Dennis Hardin

Members
  • Content Count

    1,496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dennis Hardin

  1. To heck with skill, has he got a martyr complex? Does he like to burn himself with matches, hang from the rafters by his fingernails, or, better yet, play toss with kitchen knives? “Damn, son,” said the hockey coach. “I just saw you dive head first through that glass door and then walk back out again, just for the excitement. How are you on skates?”
  2. Considering how stupid he is, he must have thought $100 was a bargain.
  3. Go for it Dennis - the few-day fantasy could become a lifelong dream. Who would have thought at season start, that outside of the Canucks the one and only Canadian team in the playoffs would be the lowly Senators. I have never had eny enthusiasm for them.I spent four years in Ottawa and it is my least favourite city. But I have to root for them now, because just as most of the NHL revenue is generated by the Canadian teams and spent amongst the American ones, so is the fanblood. I don't like the excessive physicality of the playoff openers. Stopp hitting each other on the head, guys. It's int
  4. I'll bite up to a point. At least to supply some fundamental syllogisms that I often find lacking in the all-or-nothing arguments that permeate this debate. Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: Objective means being based on reason. Conclusion: Anything considered objective must include context or axioms. Or to state another syllogism: Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: The principle of NIOF is based on reason. Conclusion: The application of NIOF must include context or axioms. If NIOF i
  5. Yes, you are being dishonest, because there is absolutely no basis in Rand's writings to support your claim that she rejected the notion of self-ownership. On the contrary, she expressly used the idea in a passage I quoted from "What is Capitalism?" And in an embarrassing display of self-refutation, you quoted another statement by her of the same sort, viz.: All this is perfectly consistent with Rand's own definition of "ownership" -- "the right of use and disposal" -- that I quoted earlier. And in the passage that you unwittingly quoted, Rand places great stress on self-ownership, calling it
  6. How about those eighth-seeded LA Kings--up 3-zip over the Canucks! Wow! Time for me to become a hockey fan for a few days. (I doubt the fantasy will last more than a few days. . .but who knows?)
  7. The developing embryo and the mother have a unique biological relationship-the embryo is dependent on the mother for its sustenance. The fact that the mother does not have the right to destroy the embryo in the third trimester does not endow the embryo with all the rights of an independent human being. I see no reason why the mother should suddenly become the slave of the embryo after six months. Individual rights, once acquired, are inalienable. As an independent human being, her rights are paramount. She retains all the rights she would normally have, including the right to end her lif
  8. Dennis, Thanks for your kind words. I can't help but notice the similarity between NIOF and dogma in general (when NIOF is believed in as an axiom). When you remove the mind, but insist on the rule, that's the definition of dogma to me. When someone believes in dogma all the way down, they say it trumps reason, they say you have to take it whole hog or nothing while saying they are not actually saying that, and they get really pissed and personal when you when challenge it at the root. I wonder what the influence of cognitive bias is on dogma... Something to think about... "while saying they
  9. This is a crucial distinction with respect to a proper derivation of individual rights. Peikoff's comments are exceedingly ignorant. They are downright embarrassing. Ghs If anyone doubts what I said here, just read this article, "Property," that was written by James Madison in 1792. Does this sound like it was written "in the day when property rights were considered sacrosanct but life and liberty were thought of as vague abstractions." Does Madison sound like a "frightened conservative"? Peikoff should know better. He dumb remarks probably result from sustained inbreeding. Having insulated
  10. I never claimed that NIOF is a moral primary. I have said this repeatedly. How many more times must I say this before you get the point? You can repeat it a billion times, but until your expressed viewpoints are consistent with the premise that NIOF is not a primary, you are still using it as a primary. Of course rights must be defined first, because this is how we distinguish between the initiatory and retaliatory uses of force. After we define the relevant rights and make our determination, we then prohibit those activities that qualify as the initiation of force. I made this point as earl
  11. Objectivism rejects the entire notion of "self-ownership" as the basis of the right to life. The acceptance of this idea is one more example of the failure to appreciate the underlying philosophical basis of rights. Oh, really? So why did Rand write the following (in "What is Capitalism?"): Since according to you and Peikoff, "ownership is a concept which implies a relationship between you and an external object," Rand could not possibly have defended the absurd position that "man is a sovereign individual who owns his own person, his mind, his life," etc. Since this is not even possible, I
  12. Peter, I don't believe you are correct with respect to the position of "orthodox" Objectivists on abortion. I'm sure George will be delighted to discover that his position is shared by ARI and Leonard Peikoff. I regard their positon as equally insane. It's exactly the sort of dogmatic nonsense that helps to marginalize Objectivism as a lunatic fringe. Here is a link to a podcast by Peikoff on this issue dated 10-20-08. The fact that Peikoff and ARI completely ignore Ayn Rand's reservations about abortion in the latter stages of pregnancy is more evidence that their alleged faithfulness to
  13. Objectivism rejects the entire notion of "self-ownership" as the basis of the right to life. The acceptance of this idea is one more example of the failure to appreciate the underlying philosophical basis of rights. Oh, really? So why did Rand write the following (in "What is Capitalism?"): Since according to you and Peikoff, "ownership is a concept which implies a relationship between you and an external object," Rand could not possibly have defended the absurd position that "man is a sovereign individual who owns his own person, his mind, his life," etc. Since this is not even possible, I
  14. As with the passages I quoted previously, this shows the fundamental role that freedom and physical force play in Rand's ethics, and not merely in her political theory. The pursuit of objective values, according to Rand, presupposes freedom of choice and action. And rights (as I explained earlier) then become the conceptual method by which we define and sanction this freedom of action. On at least two occasions that I can recall, Dennis said that rights make a "moral existence" possible for man. (I believe this is the term he used.) I checked my "Objectivism Research CD-ROM." Rand only used "m
  15. This is it. --Brant Okay. I continue to be impressed by my perspicacity. Where am I going wrong here?
  16. The need to quote passages like this is depressing in a way, since Rand said the same thing many times, without equivocation. But Dennis's bizarre reading of Rand, according to which she defended the initation of force by government, has made this necessary. As I said earlier, Dennis, having drilled holes in the Randian boat with many supposed exceptions to the NIOF principle, is now attempting to patch up his own holes by distinguishing between cases of the "existential" initiation of force that Rand supposedly approved of, but did not regard as "technical" cases of the initiation of force. T
  17. Here as elsewhere, Rand stresses the NIOF principle as an essential limitation on government. If we concede, as Dennis has, that a government may legitimately initiate force, then we have conceded the principle of statism, and the rest is just a matter of time. (I devote nearly an entire chapter to this issue in Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press later this year, or perhaps early next year.) Ghs I corrected myself on that and acknowledged my error. As I now understand the issue, as long as the government is acting to protect individual
  18. Could you clarify that with an example, Brant? I'm sorry. I don't get your meaning.
  19. hissy fit noun. A sudden outburst of temper, often used to describe female anger at something trivial. I suspect we both know who is throwing the hissy fits around here. My own theory is that fetal viability should serve as the brightline test that determines when the unborn can no longer be routinely exterminated. It is no longer dependent on the mother at that point, and can survive on its own outside the womb, so the mother no longer has the right to end its life. I realize the matter is debatable. I don't happen to think it's reasonable to kill a viable fetus moments after the woman's wa
  20. Once again, you seem to want to deny that you are using NIOF as a primary, while you continue to use NIOF as a primary. The rights that individuals have are the rights to live the life proper to a rational being, including all of that which is entailed—e.g., the right to the products of one’s mental effort, the right to be free from the threat of force, the right to the value of the reputation one has earned, the right to the free, mutually agreed contractual exchange of goods and services, the right to not be deliberately and (from the victim’s standpoint) unknowingly placed in harm’s way in
  21. Tony, I like your comparison to naval battleships. However, I keep thinking of another kind of war. . . "I want Balboa! I want Balboa!" P.S. What round is this? I lost count.
  22. Michael, Your identification of the connection between the reductionist interpretation of NIOF and the mind-body dichotomy is superb. I agree completely. I want to do some more thinking on that topic before commenting further. Thanks for your insight on this. I'll look forward to your essay on Napoleon Hill. That little gem of a book has always been an inspiration to me.
  23. The NIOF principle is not the fundation of her political theory. Her derivation and explication of rights provides that foundation. And it is only after rights have been clarified and defined that the NIOF principle can even be properly understood or applied. Objectivism rejects the entire notion of "self-ownership" as the basis of the right to life. The acceptance of this idea is one more example of the failure to appreciate the underlying philosophical basis of rights. In this case, I think Peikoff is totally accurate his analysis. This strikes me as a very strained analysis, to say th
  24. Rather, I would say that in making a good-faith effort to delineate the particulars of her NIOF principle, Rand made a mistake in regard to IP. The result of this error, if enforced, would result in the initiation of force, in my judgment, but this is an unintended consequence of Rand's position. In no way did she sanction (i.e., approve of, support, or encourage) the initiation of force per se. Ghs Rand clearly recognized that intellectual property would involve the initiation of physical force on an existential level. And that is simply one more piece of evidence to show that she did not r
  25. So, tell me, George. At what point does the fetus become an "independent moral agent"? Is it okay for the woman to bash the baby's head in moments before bringing it to full term? It's her body. She can do what she wants while it's still part of her body, right? She can use a coat hanger to pulverize the little parasite to her heart's content. Right? That's not "initiating force." As long as the baby is inside her--or even partly inside her--it doesn't have any rights. Since your thinking is obviously so vastly superior to mine, please use your "basic political principle" to clarify whe