Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Sorry, that ~still~ makes little sense.
Well, I certainly can't make you understand...
And, of course, you can't try, either. Its just pretencious 'intellectual' bafflegab.
----------------------------
As I said earlier, which you couldn't refute, we learn rational self interest at our mothers breast.
The fact that I haven't refuted it is not proof that it's true.
Of course it isn't. Restating the obvious has become your favorite 'argument' ploy, of late.. Sad.
If it's objectively true, you should be able to prove it. Of course, your response to that was, and I quote, "whatever"...
I did 'prove it'. -- "Don't bit the tit that feeds you" is ample proof.
'True' or not self interest works.
Heyyyyyyy, we're finally making progress! I agree - it works. So who cares if it's objectively true or not? Who gives a damn that Rand claims it to be objectively true, but can't possibly prove it to be objectively true? We're finally past all that Randian self-contradiction, and we're finally finding a real basis in reason here. See? You just ditch Rand as the be-all and end-all of rational systems of morality and ethics, and you can actually get somewhere useful ;)
Your feeble straw man ridicule makes a fool of you, not Rand, or my take on rand. I have nothing too 'ditch', as she is hardly my "be-all and end-all"..
----------------------------
Until a better idea comes along, a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible, trumps your mysticism, in my book.
Even if you can't know that premise to be true itself? That kind of self-contradiction doesn't bother you, even a little bit?
You seem to think everyone here has your own weird concept of "self-contradiction". Get a grip on your ego.
Whether I'm successful or not, I don't think anyone can fault me for not trying, after hanging on for 300+ posts ;)
I did 'prove it'. -- "Don't bit the tit that feeds you" is ample proof.
No, it's an anecdote, not a proof that the proposition that self-interest is inherently rational is universally true. Collect lots more anecdotes like that, and you'll have an inductive argument to present, at least.
You seem to think everyone here has your own weird concept of "self-contradiction".
Well, okay. Personally, I don't think it's all that weird to regard the fact that the proposition that "everything is knowable and rationally accessible" is itself not knowable or rationally accessible as being self-contradictory, but there you go.
And I don't "style" myself as anything, BTW ;)
The "general" (general_re) has the style of a debate winner, i.e. he leads the adverse party into his own box then springs the trap.
My two cents...
See, your inherent graciousness is even rubbing off on crass old jerks like me ;)
Hank
God told you His name, Hank: I AM THAT I AM
If you believe a monopoly is evil only because there is one company alone providing a service or product, please explain why that is evil. On the other hand, please name one monopoly that was able to control or "corner" the market by market forces alone that did not do so by offering the best product at the best price (in which casw it was benevolent) or, if coercive, without the influence of government force. Just name one.
Except that government was one of the major customers, and government naturally enforces it's contracts, Microsoft is a good enough example (although not a pure example). It used its position in the market to influence its business partners to disallow the competition, in one related 'commodity' after another, growing and usurping the market like "The Blob."
The governing force here was not government, but the perceived need for standardization, which government allowed to be addressed by the capitalists of Microsoft, instead of by the paragovernmental standards councils that have otherwise done such a wonderful job of securing order and free enterprise in information technology.
Rockefeller's oil complex was another example of a monopoly that didn't need direct government conspiracy to develop (though it may have gotten such "help," to worsen the situation -- I don't know all the particulars, just the main problem, of buying up and forcing out the competition).
Other monopolies exist due to government patents. I suppose you can argue against patents, but capitalists wouldn't like it. In the interest of preventing greedy (excessive, unbridled) self-interest from abusing monopolies as human nature will do, government limits the durations of patents.
Took about ten seconds.
"The principle of non-initiation of force was popularized by Ayn Rand, and it certainly is a key aspect of the Objectivism." -- William Thomas, The Objectivist Center.http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/wthomas_faq-libertarianism-objectivism.asp
Newspeak.
Main Entry: ax·i·om
Pronunciation: 'ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
Date: 15th century
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
To seek knowledge.
Why?
Because it is what we do. The history of man is the quest for knowledge. Periods when knowledge was suppressed are called "Dark"; where it is advanced, "Golden."
If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god, seeking knowledge is an attempt to emulate, and in that way worship that god. Omnipotence and omnipresence are really just special cases of omniscience. So it all boils down to knowledge.
If you are unable to do something, either it can't be done or you don't know how. Omniscience means you know what is impossible and how to do all the possible things. You think you are not omnipotent because you cannot lift a 1000 pound rock? That is because, you can only exert a couple of hundred pounds of upward thrust, at best. Even god cannot lift a 1000 pound rock with 200 pounds of thrust. When you figure out how to exert the needed 1000 pounds of upward thrust, you can move the rock. In other words if you know how you can do it. If you can't do it it is because you don't know how, or it is impossible. Omniscient beings are omnipotent,
Omnipresnece? What does that mean? Everywhere present? Again, what does that mean? One way to think of being somewhere, is that you can see what's going on there and can act to influence things there. Again, if you are omniscient, you know everything, and certainly know what's going on everywhere. You can also influence events everywhere as a condition of your omniscience/omnipotence. There are other aspects to think about regarding omniprescence, but they all boil down to knowledge.
We exist to seek knowledge.
I argue that those you claim believe in "might makes right" in fact do not. If they did, they would have no problem with the statement, "Person A should be able to push Person B around." All of their answers would contain some form of the condition, "True as long as I'm Person A."
Saddam Hussein was a "might makes right" kind of guy. But only so long as it was his might making the right. As soon as America's superior might threatened, he became a, "It's not right for America to use its might" kind of guy.
Because I truly believe that "right makes might" and that nobody really believes "might makes right" I can refute none of you refure none of your arguments. They are based on assumptions to which I do not subscribe.
True. And in the short run, (near) monpolies achieved in the free market advance rather than restrict us.
All monopolies are temporary, and if you take a short enough time slice, you may find that everything is a monopoly. Monopolies achieved in the free market are beneficial. When they no longer are, they soon lose their monopoly status.
The competition of the market always blocks the oligopolistic direction you fear. Rand reveres the market.
Thanks. I think of myself the same way.
I do not agree with everything I post, but think it's a good idea to put things out for discussion, such as your reasonable defense of Peikoff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.