• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sjw

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Individual rights, politics, physics, epistemology.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

sjw's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Amazon later reinstated my review, claiming it was a "mistake" to reject it. I added this comment to the review: "Note: This review, in the form above, was initially rejected by Amazon with little explanation but that it violated their guidelines. It was actually not published by them until Dec. 20, 2012. I've left in an error from my quoting of the first sentence, which should have read "The purpose of this book is to gain an understanding of our past and on that basis to predict our future." I stopped posting here for the simple reason that I was threatened with moderation while trying to initiate a sincere discussion about whether discussions here should be sincere, and whether the intellectual equivalent of schoolyard bullying (i.e. the insincerity of attacking people just to get a rise out of them) should at least be condemned if not moderated. The result was that I was implicitly threatened with moderation. I left the forum on my own terms rather than being explicitly banned. I posted the review SOLO for the simple reason that I thought the review should be available to Objectivists somewhere, and it was the only place I knew of that didn't censor people for being sincere. I certainly didn't post there because I think it's a great forum. There are no great Objectivist forums, or even good ones. This might have something to do with Objectivism itself. Shayne
  2. Rand primarily advocated a return to reason, not individualism. (All the rest did not follow... but that's a separate issue)
  3. Meanwhile, even Google can't escape the fascism: Imagine if you had a dozen engineers who want to create a brand new smartphone. Even Google can't keep Android alive without forking over billions of dollars for the fascist patent system. This effectively means that only about 5 people in the world have a right to create a smartphone (the 5 CEO's of the respective companies that have enough money and patents). Something is wrong when it is illegal for anyone other than 5 individuals out of 7 billion people to create and sell a given category of product. Shayne
  4. What a dishonest representation. It was only when Ninth brought up the "pink sheets" that there was some evidence (if paltry) I was aware of to suggest that maybe it's not illegal. Do you have any idea how big and complex the legal code is? You can't even get lawyers to make definitive statements about anything. And again -- this complexity makes my case. Not knowing whether what you are thinking of doing is legal or not paralyzes your action. But you don't know the answer to my question, you know some of the complexity, and you don't give a damn. You're an amoralist. You're an amoralist who doesn't care when someone's rights are violated. You incessantly distort and misrepresent, as you did yet again in this post. Why should I apologize? You've wasted a lot of time trying to attack instead of trying to learn something. The "engineer" is a hypothetical Valve employee. And you are blaming the victim whose rights are violated. What a sick man you are. I can only wish that you get an awakening (rude or otherwise) concerning whatever it is that is sustaining your delusions about the system. There are many people who are unjustly ground up in the wheels of the statist machine. Too bad it's mostly random, if there were any justice it'd grind up only those who condone the injustice. Shayne
  5. Ditto. And you are oblivious to fraud. Wrong. I'm going by what an accountant and lawyer told me, and by what I've found in research. I can't say that it's conclusive because nothing's conclusive given the complexity of our legal system. That you can't readily know what's legal proves my case. And I'm quite aware of fraud. E.g., you three have been fraudulently pretending to know something when you in fact don't. Also, nothing I've suggested implies that I approve of fraud. Obviously all fraud should be punished, but that doesn't mean that it should be preemptively prevented, which amounts to attacking someone on the grounds that they might possibly do something (there's a legal term for this I forget at the moment...) Shayne
  6. Resolved: you don't know what you're talking about. Your guesses here are completely irrelevant and self-serving. What matters is whether someone's right to trade value for value has been interfered with, not whether you think the transaction is worthy. Of course, as a fascist, you don't care about violating rights now do you? That's why you incessantly shift focus away from rights violation and toward "but it doesn't matter anyway." You don't know whether it matters or not, and you don't care that someone's rights are being interfered with -- a patently amoral response. Shayne
  7. What does any of this have to do with the "crowd funding" approach that Valve was entertaining doing, where people would chip in $50 in return for right to the game plus stock in it? You continue to fail to understand (purposefully I think) the Valve scenario I put forth. What we have here is a trusted game developer with an idea and no money, who is asking his fans for $50 in exchange for both a right to play the future game and stock in the company. Your task is to show that this is legally feasible, not only for Valve, but for an engineer who quit working at Valve and wants to go it alone. He has no capital, just ideas and a reputation and an ability to throw a website together. The shares of stock will stipulate whatever the engineer wants, including that the investment is risky and the contributors can't sue if the game doesn't come off, and they are free as consenting adults to agree or not. I think the truth is that all three of you know it's not legally feasible, but you refuse to actually admit it, and everything you've been saying so far is you trying to say in some terms or other that it doesn't matter if it's illegal. If so you should come out and say it so we all know what this "debate" is about. Shayne
  8. What's your point? That you condone and want to license fraud? If you're that dumb that you can't see what the point is I think there's no point in you continuing here. Go do something you're actually capable of, that's fitting to your appalling lack of intellect and imagination. Like nailing some boards together with Bob. Shayne
  9. ... Are you serious? Do you even read the words you quote? Nothing about that stock was demonstrably tailorable in the sense I've been specifying all along, nor was there any evidence given that any person, small business, or company had an equal right to offer custom stock to the public. It's just a website with stocks listed. Shayne
  10. The aspect of fascism we're talking about here is corporatism (see Mussolini). It has nothing to do with leftist-code for authoritarianism. America's economy is very highly regulated. You have no idea what you are talking about. You either have no idea what that phrase means in a pro-liberty context or you are a very twisted person. Shayne
  11. Bob and Merlin are fascists, and ND doesn't care that they are. That's the "ethos." So yes, I trust someone with actual real-world experience with startups over them. Shayne
  12. Selene, why are you listing a lawsuit about some other random attorney as if it's connected to the author that I cited? Shayne - What a weird ad hominem attack.
  13. Ninth, the fact that you found a website that sells stocks does nothing to address the legal questions at issue here. All I can discern at the moment is that on the one hand, we have an expert attorney specializing in start ups saying, "to avoid jail, don't sell stock to family and friends" (and doesn't give any qualifications concerning "pink sheets" as a way out of this), and on the other, your claims about pink sheets. There's nothing definitive enough in what you're saying to actually risk acting on, and therefore nothing that actually furthers the case you are trying to make. Shayne
  14. So should we trust Ninth, Bob, and Merlin, or an expert attorney? Shayne
  15. Shayne