Capitalism: making the pie bigger for everyone

[RadCap]

Invictus

You are a member of this forum. You are a member by permission granted to you by the owners of this forum and by their representatives. Because it is their property, they and their agents have the right to dictate the rules of the forum and the means and methods of how these rules will be enforce.

You, on the other hand, are not the owner. You are not one of its representative. As such, you have no say in setting the rules of the forum, nor in how they are enforced.

The rule here is that subjectivists are not tolerated. They are removed. Again, you have no say in this whatsoever. So your claim that someone is "speaking for you" is false, since you have no right to speak to the rules of this site at all.

"More collectivism. Having the right to speak for the forums owners does not give one the right to speak for the forums members"

As should be painfully clear at this point, ONLY the forum owners have the right to do anything - including speak - on the forum. YOU do not have ANY rights here. ALL your actions are ALLOWED or forbidden. In other words, you do not act by right here - you act ONLY by PERMISSION.

Your claim that this is "collectivism" is a demonstration that you do not understand property rights, capitalism, OR collectivism. If you are interested in LEARNING the difference, please continue to listen to the conversations here. If you are not, you are FREE to no longer remain a member.

The choice is up to you. However those are the ONLY choices you have.

[Invictus]

You are a member of this forum. You are a member by permission granted to you by the owners of this forum and by their representatives. Because it is their property, they and their agents have the right to dictate the rules of the forum and the means and methods of how these rules will be enforce.

You, on the other hand, are not the owner. You are not one of its representative. As such, you have no say in setting the rules of the forum, nor in how they are enforced.

The rule here is that subjectivists are not tolerated. They are removed. Again, you have no say in this whatsoever. So your claim that someone is "speaking for you" is false, since you have no right to speak to the rules of this site at all.

Calm down mate. I now know that "we" means simply David and whoever he chooses to administor the site. If I was in your position I would have said "the admins". I just wanted to make clear that I did not share your view of bartwart as a subjectivist.

you do not understand property rights, capitalism, OR collectivism.

I made clear my knowledge of capitalism in these two threads:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...owtopic=531&hl=

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...owtopic=586&hl=

Property rights refer to a set of legal rights over the use to which a resource is put and over the use made of any income that may be derived from that resource. Collectivism, in a political sense, is a system that stresses the primacy of collective goals and rights over individual goals and rights.

I find your tactless pomposity offensive. I am glad you only make 1.4 posts a day and that the other admins have more respect for the members of this board. I will leave it at that.

[RadCap]

You are a member of this forum. You are a member by permission granted to you by the owners of this forum and by their representatives. Because it is their property, they and their agents have the right to dictate the rules of the forum and the means and methods of how these rules will be enforce.

You, on the other hand, are not the owner. You are not one of its representative. As such, you have no say in setting the rules of the forum, nor in how they are enforced.

The rule here is that subjectivists are not tolerated. They are removed. Again, you have no say in this whatsoever. So your claim that someone is "speaking for you" is false, since you have no right to speak to the rules of this site at all."

Calm down mate. I now know that "we" means simply David and whoever he chooses to administor the site.

Despite your assertion to the contrary, the above is a perfectly calm statement of fact. It was made specifically because, despite explanations by others, your posts claimed that enforcing the rules of this site was collectivism.

  If I was in your position I would have said "the admins".

As is indicated in the very concise statement above, only the owners and their representatives have any say in such matters. Therefore there was NO reason to say "the admins".

I stated that subjectivists are not tolerated on this site. They are not. Even if I had not been an admin, it would have been quite appropriate for me to point out this fact. We - including members of this site - do NOT tolerate subjectivism here. This is NOT a rule which applies to JUST the admins. This is a rule we ALL accept by participating here. Besides, as is indicated in that very concise statement above, only the owners and their representatives have a say in determining and acting on such matters. Therefore, there was NO reason to be redundant and say "the admins". That would imply that members here ARE allowed to tolerate subjectivists on this site.

And that is simply not true.

As such, your claim that the "we" only refers to David and his representatives is not true.

you do not understand property rights, capitalism, OR collectivism.

ACTUALLY the FULL quote was: "Your claim that this is "collectivism" is a demonstration that you do not understand property rights, capitalism, OR collectivism." So far, you have not disputed this about the claim, nor that you made it. So my statement IN ITS CONTEXT stands, regardless of whatever *other* posts you think 'prove' you understand differently.

The fact is, none of your posts actually made an ARGUMENT - an argument supporting your much later claim that bartwart's statement was NOT subjectivist - nor an argument supporting your original and twice asserted claim that the actions taken were "collectivist" in any way. All we have had in your last three posts is emotional indignation and mudslinging.

Subjectivism is not the only thing not tolerated here. Tirades are not tolerated here either.

I find your tactless pomposity offensive.

Then you are free to complain to the admins or to the owner. You are not free to engage in namecalling nor mudslinging.

Thus take this private or take yourself away.

[Invictus]

...i'm NOT going TO bothER.

[y_feldblum]

Property rights refer to a set of legal rights

No, they refer primarily to a set of moral rights, as bounded by objective law (eg, stating by what process to try a person who violates your moral rights) when a context is specified.

Legal rights apart from moral rights is concept-stealing - for how can something be right if it is not moral?

[Invictus]

What?

You seem to be getting mixed up with what is and what should be. Property rights (under law) can be violated through private action - i.e. the theft, piracy, blackmail and the like by private individuals or groups- or public action - i.e. the extortion of income or resources from property holders by public officials, such as politicians and government bureaucrats.

[BlackSabbath]

That is absurd too.  If you guys want to ban me that is your choice, but seriously, now I understand why Objectivism is the laughing stalk of the philosophical community. 

You loved throwing that word 'collectivism' at me so here's one for you: ARBITRARY.

You and the owners arbitrarily define Objectivism to have the very specific identity of "whatever Ayn Rand says".  I think a more appropriate word for that is 'Randism'.  It's time for Objectivism to stop playing in the sand box and join the adults.  The nature of Objectivism SHOULD be open for discussion in the marketplace of ideas.  It's called debate.  May the best ideas win.  People have to compete everyday in the market place to earn a living and Objectivism should be no different.

The laughing stalk? Or laughing stock?

This is not an argument but a smear.

Given the irrationalism taught by today's philosopher's Objectivism represents a breath of fresh air.

As for "It's time for Objectivism to stop playing in the sand box and join the adults."

What can this be except another smear?

RH is correct that Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy BTW

[Nate_S]

I'm pretty sure the balk of those who participate in these forums do not advocate Objective reasoning simply because it is what Ms. Rand said. Personally (of course I can't speak for everyone), I originally took Ms. Rand's writings simply as that until she subjugated her philosophy through rational abstractions and explicit constructs of logic and reasoning that competently defined a fundamental moral standard relevant to anyone who values a free mind.

Everything else you said is just unsubstantiated slander.

[RadCap]

bartwart is no longer with us, so posts to him are no loger required.

[y_feldblum]

Morality - ie, that specific morality which, uniquely, is proper to man - is.

Property rights, like life and liberty rights, exist without, independent of, and prior to law. They are the primary (in this regard) and the purpose of law is to enforce them.

[RadCap]

y -

A slight correction. The purpose of law is to *recognize* and then enforce these rights. You probably considered that implied in the statement, but it is definitely something which needs to be stated explicitly.

[erik]

Isn't bartwarts position essentially Nathaniel Brandons and TOC? That objectivism should evolve with the times so to speak.

[y_feldblum]

True.

( What is that gloating emoticon doing at the end of your post, huh?)