Nicky

Ok, if it's unclear, let's make it clear. Post the provision in SOPA that would've forced search engines to delist websites, if notified of a copyright infringement on them, by a copyright holder (as opposed to a court of law). If you post it, then it's gonna be clear that it exists. If you don't, then it becomes clear that it doesn't exist.

You forgot racist. The reason why Objectivists join the Tea Party is to bring Objectivism into the movement, not leave it behind. Unlike other political movement, the Tea Party is actually open to pro-freedom arguments. Also, what Richard Dawkins needs to understand is that there are people in this world who don't believe in God, and yet who don't define themselves by that fact. Ayn Rand was an atheist, she wasn't an Atheist. Atheism is not the philosophical, social and political base of Objectivism. Objectivism is defined by reason and individualism, and we hope to mold the Tea Party into a movement defined the same way. We are not looking to make it into an atheist group, just a non-religious one. Obviously. there is a powerful right wing movement also looking to use the Tea Party as a vehicle for their own agenda. And people like you, who ignore how the Tea Party started (as a reaction to Bush and Obama's efforts to expand the government, by taking advantage of the financial crisis) and go out of their way to instead focus on the religious activists who are attempting to hijack it, are helping them do that.

This is answered on the wikipedia page for "infinite regress":

Child labor for the benefit of others is slavery. Child labor for the benefit of the child is not. I'm pretty sure it's as simple as that. P.S. Maybe I should use "exploitation" instead of slavery. Slavery is the most extreme, total exploitation of a person. An isolated act of exploitation, or exploitation to a limited extent, does not qualify as slavery. That's why taxation, mandatory military service, etc. aren't the same as slavery.

Really? So if I were to write google about CNN.com, they would have to de-list it within five days? My understanding is that it would take a court order to force google to de-list anything. What would be required then? I asked this before, and you only specified one concrete thing: war. Beyond that, you said " a strong stance on principle with the power to back it up", and "find a way to target and destroy those foreign websites". Neither of these is specific enough to tell me what it is you want them to do.

Ok, but that's irrelevant. The debate is on whether my conclusions are right or wrong, not on whether they are the same as other people's. Why aren't you addressing whether I'm interpreting Objectivist Ethics properly or not? Could it be because you don't know, because you don't know what Objectivist Ethics even is? You're welcome to prove me wrong. What abstract principle in Objectivism can be applied to conclude that homosexuality is immoral?

I'm gonna stop you right there. Google won't refuse to do that. So the government won't be able to go after oo.net. Your statement is akin to saying "they can use murder laws to go after everyone". For instance, if you murder someone, they can go after you. Except that I don't plan on murdering someone. And Google doesn't plan on defying a court order targeted at websites dedicated to piracy. Where does it say that? My understanding is that a Court can order specific websites to be taken out of search results. Not that search engines have to be all knowing and find those sites by themselves. A war, or any kind of military engagement with China or Russia (the two countries most involved with piracy) would result in the destruction of the life and property of most people on the planet. And it would all happen without any kind of process, let alone a full blown trial. How is that appropriate, while a court order banning specific websites isn't?

I'm gonna break down the way this conversation has progressed, tell me if it's accurate: 1. You read a couple of out of context quotes from a press conference, a few posts on the Internet from people you know nothing about, and concluded that X is true. 2. I (and others) read most of the relevant literature on the subject, and concluded that the opposite of X is true. 3. We told you our conclusions. 4. You decided that you were right to begin with, because "conservatives" told you so. And, finally: 5. The proper, rational way to go about this would instead be to just stop taking everyone's word for what the answer is, and instead read all the same literature I have read (the literature Objectivism consists of), understand it, and then see if you can debate us on what specifically makes Objectivism pro or anti gay, by relying on facts instead of hearsay. That would of course require a great deal of intellectual effort. Objectivism is not an easy subject to master. Are you up for that, or are you just going to continue trolling with this nonsense?

Newspapers don't contain links. So you'll have to specify the standard you are referring to. Please prove that SOPA would allow the government to go after everything on the web. Here are three sites, off the top of my head, on the web, that I'm disputing the government could go after using SOPA: MLB.com disney.com forum.objectivismonline.com Pressure how, beyond what is being done now? Should we threaten war or economic sanctions against Sweden, if they don't shut down Piratebay?

I don't think that's a good way to put it. That would be like saying "the government must stop crime". Critics will just retort: it's impossible to stop it all. Criminals will always find a way. Instead, at this point, a more realistic goal should be to have the government stop websites dedicated to out in the open, large scale piracy.

I don't agree with the argument "foreign policy is the only thing he's wrong on, therefor he's better than someone who is solid on foreign policy (Gingrich) but not on everything else. The problem is, out of all the activities of the federal government, foreign policy is the only one almost entirely under the influence of the White House. That is where a President can affect the most change, without the cooperation of Congress. While President Paul would have no real power to do anything about cutting back the federal government (except force an overall shutdown by vetoing budget bills - which would not be good), he would have the power to violate American commitments to our allies, and abandon them in the face of increasing threats. And he made it very clear that he intends to do exactly that. He just didn't put it that way, instead he never acknowledges that those commitments even exist. That's why I will vote for Libertarians for Congress, or local governments, but not for President.

I don't think your definition qualifies as treason (as I understand it), because of that "may" at the end. Treason is actual participation in harming one's side (group, country, etc.). But the government does have the right to impose sanctions, or pass laws prohibiting certain types of interactions with hostile or enemy countries. They should call the act of violating those laws something other than treason, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't still be a crime to violate them.

You should ask this guy to stop listing what the government doesn't have the right to do, and instead define what "government rights" are. After all, that would obviously be the shorter list, and the logical way to go about it. I'm curious if he could come up with an objective definition (one that doesn't discriminate between people or methods based on arbitrary or subjective criteria), that wouldn't allow for sanctions in some situations. IMHO, the government has the right to use an appropriate level of force to protect its citizens. That is the one right it has, actually. In this case, sanctions are more than appropriate.

He probably means that illness (mental or otherwise) is sometimes, but not always, the result of poor choices. I don't think any of this has to do with the subject of the thread, or homosexuality in general, but that is a correct statement. Not sure why people are trying to defend Ayn Rand on this. She was wrong. Just leave it at that. Saying that context is enough to absolve her of being wrong would be a stretch, especially given her views about the state of Psychology as a science (she wasn't very approving). If Jonathan wants to insult her, question her credibility, or indict Objectivism over a mistake, that should be left for the mods to deal with at this point. I think it's been made plenty clear that her opinion on homosexuals is not the Objectivist position, that plenty of Objectivists are gay, and that Objectivism is tolerant of homosexuality. That answers the OPs question.

Hi, Athenian. I have an answer for all of them, but for the most part my answer is not among the options you provided. 1. Climate change is real, and to some extent it is caused by man made gases. But the exact warming, as well as the consequences of that warming are unknown. The one thing that is clear is that the UN, NASA and environmentalist claims on the extent and the consequences are all false, and not by honest mistake but deliberate fraud. It's also clear that government action is not justified in any way. Concern is, of course. Who would think that the state of the planet's climate shouldn't be our concern? 2. Free will exists, so does causality. Determinism is wrong. 3. I'll vote for the best candidate, irrespective of what party they're in. My current preferences are Gingrich, Gary Johnson, and Obama (if Gingrich is nominated, I'm voting for him, otherwise Johnson. If he drops out too, I'm going with Obama over any of the other Repub. candidates). 4. Sometimes. 5. Is this thing broken? Why did Softwarenerd vote for every one of these? There's no way an oist forum's admin thinks minimum wage is a good idea. None of the above, of course. I would go with the environmental impact one, but only if it didn't also include sustainability. And there are other legitimate roles, not on the list. Like patents, regulating commerce with enemy countries, regulating weapons manufacturing and sales to some extent, etc.

No.

The imperfections you are describing are not faults in capitalism. They aren't even faults in Walmart or McDonald's. They are faults in individuals who buy those products that are (in your opinion) bad for them. Here's the reason: The proper goal of an individual, when making purchasing decisions, is to select the things that are good for him. If he fails to do so, then that's his failure. The proper goal of a store or restaurant is to supply their customers with the goods and meals they wish to buy. If they fail at that, then they are imperfect. If the individuals fail in their decisions, that's their failure, not the store's. The proper goal of a political system is neither of the above two things. The proper goal of a political system is to allow both individuals and all other economic entities (like stores and restaurants), to make their choices freely. If a political system fails at that, then it is imperfect. If it doesn't, then it is perfect. Even if the choices being made aren't perfect.

That's how. You can't be supportive of reason, but at the same time use force to negate a father's decision to leave his fortune to his son. Or his neighbor's son. Or to anyone he wants to. Reason serves to make choices about our lives and our property. If the right to make those choices, and to dispose of our property in any way we see fit, is denied to us, how does our rationality still manifest itself? Isn't that the total negation of a person's rational capacity: making his choices for him?

Yep. It's also stupid that they arrested that guy that killed a cop in Queens the other day. I mean come on, there's tons of guys who kill cops out there.

Objectivism is a system of precise, objective abstract principles, not Ayn Rand's opinion on various issues. Case and point, Rand's Ethics is not a long list of things Ayn Rand was asked about, and then proceeded to stamp with either her Approved or Rejected stamp. Objectivist Ethics is a method for determining what the moral and what the immoral choices are, given all available information about the person making the choice and the context he's making it in. If you can apply that method to our current knowledge of homosexuality, and determine that it is immoral, then, and only then, homosexuality will be immoral according to Objectivism. P.S. Let's say Newton got drunk one day, decided to calculate how long it would take for an apple to fall off a tree, and came up with ten minutes. Would you declare that Newtonian Physics holds that result true, or would you use his second law to prove him wrong? If it's the latter, why would you declare something Rand based on some obviously wrong information, to be above an objective application of her philosophy?

Makes sense to me. In Cali, stealing something worth $1000 or more is already grand theft, actually. Depending on what was stolen, the limit is even lower. But you're right, that is pretty low, probably opens the door on way too much litigation, and makes it easier to abuse the law via frivolous suits. Would you be OK with setting the limit at $10.000? I can't imagine any jurisdiction where grand theft starts higher than that. And for an indie film or album, that's a pretty significant amount. As for the ten downloads total thing, that's not very specific. I'm sure there is more to it than that. So wouldn't such a decision have been appropriate a long time ago, in this case, at the request of copyright holders? Why did the victims have to wait this long for anything to be done? Shouldn't that practice also be appropriate with other sites, such as rapidshare (another large site very similar to megaupload), bittorrent sites that openly allow torrents of copyrighted material (not audio or video files, just a small data file which IDs and helps coordonate the sharing of the large media file stored on users' computers), and sites dedicated to the posting of links to copyrighted material illicitly uploaded to video sharing sites? Well, law enforcement action clearly is possible: ordering ad services under US jurisdiction to cut ties with the site, ordering search engines to stop listing the site in search results, and if all else fails ordering ISPs to reject requests for the domain name of the website. Why do you disagree with any of those actions? I'm aware of the claim that the third option would interfere with the security of the Internet. I'd be interested in why that is (I heard the claim, but no one elaborates on it), and also what's wrong with the other two options. Another option is facilitating self-policing, by affording ISPs legal immunity for various voluntary anti-piracy initiatives. What's wrong with that?

http://techcrunch.co...ent-of-justice/ I'm sure Wikipedia will shut down have a large, easily removable JavaScript popup tomorrow, to draw attention to this egregious violation of individual rights on the Internet, amiright?

Just to clarify: you are not saying that copyright infringement is a civil matter. Just that if it is treated as a civil matter, then there should be no shutdowns before a trial. But you are OK with criminal prosecution in this case. Would you support a bill that would allow authorities to prosecute (and request a shutdown) in cases like this before a site gets to 50 million daily visitors, $175 million in profits, and $500 million in damages (as per the indictment), by changing the criteria under which action can be taken? Can it? So, it would be realistic to expect $500 million to be paid to copyright holders, by the end of this case? (and that's an oddly low estimate by the prosecutors, I must say: we are talking about 50 million users/ day, and years of activity) What if it's a foreign website?

They do have a fair opportunity to affect the judgement. The court order regarding any action is not definitive, it can be challenged. They just don't get to continue profiting off of the website, while dodging lawsuits to the best of their lawyers' abilities. Off the Internet, if you're running an illegal business, you don't get to continue running it while you're on trial for it.Prosecutors can get a court order shutting it down until further deliberations. If you're stalking a woman, she can get a restraining order against you. If there is a civil dispute between two people, one of them can get a court order freezing the funds until a judgement can be made. Etc, etc. This bill just takes the same practice to the Internet. Due process doesn't include the ability to openly sell stolen goods until you lose a trial in a court of law. That is absurd.

Blizzard wants a share of the profits, from any professional tournament involving Starcraft. Their terms of service state that the game may not be used in a sponsored competition, without written consent from Blizzard. Why is it wrong for the US government to stop the broadcast of such tournaments without Blizzard's consent, in the US? Shouldn't the company that created the game have the right to sell it under any terms it wishes? P.S. And no, that wouldn't put an end to the Starcraft pro scene. It would force the people using the game for this purpose to share their profits with Blizzard, that's all. Which in turn will cause Blizzard and other companies to focus on other games that can be played not only recreationally, but as a sport as well. In fact they already have a signed contract with a Korean tv station, to do just that.