtain that which I want.

They startet out at a time when there was real opportunity, competition not being as tough as it is today. Whether or not there is real opportunity for everyone today is one of the central question.

Is competetion really proportionately tougher? What do you mean by competetion being tough today? Can you give me an example?

I've known people who wished that many of the inventions we have today did not exist, so that they could create them and have the joy that comes from inventing such things. They think that if they were cavemen they'd be able to create fires, wheels, pulley systems, and other such "rudimentary" contrivances. But what they fail to realize is that knowledge is heirarchical--and an invention such as the wheel back in the BC's was probably as phenomenal and eccentric as the aircraft was in the 1900's.

I'd suggest you keep this in mind when referring to things while not considering proportions and mathematics. If I tell you 10 cloth makers in 1915 produced 10 cloths, and then in 1998, 100 cloth makers made 100 cloths, and you tell me that the production of cloths has risen--you'd be escaping an important fact of reality in relation to the concept "risen": that there are simply more cloth makers; the proportions are still the same.

[Objectivism And The Environment]

But what if I dont want to sell 'my' share?

Hey now, don't be a party-pooper

I'm not sure what would happen--but prior to the selling of the land, the public would have to get a majority vote agreeing that the selling of the land was okay--in which case, even if you didn't want to sell your share, it wouldn't matter; it would still be sold and you'd still be compensated in proportion to what you owned.

[The Morality of Alcohol]

Easy now gentlemen, easy now.

My stats are basically the same, and I have never observed any difference in my cognitive function after one drink, which is all I've had at one time for a very long while, so I can't say how much more it would take.

Interesting. I'm tempted to experiment more with one drink, as I can't remember how "full" my stomach was when taking that one drink. But according to your statistics, I would fall close to the "average" guy, with possibly my metabolism being a little higher.

I've never claimed that everything Miss Rand said or wrote is necessarily true.

And I'll take your word for it that you haven't. But I've definitely seen it elsewhere on the boards where a poster said "Ayn Rand said, dotdadotdadotdadot," where s/he was clearly alluding to it being right simply b/c Rand said it.

As far as her characters smoking cigarettes is concerned - had they known the full harmful effects of cigarettes were at the time Atlas Shrugged was written, I would regard her characters' smoking as immoral. An honest lack of knowledge is never immoral.

I found it quite dissatisfying that her characters smoked. I mean honestly, how intelligent do you have to be to know that cigarettes rape your body? Even if there weren't statistics out there to prove this was so, it seems quite obvious that when you take your first puff of cigarette (not that I have, but I've watched others) and almost throw up, that there must be something bad about the product.

It kind of reminds me of those people that tell me I should be sympathetic towards older folks who have lung cancer due to the fact that they didn't know smoking was bad for their health--no, of course it wasn't bad for their health, for some reason they just smelled like shit after smoking, coughed regularly, had tar stains on their teeth, had trouble breathing, and forgot to use common sense in order to figure out it was the choice to smoke that was ruining their lives'. (When I was younger I used to practice self-parasiting, where I'd chew up my whole arm uncontrollably...thankfully, even though there were no tests to show this was inimical to my health, I used common sense and found out that it was. (j/k, but you get my point)).

Alcohol does change the way in which I view and interpret the world, but this change does not consist in making me irrational, a/immoral, or incapable of reasoning and making decisions.

If you are viewing and interpreting the world differently than you usually do, and are still somehow making rational decisions, this tells me one of two things: 1) When you're not drunk, your view and interpretation of the things around you are incorrect and thus you're not capable of making rational decisions or 2) When you're drunk, you have a false sense about how you are viewing and interpreting things.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that someone taking hallucinogenic mushrooms is capable of rational decisions, even though their view of reality is distorted. If this is not what you're arguing, please clarify.

I'm tempted to ask for the evidence that alcohol impairs judgement

I haven't experienced enough times being drunk while trying to compare and contrast my mental abilities to say for certain that alcohol impairs judgement, but it definitely, unequivocally makes it harder to maintain focus--and focus is a prerequisite of judgement; one must make the choice to focus before making the choice to judge. Thus, from this we can see that judgement qua judgement isn't necessarily being impaired, but focusing one's mind is.

but a better question is "what would this evidence even look like?"

I completely agree with what you're getting at here, and would bet that most of the studies conducted regarding this issue were done poorly, or at least the testers may have jumped to conclusions.

[Objectivism And The Environment]

How would you handle natural resources which are currently publically owned, for instance rivers and parks? Would you just 'give' them to the highest bidder (although they arent yours to give), or would they be up for grabs to whoever was able to grab and defend them

Interesting question. I can't see a problem with giving the land to the highest bidder...except that implies someone having ownership of that land. However, b/c the "public" owns the land, it only makes sense that the highest bidder would be paying the public.

So pretend the billionaire buys a national park for 500million dollars. That money would be divided back to the public, each man getting his fair share.

Those who owned part of the national park (i.e. the public) must be compensated for their "share" of the park, since their $ helped maintain it and what not.

Other than that, I don't see any other plausible way--especially in terms of persuading the public to let go of the land. After all, if your taxes are paying for something, which help keep that something running, and then all the sudden someone comes in and buys that something w/o compensating you, and injustice has occurred.

[Reason alone as a guarantee for wealth?]

And how, under LFC, will jobs always be available to those who are willing to work them?

Doesn't the availablility of jobs solely depend on the need for jobs?

Jobs aren't available simply b/c someone is willing to work for them...I'm willing to suck on my toe all day for money, but no one will hire me . (possibly I need better marketing though)

Does the availability of jobs solely depend on the need for jobs? I hope so (and you have to ask yourself where and how do jobs come about)...unless it's not capitalism.

If wealth can be produced faster by machines, then why should there be any need to employ anyone?

Who will maintenance the machines? And, if I now have to spend less money on employees since I have replaced them with machines, where will I spend all the "excess" money? Will me spending this excess money create more jobs elsewhere?

[Reason alone as a guarantee for wealth?]

Under capitalism, no one is forced into poverty. The U.S. government has regulations that do/could force someone into poverty. In example of this could be the fact that in some counties (possibly states), in order to have your own health-care facility, you must have a wheel-chair accessible ramp....these ramps can cost thousands of dollars, which could easily put the small business owner out of business, or at least preclude him from opening his own business.

Under capitalism, no one is denying you the right to your own property--you are free to dispose and use of it as you may (so long as your not infringing on the rights of others).

People have to work for wages that aren't high enough to allow them to escape from poverty.

They do?

Due to competition on the labour market there's no way of earning more money. They're just working to live, to be able to buy food, but they surely won't escape poverty.

Can you provide a concrete example of this for me?

[The Morality of Alcohol]

If it was true that drinking one drink destroyed your ability to focus, that would mean that after one drink, people would not simply be finding it hard to think, they'd be unresponsive to reality (which of course would make drinking immoral). But, I simply have never observed this. I can drink a beer or two (spaced out appropriately) and be 100% fully aware of reality - reality at that time usually being my dining experience or the good conversation that I am having with a buddy of mine.

One drink won't completely destroy your ability to focus, but it seems as though it should hinder it. I don't see how 10 shots can destroy your ability to focus, and 1 shot won't have its effects...even if minimal. It's not like all the sudden you hit the "marker" of 10 shots, and bam, your ability to focus goes away; but rather, it happesn gradually, one shot at a time.

It is widely agreed upon by all sorts of medical experts that the average person can have about one drink an hour with no cognitive effects whatsoever (the exact amount per person depends on a number of factors such as body wieght and metabolic rate).

I hate studies due to the numerous variables that aren't accounted for when tallying the results. I weigh 170lbs, am in good shape, don't drink, and know that if I were to have one drink, my mental faculties wouldn't be as good as they were prior to the drink. Thus, I find it hard that one drink doesn't impair the cognitive abilities of your "average" person. I'd like to know who these "average" people are, what they weight, what they eat, how many times they drink alcohol/month, what their life styles are like, etc. Nevertheless, your comment definitetly contradicts my personal experience with alcohol.

Drinking alcohol is not immoral. Intentionally getting drunk is. I'll point straight at Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardan as examples that even Miss Rand's heroes sometimes enjoyed a drink or two. They had wine at dinner together, and celebrated some occasion or another (I can't recall) with a glass of brandy.

This passage bothers me. Simply b/c Ayn Rand says it or writes it doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. P.S. I also remember her characters smoking cigarettes.

Alcohol is just as serious a drug as cocaine or heroine. The only reason it's legal is because it's "socially" acceptable.

If a drug's "seriousness" subsumes the drug's ability for one to become addicted, then it's incorrect to say that cocaine/heroine are as serious as alcohol.

[What The Bleep Do We Know?]

Another silly point the movie makes is that we can’t observe things of which we have no knowledge. They said that the Native Americans on the islands first discovered by Columbus couldn’t see the approaching ships because they had never seen anything like them before, and had no knowledge that such objects could exist. Heheh… I don’t think I have to say anything more about that, it’s just too easy

LOL. Funny you should mention this part b/c after seeing the movie about 9months ago (or whever it came out), the only part I remember was the Indian thing. I remember saying to my friends, "What the !@#!? If that chick can't see the ship, why can he!?" Then I remembered he was a shaman, had cool face paint and body decorations, and wasn't white--so he must have had special powers.

Wow, I could tell from the title exactly what kind of rubbish this movie was. A friend of mine said I should watch it and told him I didn't want to waste 2 hours of my life. Glad I didn't.

lol good call

The title should have been, "What the Bleep Do they Know?", or "How Many Times Can We Appeal to Authority?" or "Holy Crap this Movie Completely Sucks and is a Waste of Time, Don't See it"

[The Morality of Alcohol]

Bah, I give up, I'm going to get drunk. Talk to y'all later

[Belated Hello]

Hi Tom! and welcome to the forums!!......

[What are your favorite TV shows?]

Barney and Friends--nuff said.

[The Morality of Alcohol]

If you don't notice it even from one drink, then I question your typical state of focus even when not drinking. This is, in fact, the same argument I've heard from many people and it is patently false. You most certainly do get a limitation of focus from even one drink.

If you drink a shot of whiskey and don't notice, then you aren't focusing to your maximum potential to begin

If you drink a shot of whiskey and don't notice, it's probably b/c you have built up a tolerance level for alcohol, or you weigh 500lbs. In either case, your body and mind is being put through something that it doesn't need to be put through.

I won't go as far as saying that drinking moderately, or w/i one's limits, is immoral

Or maybe I will, but I'll have to chew on what Tom and iou has said.