objectivistbrit

7 ms·

1.
by objectivistbrit 5y ago
> Consider, as a particular example, the issue of capital punishment. Some people might feel that the risk to themselves of being convicted, correctly or incorrectly, and executed for a capital crime outweighed any possible advantages o
2.
by objectivistbrit 5y ago
This book offers some of the most cogent arguments for anarco-capitalism, so I want to give a brief illustration of what an Objectivist counter-argument would look like. (For the uninitiated, Objectivism is a philosophical system that agree
3.
by objectivistbrit 6y ago
I think this is rather unfair. This blog offers an alternative perspective: https://racefortheironthrone.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/chapte... "A second theme we have here is the complication of our view of
4.
by objectivistbrit 6y ago
Have you read the book "Running on Empty" by Jonice Webb? It describes a pattern she identifies as "childhood emotional neglect" (a possibly misleading label). The pattern she describes usually includes a combination of
5.
by objectivistbrit 6y ago
The rationale for the drug laws is interesting: when Singapore gained independence in the 1960s, it was essentially a small third-world city without much of a local economy. Lee Kuan Yew realised that Singapore's future lay in becoming
6.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
This is an absurd story. Of course a woman can be a "maker". Of course an attractive person can be a "maker". But Naomi Wu's entire shtick seems to be "skimpily dressed girl with fake tits does stereotypically
7.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
This article keeps asserting its core premise, but never offers any evidence. It cites people who agree with the premise that wealth is underserved, but this is not the same as an argument. You don't need economic theory to refute an a
8.
Does Silicon Valley need even more Ayn Rand to fix its ethical crisis?(qz.com)
2 points by objectivistbrit 9y ago|0 comments
9.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
This is a really weird comment. I re-read the article and it only mentions labour vs capital once, in passing. Mostly it talks in terms of owners vs managers, and the principal-agent problem. You refer to "greedy pigs" and exploit
10.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
People are focusing on the wrong question. The question is not: what are the relative costs and benefits to user-repairable products? Of course there are both benefits and drawbacks. The question is: who should decide? That is, should the g
11.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
People have (or should have) the right to manufacture whatever products they want, and other people should have the right to buy whatever products they want. The only restrictions should be to prevent fraud (product has to work as advertise
12.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
It's great that such a phone exists. People should be able buy a Fairphone, or buy an unrepairable iPhone, or whatever phone fits their needs. The "right to repair" doesn't give people the right to buy a Fairphone. They
13.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
This is really confused. Nothing has intrinsic value, but certain things have objectively-measurable properties that make them more suitable to be used as money. Scarcity, fungibility, divisibility and portability are some of these properti
14.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
He talks about the unfairness of "our economic system" but he makes his income from Qatar's economic system. Qatar likes to spend their oil money on western professors to give themselves an air of legitimacy. As for renting o
15.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
The following table (Employment by major industry sector) should be more widely known in this debate. The most relevant column is the second one (Thousands of Jobs, 2014). Just seeing this table makes clear how broad the modern economy is.
16.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
I knew one of the founders when they were starting out... one of the other founders is the son of an Indian multi-billionaire, which probably opens a few doors. The founder I knew told me excitedly their vision for a dynamic interactive wo
17.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
HN has tons of threads on contemporary politics. PG's essays are insightful and, though not perfect, usually go deeper than everyday left vs right talking points. HN has also become increasingly hostile to PG's views over time (fo
18.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
No, you are the one who has redefined freedom. Freedom originally meant that you could deal with whoever you wanted on whatever terms both parties could agree on. It didn't mean the government regulating private businesses to ensure so
19.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
It really isn't. Most threads that touch on political or economic topics have a majority being pro-regulation, pro-spending, etc. Things are complicated because many tech libertarians are liberal-libertarians who support things like ba
20.
by objectivistbrit 9y ago
The many issues involved in being a landlord throw doubts on the theory that too much money is being made by "rentiers", at the expense of "real entrepreneurs".
21.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
What especially annoys me about the Uber's management is that they believe themselves to be tough and no-nonsense - but in reality their behaviour is self-destructive. In other words, they are delusional and arrogant, not practical and
22.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
Game theory is a useful tool, but applying it to reality often over-simplifies things. There are suckers born every minute and, yes, you might be able to screw them over. If you do, there are two options, 1: you screw them out of enough mon
23.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
I have definitely met my share of sleazy characters in the startup world. However... No industry is immune to fraud, and the hotter the business, the more hucksters flock to it. But Silicon Valley has always seen itself as the virtuous out
24.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
Investors aren't a class. "Investors" includes pension funds, university endowments, hedge funds, banks, sovereign wealth funds, individual savers - the only thing these people have in common is they have funds and want to gr
25.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
The unprecedented size of these savings might not matter if investors only wanted a modest return. Unfortunately investors are greedy and there are simply not enough things to invest in that can offer the high returns they demand. So how d
26.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
If you live in a place with geothermal energy its not surprising that you have cheap energy. Otherwise, we've already invested a lot in making buildings more energy efficient, but heating is simply very energy-intensive. Commuting by b
27.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
Our long-term future is in nuclear and hydroelectric power. Our near-to-medium term future requires continued use of fossil fuels. Your summary of my argument is completely off-the-mark.
28.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
People also fail to appreciate how much would need to be sacrificed to reach the emission reductions that are being demanded. (For example, the 80% reduction target the EU is pushing for). Slashing energy usage means slashing many of the be
29.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
No-one would be opposed to "taking better care of the place we live". This is a strong indication that this is not an honest way to frame the dispute. Cuts in emissions (e.g., the 80% cuts the EU is pushing for) will require major
30.
by objectivistbrit 10y ago
He was involved in the Pax Dickinson affair a few years ago. I am very tempted to write my own thoughts on the issue, but rather than start a political flamewar, I'll simply link to both men's side of the story: http://

More ›