lorry

There is no THE IDEA. If two people work, and as a function of their work, generate ideas, then they both own their idea (because their idea is a function of the work done to produce it, which, they own). Information and energy are not these unrelated things, they are directly related.

Not "the idea", his idea. Which, incidentally, is a product of his labour and so rightly his property. Can he stop someone from using his idea? Absolutely, the idea is his property. Can he stop someone from creating their own idea? Absolutely not, that is the creation of new property.

Fiat currency can be duplicated and the duplication doesn't remove anything from you.

Check out podcasts #379, #380, #383 and #652, my dude.

It translates into ownership ala the labour theory of property (John Locke). 1 bit of information is that which enables us to chose correctly between 2 equally probably outcomes. Information is embodied in an object, to speak of information as not being stored somewhere is unphysical. Counter-fitting is the "copying" of information. If I copy a $5 note (counterfit it) I am copying the information on the $5 note. The dimensions, the colours, the patterns, etc. We recognize that copying the information on money is bad, but it is just the copying of the information on the note, eh?

When it is said that rights don't exist, the full statement is that rights do not exist as a metaphysically given fact. Rights, as such, are (conceptual) rules by which men might co-exist with one another, but, the validity of a right (of anything conceptual) must be by reference to a metaphysically given fact. With respect to property rights, the metaphysically given fact is that man, in order to exist, must produce. This is a fact of nature, outside of our volition, and so the respect of property rights is the identification of this fact by men in polity and their agreement to adhere to it. The full(er) statements: If a skyscraper is to fulfill its intended purpose, it must conform to the metaphysically given facts of reality (the laws of physics). If a society is to fulfill its intended purpose, it must conform to the metaphysically given facts of reality (that man's existence is conditional upon production).

Yes. But it depends very much upon the child and the upbringing. The bad has to be caused by something. Whilst we (correctly) identify the parents as bad, some children will project the bad of the parents onto existence as such, ie, the world is a bad place. There is no reason not to think a child who does not project the bad onto the world does not project the bad onto the state of childhood, ie, children are bad (but existence, as such, is just existence). If then the child grows up, and does not correct this misconcepton, there is reason to believe they would avoid having children like the plague (because children, as such, are bad).

He we see the act of creating a human life (from an engineer's perspective).

Physical science isn't the content of the science, it is the concepts of the content.

But they can not argue my body my choice without implicitly accepting the premise that they are a being capable of choosing, ie, a rational animal. If their argument requires the axiom: I am capable of choice, why would you not use that as the foundation of your position? Like: are you capable of choice when you are unconscious? No? OK, so remember that scene in Kill Bill where the janitor has sex with the unconscious women, no problem! hey? Then you get straight to a capacity for choice or a potential for choice (and they even did in the debate, ie, we don't get to kill unconscious people) and then it is game over, either I can fuck you when you are unconscious or abortion is wrong.

Objective..... Why do we need values?

I do agree, but introducing the concept of an implied contract doesn't solve the ethical problem, it pushes it back a level of abstraction and introduces another problem to solve. So instead of "is abortion ethical", it is now: "is an implied contact forbidding abortion ethical" which holds two problems "is an implied contract ethical" and "is abortion ethical".

Just kidding, I wrote about UPB on the previous page, didn't I? Oh, gawd, I've been memory holed! Bants aside, thanks for the convo. I learned a lot and really appreciate it. Where else can you even talk about this, hey?

Show?

Who's it by?

I think you win that debate by invoking Rand with a twist. Life as the standard of value. Man as rational animal. Potential rational not automatic rational. You can see Crowder try to get to life as the standard of value but fail to define man as a rational animal (he has a hard time differentiating man from fish). Once you have life as the standard of value and man as rational animal, you just need to get fetus into the category of rational animal. I think you get there because rational means "has the potential to be rational" not "is automatically rational". A fetus is can not be reduced (split up into egg and sperm) and has a potential (if not aborted) to be rational. Don't see how you get around that.

UPB? Never heard of it.

Video of vectors vs scalars for anyone scratching their head.

Let elevators, objectively, go up and down. Your definition of elevator is that elevators can only go down. If elevators can only go down then up doesn't exist [because if up exists, the elevator can go up]. Therefore down doesn't exist [because if there is no up, what does it mean to say there is a down]. OR YOUR DEFINITION [2] IS INCORRECT. Force, in the context of ethics, can be good or bad. Your definition of force is that force can only be bad. If force can only be bad, it must be that good doesn't exist. If good doesn't exist, bad doesn't exist. OR YOUR DEFINITION [2] IS INCORRECT. If force can only be in one direction, force has no direction [because direction doesn't exist!], and if force has no direction then force has only magnitude, and if force has only magnitude then force is a scalar quantity. Force is not a scalar quantity, force is a vector quantity, you are wrong because your definition is wrong, and everything that follows from your definition is wrong. The libertarian can not define force because by defining force [correctly] it follows that they must define objective value/ethics [the co-ordinate system in which the force is said to act], and they can't do that because that implies an objective standard of value [and they have to drop subjective value theory]. And if they drop the subjective value theory, they can't be such degenerates, which is the whole point of Libertarianism.

I said all definitions are shorthands. I did not say all shorthands are definitions. The libertarian definition of force is...... coercion [the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. "it wasn't slavery because no coercion was used"] through threat [see coercion] of or commission of violence [behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. "violence erupted in protest marches"] the seizure [the action of capturing someone or something using force. "the seizure of the Assembly building"] of private property the limitation of liberty through imprisonment or interference. So the libertarian definition of force is force or force or force or limiting liberty through imprisonment or limiting liberty through interference (without defining liberty, which, will end up being a state of the absence of force, won't it, hey?). So the libertarian definition of force, is force. C'mon, man, just say with a straight face "force isn't a vector quantity". I dares yeh.

1. How, like, how to you grasp this concept, like, what chain of conceptual integration leads to this concept, to whit I point to the codification of said conceptual chain. 2. The libertarian definition of force is..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................? It is shorthand for........... well, all definitions are shorthand, hey? They are compressions of a concept into it's essential characteristics. I mean, I said libertarians can't define force, and you proceed to not define it, hey?

So it looks something like this. Man's life is the ultimate end. Thus man's life is the good. Means are valued for their ends. The means to life is the use of man's mind. Thus the use of man's mind is the good. The invalidation of the good is the bad. Thus the invalidation of man's mind is bad. The action of invaliding man's mind is the initiation of force. Thus the initiation of force is bad. Ok, let a good system of taxation be a system in which everyone is taxed which is to say everyone is having force initiated upon them. Because it is a good system, this implies everyone is NOT using their mind. But because everyone is NOT using their mind, it can not be good. So a good system of taxation can not be good.

There is a concept of force, which I previously defined as generalized force, which any subsequent conception of force (being a narrowing of the definition) can not contradict (without invalidating the definition OR by redefining force which implies the discovery of a yet more generalized conception of force and thus previously unknown distinguishing characteristics of force . Your conception of force (conception because you have not defined it, because libertarians can not define force) contradicts this (definition of the concept of a generalized force) by dropping the coordinate system (by dropping good but keeping bad, like a down with no up) and is by virtue of this is invalid. Your conception of force, which is the libertarian conception of force, is unequivocally wrong. To the physicist (hey) or the mathematician I say, force is a vector quantity, not a scalar quantity.

Objectivism. Specifically, An Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology. Stefan has some podcasts and videos from way back when on it, but just get the book, thb fam.

Because values are objective, not subjective, and the standard of value is man's life. What gives me the right to bla... bla... bla... is to ask by what standard do you know that bla... bla... bla... to whit I refer you to the standard of value, man's life, against which ends are measured. I don't think you thought through your last question.