Архив переписки - неделя 2, 2026 год

участник-3927, 22:58, 7 января

My post on HBL:

The libertarian theory of property appears to rest on the concept of scarcity. The argument goes that (a) only physical property can be scarce, so only it can be property, and (b) digital things can be duplicated easily, so they can’t be property. Isn’t scarcity, however, an invalid concept to obscure the concept of marketable (value)? Scarcity seems to assume a world in which there is a fixed pie, and the program is to divide the pie into equal parts, so that it’s “fair.” But a businessman’s view is that there is a market demand for something, and so he decide to make more of it. The concept of scarcity turns into a struggle that which is supposed to be joy. It is fun to make stuff, it’s not fun to measure and conserve. Land is always given as a scarce resource example. But there is plenty of land that is dirt cheap, and nobody wants to buy it, because it is too far from developed regions. There is market demand for land equipped with civilization, and so a businessman make more of it by converting undesirable land into desirable. Scarcity is an alternative form in which Marxist ideas are presented. Yet, it’s a flagship concept of libertarians.

участник-3927, 22:58, 7 января

I have only heard persistently of scarcity in USSR. It was said that certain things, like black caviar, were in “in deficit.” The deficit encompassed sugar, toilet paper, and soap. (Toilet paper was a luxury; instead everyone used newspaper precut into a stack of rectangular pieces.) For black caviar’s case, the fish that has these eggs is a rare and a protected species, and it seemed that it’s an unchangeable fact of nature that it would be always in deficit. However, years later I learned that a kibbutz in Israel created a fish farm that breeds this fish and exports black caviar to a great success.

участник-3927, 21:27, 8 января

Протесты в Иране дошли до такого масштаба что было поддозжено государственное здание в Тегеране.

участник-3927, 19:05, 10 января

Jim Allard writes on Objectivist forum: Rule of law does not mean “obeying orders.” It does not mean that any mask-wearing thug that goes around beating the crap out of people is on the side of rule of law just because they have “police” written on their backs.

Rule of law is a principle. It does not mean “anything the law says,” it means placing the use of retaliatory force under objective control. Anarchy means wielding force capriciously, non-objectively, on whim. Thus, non-objective laws can (and do) violate the rule of law, and it is ICE that is not respecting the rule of law. It is ICE that is acting on the principle of anarchy, not those who are protesting. It is ICE that is behaving immorally.

участник-3927, 17:19, 11 января

News from Iran posted yesterday: “The most conservative estimates indicate that at least 2,000 people have been killed over the past 48 hours.” Source: https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601103903

участник-3927, 22:05, 11 января

In 1917, the Russian peasants were demanding: “Land and Freedom!” But Lenin and Stalin is what they got.

In 1933, the Germans were demanding: “Room to live!” But what they got was Hitler.

In 1793, the French were shouting: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!” What they got was Napoleon.

In 1776, the Americans were proclaiming “The Rights of Man”—and, led by political philosophers, they achieved it.

No revolution, no matter how justified, and no movement, no matter how popular, has ever succeeded without a political philosophy to guide it, to set its direction and goal.

– Ayn Rand, “Blind Chaos”, 1962

участник-3927, 22:05, 11 января

С криком “Javid Shah”, иранцы нашли себе нового бога.