RichardY

To what point does the protagonist remember the future? If she remembers the future she must have in some way experienced it, if so was it really the future? I wonder to what degree the brain has to be forward thinking. I mean like receiving light from a former distance star, now extinguished or just in everyday situations. What was the choice she made? So she accepts the future, progression of reality while choosing not to exert influence? Perhaps similar to atheist refuting God or maybe religion and in so doing affirming its existence. If something really is the future can someone change it? Given sufficient technology is it possible to stop a star fading or reverse its death? I guess that may involve going faster than the speed of light. I wonder if the emergence of "free will" or perhaps "something different" properties of the brain allow for neurons in a way to converge to a singular point in which their collective action as an emergent property could exceed/transcend the speed of light. What could be the reasoning that the future would change someone in a way that they wouldn't want to change the future? Wouldn't they be effectively be split in two? Two identical individuals being an impossibility of inhabiting the same universe perhaps? Perhaps like a clone of a plant, but with an animal instead. As long as you know the totality of existence(Future/Past?) you are not effecting it. Choice would seem to be a prerequisite of freewill. Choice has limits. Within each choice, though millions+ of neurons I guess may have acted to be able to conceive of that choice. Free perhaps is a state of mind in-accordance with ethics. If you are acting out of rage, spite etc how much of that is you or the mirroring of others, however distorted. When I initially looked at your post a rollercoaster loop came to mind. Then an Ankh. There would seem quite a bit to explore here. If I say freewill requires choice, which would seem that it does, what exactly does that explain?

Well if your angry at least you're expressing yourself, so not repressing, I don't think a person can ever willingly self erase. Anger may or may not be productive depending on who you are dealing with. Either that or the emotion becomes internalised and becomes resentment or contempt. All just an opinion, maybe others have a better understanding of emotion.

Conveying emotion. "A nods as good as a wink to a blind bat. Say no more, Say no more."

Maybe you could focus on one particular industry to sell websites to. I knew a guy in Austria who sold websites to restaurants and small businesses, perhaps if the owner of a business felt the website was good enough, they would hesitate at the possibility that you may sell to their competitors and be at a disadvantage. Perhaps you could show various prototypes, to help the client make an informed decision. Take heart in your anger.

What does it mean to be Masculine? What does it mean to be Feminine? Masculine Non Conformists, individuated. Independent? Direct. Refine Thought, logic. Takes Initiative. Investigative. Bold. Meritocracy based on achievement and ability. (Special Forces) Self-centred. Not focused on approval. Comparative. Status. Competence. Focus on Principles. Resource producing. More Right Wing. Competitive. Win-lose. Need Resistance, obstacles, challenges. Life Affirming. Feminine Conformists. Dependent? Indirect. Provoke thought? Matriarchal based on Age and Experience. (Madam of a Brothel) Altruistic. Obsessive about Physical Attractiveness, make-up, or in the case of male homosexuality concerned with Abs and Tattoos. Lesbians less concerned with make-up. Qualitative, Qualifications. Focus on self fitness? Focus on Universals. Focus on approval. Resource consuming. Creative. Feelings. More Left Wing. Cooperative. Win-Win. Avoids Resistance, obstacles. Life Producing. Apache Attack Helicopter, Transgender, Potato or Neuter None of the Above. I wonder if there are perhaps an increasing number of Lesbians and Male-Gays in society(can't think of a term that is specific and non Derogatory) because gender wasn't considered enough in child raising. I mean thinking of the Lara Croft Tomb Raider types, they probably turn out to be lesbians right? Perhaps because they could not find an ultra masculine man? Perhaps I should have phrased the preceding paragraph to be more masculine, maybe there is a balance?

Money or currency? My understanding is that money is a monetary asset (a momentary instance of something), where as currency is based on monetary assets. (a generalisation) Money according to Ayn Rand must be created before it can be "spent". What is the distinction between money and currency? I think it was more to do with voluntary cooperation throughout the Empire. Internal violence only weakened it. I remember from Stefan's Fall of Rome Presentation that one of the Emperors said "because we have this(a sword) there shall be no shortage of money." Anatolia is fairly arid, people often lived underground(Largest underground former cities in the World), how else is the Empire going to protect various isolated communities if there is no mutual cooperation.

So taxation is determined by consent?

So taxation is not subject to economic price calculation, but central planning? There is a concept called the "Laffer Curve" that beyond a certain marginal tax rate, tax revenues are greatly reduced. For example if particular marginal tax rates for various industries were at 90% as they were during WW2 then tax revenue in that area, was and would be probably greatly reduced. As a whole therefore, if the dollar is backed by taxes, there would be a particular marginal tax rate beyond which people would probably opt for leisure then work or the black market. With the end result being that taxes would have to be reduced or more draconian measures taken to maintain the size of the state. Beyond what tax rate does the USD cease to be viable or is it backed by tax at all levels of taxation. --------- A thought occurred to me of the concept of exclusivity. The Swiss Franc is often seen as a stable currency, perhaps this in partial due to some of the exclusive Swiss companies such as Rolex, Victorinox and probably some other very high tech manufacturing ones. Perhaps there is some exclusivity in "good" products only offered in bitcoin somewhere.

Woman B hasn't, unless she has found a way to erase Man A's memory, making him no longer Man A. I suppose if Women B were superwoman she could reverse time. Making Woman A, no longer Woman A. Loneliness or carnal desires, if loneliness how so. Superman is flying over the justice league and sees wonder women lying naked on the roof, so superman decides to go pump wonder women. Invisible man says ow my ass. Where doesn't freewill apply to human interactions? Yeah I understand your point that a person can often predict what other another person is going to do and if you know what they are going to do, kind of boring to be around and pretty stagnant. The free market is an exercise in creativity, maybe some of the participants view each other as tools, but the outcome is creation. Don't know really how a doctor views patients, but my guess would be to improve and maintain health and do no harm, the money is an effect of creativity not an obstacle. Society can't function if people only try and use each other. When do ever uses match up. ---------------- Selflessness. Personally I think there are huge benefits/abilities to being selfless. Just thinking of practical skills, touch typing, riding a bike, playing sports etc. A few other thoughts came to mind, The Shadow 1994, The Hunt for Red October, Hindu diety Kali and the endings of a PC game Deus Ex.

My morality is to capture a person in battle and sacrifice them to Woden all Father. I'll do this because it's correct and I really want to get into Valhalla.

Based on, subjective preferences? How would a project such as an oil rig or mine be calculated to be potentially profitable? If the USD is backed by taxes, does the USA have the tax base to cover foreign debt obligations? If not, then how is it backed by taxes.

How is economic price calculation performed then?

The USD is backed by oil, who ever gets hold of the US dollars first gets to buy commodities first before inflation sets in. Even something like Bitcoin could be said to be measured against the USD, most people want to pay the lowest price they can quality being equal. Maybe there is a local currency somewhere that only has value in its region, but I think that's pretty rare most people need oil in one form or another. How many people would prefer to take USD in Africa or S.America rather then their local crap currency.

Yes they are, they are backed by the USD, which has World Reserve Currency status. If they are making stuff up then they are not paying each other. Oil is often priced in USD or EURO's, which gives the United States or Europe the chance to buy up commodities before inflation in commodity prices. They can only do this with countries like Saudi Arabia because they back the regime with weapons. If like Gaddafi they choose to take payment in Gold, well after shaking his hand and releasing the Lockerbie Bomber.... As you quoted from Carroll Quigley "Bills of exchange" were often used as claims against the assets of the other person, which may fluctuate on the foreign exchange market. The Government alternative would be the sale of monopolies to foreign creditors, as is happening with Nuclear Power in the UK and mid-west solar power in the USA. Eventually though the government is going to run out of assets to plunder. But you haven't prevented the seizure of your property. The fact something is demanded through violence does not provide value to it. People in the government can demand all the Gold and bits of paper in heaven and Earth, but it isn't going to provide value to it. Paying taxes out of desperation, for potential future freedom maybe a good idea, the Soviet system could not function without gulags.

Why be Moral? Because you can not "be" if you are not moral. Evil has a master where as good does not. The Goal of Philosophers is to provoke thought. The point of Philosophy is ethics. I don't remember Stefan ever saying about being a "slave to Philosophy", I remember him saying something along the lines of not always having a moral imperative to tell the truth no matter what, like a robot or computer. I also remember "speak the truth and shame the Devil". I think Stefan also said that when he was in business as a software entrepreneur the company was dependent on Government contracts to a degree, although they made provisions to try not to be. In my own words, you may consider the option to drink from the chalice of blood, but be aware although, it may keep you alive, it will corrupt your soul. (maybe too melodramatic)

Ok 2 examples to make my point. Would a policeman? a) Prevent injuries to the public. b) Prefer or appreciate more people being knifed to death. Would a locksmith? a) Make locks to keep horses in the stables. Cut keys etc b) Prefer or appreciate more break ins, to provide security. If the later they are not a policeman and they are not a locksmith. In the same way "Guns don't kill people, I do". (Postal II) Tools don't give value to people, people give value to tools. Behind the tool there is a fundamental desire or need, in the person.

You still didn't answer my initial question of if the US dollar is backed by nothing, how was and is the USA supposed to settle balance of payment issues with other countries being a debtor nation? The art of the unseen or implicit.

Looks like a Dinner Lady Apron crossed with a serviette. Far from being the antithesis of PC Culture, this is almost the pinnacle. Trump plates, get your Trump plates, now with a limited time Trump and Melania Pillow case. Out before Christmas, The Trump Action Figure, with such classics as "BUILD THE WALL" "YOU"RE FIRED" "RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM" and "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!". Bound to be a best seller and for the Hillary Clinton types they can stick pins in it.

There are no non-mind objects. Matter and objects are inconstant or else they wouldn't have "behaviour", which is inaccurate. Matter and objects maybe subject to Universal Laws, which are constant. A=A which is held in the mind of the Subject and therefore an expression of constancy. When equivalence is formed..

So by smashing a window or breaking an entry, value is created/generated, what if the person becomes an insomniac or moves out of the neighbourhood, takes their own life; is value then generated for the worms. I think Frédéric Bastiat's "Broken window fallacy" refutes this. Perhaps it is good to purge the weak, their values in the final outcome were inferior anyway, they did not endure. Maybe it would be a good thing to have countries like Sweden burn, maybe even accelerate it. ("To serve as warning flag to others". "Or that never again moment"). As Constantinople burns, Rome begins to rise in Renaissance. If someone were to assert their values above all, they would perhaps be the good and valuable. How best could someone create value through violence? I never said defined by, I said backed by. There is no law or explicit agreement, just as there is no explicit agreement in the concept of "Joint Enterprise", how else was the USA to settle Balance of payment issues with foreign creditors? I read that the dollar was defined originally by Silver and not Gold, Gold being impractical for everyday transactions and Silver being plentiful due to Spanish mining in Mexico. So Gold-Certificates could be considered, Dollars? Modern day Federal Reserve Notes, Dollars?

But is it the Object that is constant or the Subject(observer)? I would say that it is constancy in the subject. When is matter manifest in larger forms ever identical. I think change would be a better word than behaviour, as behaviour has psychological connotations.

I think it's because of the human minds tendency to think in generalities as a opposed to specifities. The "Luke, I am your father" is a specificity you only have one father right. Mother is a bit more of a generality, "Mother earth"."Father Time" (a specificity) As Stefan said and I'm paraphrasing, "children are universalising machines, it's not just one apple that's poisoned, but all apples."

Free Market; Like "Free Trade" an Oxymoron. This website, a "forum"(perhaps not unlike Roman Civilization) is the centre of a market of ideas, the website can not be said to be free as such in terms of cost, though anyone can post within various rules. Unlike free trade which may involve systems of barter a market has a focal point where people can meet. If the Free is to mean anything it should mean freedom and not for nothing or entitlement.

So it is possible to "create" value by inflicting violence on people? I generally hold value to be positive assertions, not negative ones. i.e I value not having my legs broken by the mafia. Waking up with a horse head. Being melted in acid. Being ass-raped. Eating lard. Hit by meteor. Tortured on a Japanese Gameshow. Fear of being jailed for tax evasion and then ass raped. Ad Infinitum. I wouldn't say I value roads per se, I perhaps value the freedom they may or may not provide. I mean in Norway one of the roads was built with slave labour sometimes ploughed into the concrete, I think it would be better if people stuck more to boats. Great Wall of China probably an interesting tourist attraction, built with workers that were murdered for their labour. I still hold by my premise that the US dollar is backed by Oil, various shares and Government Guarantees. Oil because when the USA came off the Gold Standard completely in 1971 in order to continue to siphon off wealth due to the Vietnam war an alternative was devised. That alternative was backing the murderous Saudi regime in return for Oil. I mean France and other countries wanted their Gold reserves back and they aren't exactly going to take paper or Bud Lite in payment. Generally I don't think "the Elites" want the general crap "us peasants" produce(toilet paper exempted, though maybe they use currency in Venezuela), they want Ferraris, Yachts, Don Perigon Champagne, Private Jets all often exempt from taxation. The fact that something maybe demanded does not add value to it.

How is addition derived from the behaviour of the universe? ----------------- Principled; If you say someone or something has principles, you are saying it has substance or integrity. Principled does not equal rational. It is confusing switching from principle to principled. I guess one could say the universe has integrity where as people don't always have it, but perhaps strive the best can for it in some cases. A principle perhaps could be said to be rational which would be essential to communicate it.