Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bart13 who wrote (96007)	10/28/2012 3:12:07 PM
From: Robin Plunder	Respond to of 218847

I can provide the intellectual history if you like, just thought you might have something specific in mind... rp

To: bart13 who wrote (96007)	10/28/2012 3:21:35 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218847

It's fair enough to say that the themes and broad ideas were not new. I derived the same ideas myself and they hardly seemed particularly difficult to conclude. They are a logical outcome of being aware of what's going on and what makes things tick. They don't even delve into the arcane world of physics and really what makes things tick. They lack precision. For example she treats man's individual mind as being the standard of value [I have not checked my rule-book but that's as I recall the unit of measurement] but there's no dividing line in consciousness from rock-like 0 to Mq-like 10 or -od-like 100. Also, there's no utilitarianism [along John Stuart Mill lines] or probabilistic approach to "initiation of force". By that I mean any action above rock-like is "initiation of force" which has probabilistic above-zero negative consequences somewhere along the ripples of effects out into the Cosmos. Not that I can recall anyway, but I have merely dabbled once 17 years ago when an employer [Radio Liberty boss] loaned me a copy of Atlas Shrugged. But like Newtonian mechanics, Ayn Rand philosophy is near-enough for government work for day to day existence in the brute force realm of human-scale political processes. I have noticed that never do anti-Randians come up with reason, logic, good sense etc. I can make a better argument for them than they can. They just do insult, appeal to authority, straw man etc argument. They are the Global Warmists of philosophy. "Just do it because we say so. Give us your money and shut up". Mqurice