Jim Faber

Members
  • Content count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jim Faber

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 10/13/1958

Contact Methods

  • MSN JimFaber@msn.com
  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Portland
  • Interests Business, Music, Nature, Ideas, People
  1. What Can Be Done?

    Presupposition failure: 'society' is not your responsibility. Further, what is your evidence that "a civil war will achieve no positive result." Or that "we can't go 'cold turkey' off the theft and entitlement [redundant] programs?" "What can be done?" Shrug. "Get busy living, or get busy dying." - Andy Dufresne, from "The Shawshank Redemption" Sometimes it is best for nature to thin the herd. JDF
  2. The Primacy of Order

    It is imprecise to say concepts are not things (refer to the definition of "thing"). Concepts are things, in that they are existents, but they are not Material. Using your model, they are Order (of the material that comprises the mind).
  3. The Primacy of Order

    No. You are concept-stealing. Order presupposes Material. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/zero.html
  4. Question about Zoning Regulations in a neighborhood

    The videos are of a 'summit' organized by Tom DeWeese, who has subsequently written many articles that Capitalism Magazine has carried. So presumably they believe that any association of religion with his thoughts have not sufficiently impugned his understanding of capitalism. The specific religious aspect that I noticed was the assertion that the American Founding Fathers assumed 'rights' to be 'unalienable' because they are bestowed by 'God'. I don't see that as information necessary to the arguments made in the videos.
  5. Question about Zoning Regulations in a neighborhood

    About 6 hours of video. Addresses property rights, environmental misinformation, globalization, insidious socialism, and other issues. Some arguments are unnecessarily linked to religion. Even so, I found much of it interesting. Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8137185398743302029 Part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903112019958738510 Part 3 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3160326442882912356 JDF
  6. What is Idealism?

    I don't understand why the classification is one/many/combination rather than self/other. For instance, 'God' - which is classified as an 'idealism of one' - is as much a non-self imperative as any of the types of 'idealism of many'. Wouldn't 'Rand's Razor' apply here? I don't see the practicality of analyzing the issue further than solipsistic vs. social-metaphysic idealism. Jim
  7. Wow. It is a bit disconcerting for me to get this much benevolent rationality, particularly this quickly. I am new in this forum, and am mindful of the quality that is maintained here (a major reason I am here). So please, anyone instruct me if the format of my reply can be improved. That said, considering the replies here so far, I think a bit more background would be useful. I think a good place to begin is by answer the following question to me by Burgess Laughlin: It looks to me like an instance of a stolen concept. Misusing reason in an attempt to deny reason as the possible and proper tool with which to deal with the situation. A very sincere thank you to all who have responded so far. All I have to offer in return at the moment is to say, "well done."
  8. I read the following argument where the author said that Objectivism had "serious problems" in it, and this is exemplified by Ayn Rand’s “flawed” view of the parent-child relationship. For my own understanding, I would appreciate any comments further elaborating on this or refuting it. Also, if the argument below is flawed, I would especially like to know not just that it is incorrect, but why it is. Thanks,