Robinhood actually took back tax money taken from the people by the bureaucrats. So he wasn't stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, he was reclaiming stolen property to give back to its rightful owners. Like Ragnar.

thank you. well said.

In the article cited he said he is categorically against _all_ "software patents" and "process patents", and seemed to employ a standard of what he thinks is good for the "economy" or "efficiency" without regard for the property rights of the individual, as if rights were nothing more than pragmatic entitlements provided by government. With his sanctioning the "stealing" of any ideas for "processes" eligible for "process patents", you have to wonder what he thinks "stealing" is without property rights. It was only a brief article, but he was emphatic with no qualifications. He used the term "steal" himself. He has a lot of explaining to do.

He endorsed "stealing" of all ideas categorized under "process patents". But you don't have to know of something that Cuban has stolen to agree that "Howard Roark was not a thief", do you? :-)

As you and your husband eloquently point out in your book, IP is important in the software industry (obviously). However, there does get to be a point (that I think has been crossed in that industry) where the time that it takes to get patent protection is so long compared to the time scale for innovation such that the patent protection loses a lot of its value. The trademark loses its value at a much slower rate. I am not saying that I am against patents, but their value is diminished in a world where the innovation rate is as high as it is in the Internet Age.

When you show me how Cuban has actually stolen someone's IP and used it to his advantage, I'll agree with you.

It's called "don't feed the troll". Choose carefully what is worth responding to and for what purpose. Sometimes an explanation offered for that which does matter to more sensible people (with no hope of the troll understanding) can be valuable for insights in ways the troll didn't anticipate.

Yes, that's the point. But In the realm of faith, that has no meaning. Honesty and knowing presuppose objectivity. Under faith, knowledge is replaced by a meaningless drive for omniscience: when you can't tell them what happened the stock fall-back is "God did it", which explains nothing. In the realm of the arbitrariness of faith fantasizing knowledge -- with no standards and no proof, and imagination replacing reality with concepts unrelated to perception of reality -- the concepts of knowledge, the distinction of 'know' versus 'don't know', and honesty all lose their meaning.

Howard Roark was not a thief

his public comments are clear. He is for a "democracy" that "feels" IP rights aren't essential and are as a matter of fact- against capitalism. Capitalism is based on property rights. If you do not understand that or reject that-you are not an Objectivist

Perhaps it was the beginning of: "Why is Windows doing this? You must have a virus, re-install."

When you "factor in" that it sounds like he has nothing against "stealing", if he meant that literally, it's hard to imagine him having a "philosophy like ours". I still don't know what his philosophy is. Being a "maverick" and doing things "the establishment doesn't like" leaves open a lot of possibilities other than a Roark. Based on what I've seen and haven't seen so far I'm not about to equate him with Atlas Shrugged, "I'm out".

Let's just never respond to him again. Boycott is legal in the Gulch. Isn't it?

If he is honest, I think, he should say: "I don't know."

Cuban does things his own way because that's the way he thinks things should be done, much like Howard Roark from The Fountainehead.

His philosophy, even with Khalling's point factored in, is not all that different from ours. As for character, I don't know much about his personal life other than his propensity to say or do things that "the establishment" doesn't like. It is appropriate that he owns the Dallas Mavericks; he is definitely a maverick.

OK, I stand corrected. I knew him when he worked alongside Compuserve.

Reason is not required for course content in many cases. Your frustration is understandable.

No. It is not. It is what I believe to be an accurate statement. Please note that it was made without use of any florid descriptive terms (unlike your post, ewv) and without rancor.

I do not accept the "Catechism" approach to Objectivism. There is no 'litany' and the concept of a philosophy that is based on independent thought and rationality being packaged as 'you must accept the whole thing hooklineandsinker' is absurd.

I will consider and accept the principles that I find rational. There happen to be more of those principles in Objectivism than in most other philosophies.

Jan

you misunderstand, I am referring to forming your own opinions, they are mine alone, what I referred to of "another" is people that jump on the ideas, beliefs and world views of another person and treat it as dogma, everyone is entitled to form their own opinion, even those that follow another person devoutly

Yes.
Remember this song?
Another Brandy from the way back machine!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28GrXgEH...

Somebody down-voted your above comment. I see no reason... I restored your point.

All action is not selfish. It takes a lot of work to discover what kinds of actions are in fact for your own interest.

I know he's on Shark Tank, where he is described as owning a basketball team after making a fortune with an unspecified computer company, but don't know what his character or philosophy are like.

"People tend to migrate toward 'another' and then make a religion out of it" refers only to yourself?