Paul's Here

Members
  • Content count

    6,884
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul's Here

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 03/05/1953

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Columbia, MD
  • Interests Engineering, problem solving, philosophy, hiking, vacationing, economics, computers, and, of course, Objectivism
  1. You have to watch this. FLASHLIGHT ON SMART PHONES
  2. Every Loneliness Is a Pinnacle

    I don't think we should confuse "alone" or "aloneness" with "loneliness."
  3. Why is there a ship in this painting?

    The ship is puzzling. The ship appears to be a frigate, but the US didn't have any frigates until after the war was over and the US Congress authorized 6 frigates. There were many Continental Navy Ships, so maybe you want to start with that link to look up images. I looked through several images and none came close to matching what's in the painting.
  4. Reason and logic

    I agree also with Betsy and Arnold.
  5. Reason and logic

    And I'm sure that a religious person would say that faith is the faculty by which man grasps truth. So without a additional distinguishing characteristics, your definition is not precise enough.
  6. Reason and logic

    1. Your description is not a definition because it does not distinguish how man grasps truth. Nor does it distinguish reason as a faculty from other descriptions, such as "Reason] is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice." (AR Lexicon). Your statement is a rewording of Rand's "Reason is man’s tool of knowledge." Not a denfition. 2. Same issues for logic. Also, using the concept "instrument" in the definition implies some kind of mechanistic process. As thinking and reasoning are processes, logic must include that as an essential element of its definition without implying an element of instrumental mechanism. In this case, your genus and differentia need work for a correct definition. What distinguishes logic from other instruments of reason?
  7. Burgess Laughlin: July 4, 1944 - August 29, 2014

    I found this story about Burgess' health problems from many years ago. https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/stars/stars-written/burgess-laughlin/
  8. http://www.studygroupsforobjectivists.com/sgoApp/obit.html
  9. Objectivist Environmental Ethics

    Rand did not say "citizens can delegate rights to government if they so wish to delegate." See my post above. Such consent applies only to the use of physical force and self defense. As has been mentioned before, if there is no ownership, how can citizens delegate ownership rights to the government since they don't have such rights to delegate? You're statement is a logical fallacy. So, on to your question. "What are the proper uses of natural resources that Rand allows governments to define and protect via laws and rules as custodians?" My answer is NONE. The only rules that are needed are the laws needed to establish ownership rights and how to protect the rights of those who earn the right to own the previously unowned property. "The proper use of natural resources" is outside the province of governmental laws.
  10. Objectivist Environmental Ethics

    The consent of the governed applies only to the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating the right of self defense to the government. There is no implication of delegating ownership rights, or any other rights, to the government.
  11. Objectivist Environmental Ethics

    Again, you are missing the main point that has been made in this thread: that rights are actions of use and disposal of things, not to things themselves. Rights of ownership and property pertain to the same thing: the right to use and dispose of something. Whether it be books, houses, patents, copyrights, water, rivers, lakes, ground, trees, etc. Man-made or predating man's existence, the right of use and disposal of the things is guided by the same principle.
  12. Objectivist Environmental Ethics

    How do you go from "You cannot obtain the products of a mind..." to you cannot own the object you've traded for, all you get is the "right to use the product produced, and on the owners terms and only by the owner"? If I sell something, the terms are that the other person now owns it.
  13. Objectivist Environmental Ethics

    This doesn't make sense. If a possible use for a car is to run over people, as the owner of the car, I have a right to determine that it is used that way? The examples could be multiplied many times. Also, to say that I don't own a book because I can't use it any and every way, your conclusion doesn't follow. In any trade, ownership is recognized within the context of the conditions of the sale. If I buy a gun from a gun shop, he's selling it to me on condition that I use it legally. If the gun shop owner were to sell me the gun with the knowledge or assumption that I was going to kill someone or rob a bank, the gun shop owner would be legally accountable for my use of the gun.
  14. Objectivist Environmental Ethics

    Not so simple. If you build a house next to an airport, you can't then complain there's too much noise. If you build your house next to a garbage dump, don't complain about the smell.
  15. Turning NSA back on illegal government

    I've been wondering why I haven't had a HDD crash in so many years. It appears that the manufacturer's have figured out a way to statistically separate out the drives headed for the consumer market from those headed for the government market. Apparently, all the ones with a greater likelihood of failure were sent to government bureaucrats.