Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/16/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point

    The Trolley Problem

    With real blood, real pain, and real bodies?
  2. 1 point

    The Trolley Problem

    You action caused the death of an innocent person. Regardless of the reason. You intent was also to kill the innocent, so you cannot claim ignorance or accident.
  3. 1 point

    National Borders

    Do you take any of those points seriously? People who make those points are either rationalizing or using them to try win an argument. Their real argument is that they don't want more than a certain number of immigrants each year, because it dilutes existing culture and brings competition for jobs.
  4. 1 point

    National Borders

    This is backwards. First you need philosophical clarity regarding national borders, then you can apply that knowledge to practical problems related to the war on drugs or the welfare state. I agree in principle, and, look, we didn't even have to solve the drug war first. Though we might disagree on what qualifies as "a very real threat to individual rights." For example, you don't mention anti-individual rights ideologies, like socialism. Binswanger has argued against controlling for political ideology at the border. I disagree and have debated the point at length on the "Immigration Restrictions" thread. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/31452-immigration-restrictions/
  5. 1 point

    The Trolley Problem

    The enemy is volitional in OP's example as well. Those people didn't get tied to the tracks by the wind. The difference between the two scenarios is this: in mine, you are allowed to know about the people involved, and you can therefor JUDGE them. That's what makes the decision possible. You can recognize evil, and act to defeat it. In OP's scenario, you're supposed to make a decision without knowing anything about the person who set this up, why he's doing what he's doing, or about the people tied to the track for that matter. You're supposed to make your decisions without JUDGING the people involved. You're supposed to decide that diverting the train is right or wrong irrespective of who the people involved are, what they have done, why they're in this situation, etc. That's what's fundamentally wrong about it: it divorces ethics from context, and expects people to have a moral code that doesn't require them to make value judgements about people, or do any kind of thinking, before they can apply it indiscriminately.
  6. 0 points

    The Socialist Control Act

    I'm going to pitch a Socialist Control Act idea and spread it around social media and chat rooms. It's inspired by historical laws against communism, such as the Communist Control Act of 1954. My purpose is to contribute to the reaction against socialism, both the globalist and nationalist varieties, and to promote capitalism. The focus therefore will be defending individual rights, particularly property rights, and calling for a ban on advocating socialism on the public streets and in government institutions. I'm not interested in debating whether this violates free speech rights. Been there, done that. But if you're sympathetic to my idea, I'd appreciate suggestions for clarifying the message and drafting succinct sentences to drop into various online forums. Thanks.