Nicky

Let's say there's a planet somewhere, where no one ever does anything about crime. Furthermore, no one considers it wrong to commit crimes. Might, guilt, shame, they have all been eliminated from the equation. What do you think will happen next (what will be the consequences of this decision to consider crime moral), and what will be the fundamental cause of those consequences? (hint: could it be some property of nature, that will doom this planet's population to misery?) [disclaimer] this hypothetical is the subject of a sci-fi story I read as a kid, not my original idea - I wish I knew the title of the thing

Also, do you consider men to be part of this Mother Nature you insist on using, or separate, and why?

You haven't addressed my point in any way, though. I submitted for your consideration the following thought: moral principles, just like the laws of physics, are based in reality. Do you disagree? If so, what's the difference between the two? Or are you claiming that the laws of physics are also artificial?

Mother Nature doesn't exist, it's just a metaphor. But all human knowledge is the result of applying logic to reality (and logic itself is also based in reality). The laws of physics are the result of physicists applying logic to reality (to physical reality). The reason why there is a right way and a wrong way for an individual to act is because of reality. We derive moral principles from reality (the reality of the human condition, and of human nature), by applying logic to it. The principles that guide human interactions are devised by applying logic to reality (to the reality of human societies and to the moral principles we also derived from reality). That is the source of individual rights: logic applied to reality. Whenever people form a society, the principles derived from the reality of the human condition, human nature, and human societies, should be applied. If they aren't, there will be negative consequences. The source of those consequences is reality. (if what you're calling Mother Nature is in fact reality, then, in keeping with your metaphor, Mother Nature will bat more than an eye: she will come down on the transgressors with absolute might and certainty). You can count on those consequences with the same degree of certainty that you can count on a plane dropping from the sky if you shut its engines.

You are suggesting that some things would be identical, some would be different. Which? 1. Self benefiting actions and not self benefiting actions form the totality of actions. 2. All self benefiting actions fit your requirement. You agree with statements 1. and 2., right? That means that there are only two options: 1. your criteria and Ayn Rand's one are the same. All and only self benefiting actions fit your criteria. 2. some not self benefiting actions fit your criteria. I suspect your position is nr. 2. Which are these not self benefiting actions one should perform, and with what priority? Should they be done before self benefiting actions, should they be done after someone runs out of self benefiting actions to perform (which has to be never, right), should they be the same priority (one for me, one for you), should it be two for me, one for you, ten for me, one for you, etc. And, more importantly, why? Keep in mind that all actions carry a cost. There are no "neutral actions". A not self benefiting actions is a sacrifice.

It depends on what the consequences of the choice are. If this loved one is unrepentant and likely to keep committing crimes, then he should be reported, no doubt. If not, then it depends on the circumstances. But I can't justify an "always report the crime" policy. I am curious if someone else might be able to, though, so I shall be following this thread. That's not similar at all. It's very different, because it's an emergency situation. If you are able to, you should always save someone from drowning.

He said "repeal and replace", right? You seem to be up to date with everything Mitt Romney, so give us an honest estimate of what he will replace it with. Do you really believe he will allow for the people who were uninsured before Obamacare to go uninsured once again? That would be quite unprecedented. To the best of my knowledge, no Republican President has ever come close to repealing an entitlement program of this size.

If participation on the paying end of something isn't voluntary, then participation in that program isn't voluntary.

No, it only applies seamlessly in a free, competitive market. But you can have a logical, scientific approach to all situations. You can evaluate the effects of a government intervention on every market, by relying on economic theory. The fact is that you didn't. You just went ahead and stated that minimum wage laws would drive prices up, and cause poor people to achieve their goals, without any attempt to validate that claim. I replied with a somewhat simplistic answer, but one based in science nonetheless. Now, all of a sudden, you are looking at things logically. Which is good, don't get me wrong, but, as far as deciding whether your original claim or my slightly simplistic answer is the right starting point for a more careful study, I think there's no contest. But supply and demand is not the fundamental issue here. The more fundamental issue is the source of material values. Where do they come from? They come from human creativity and effort. They don't come from bureaucratic interventions. A minimum wage law would not create any values: if a group of people were to receive more values, it would have to come at someone else's expense. So there is nothing simplistic about my next claim: for every perceived benefit caused by bureaucratic intervention, there has to be an equal or greater (usually greater) hidden cost. That follows directly from the fact that regulation doesn't produce value. Now the simplification comes in: in a completely free, perfectly competitive market, that cost would always come at the expense of other low wage earners. But, to the extent the market is not free or competitive, it might come at the expense of others, as well. But this will just make the market even less free, and less competitive, so the regulation is still not a solution to anything (except to the goals of the politicians, of course, who are getting votes from the visible beneficiaries, while their victims are hidden enough to not affect them - the measure is good for them, because they just need it to be perceived to work, they don't need it to actually work).

Nope.

You are failing to differentiate between words and concepts. A word is an arbitrary collection of sounds, that refers to a concept. A concept can be either a logical representation of reality, or a subjective construct. Ayn Rand's concept of selfishness (egoism/ 利己的 / etc.) is an objective, logical representation of reality: it is chosen based on a set of objective rules of concept formation, described in Objectivist Epistemology, to refer to a category of actions: the actions of volitional beings directed towards self preservation. The definition according to which that same category of actions involves criminality, immorality, etc. is not based in reality. One of the definitions is right, the other one is wrong. If you wish to define your terms objectively, go ahead. If you continue claiming that that's impossible, then we have nothing to talk about. If your concepts are formed arbitrarily, then they are removed from reality and therefor meaningless.

Let's say someone is getting paid below minimum wage, to do a job. There are two ways in which this minimum wage law could affect such a person: 1. If his employer decides that it makes economic sense to pay him more, he will get a higher wage. 2. If his employer decides that it doesn't make economic sense, he will lose his job and get no wage. According to the law of supply and demand, in a free market, prices (including the price of labor) tend to be around the level where it makes economic sense. That means that, more often than not, employers will choose option 2, not option 1. But you are, mistakenly, assuming that employers will choose option 1 every time. That is an unfounded assumption to make. It's wishful thinking. Minimum wage laws cause poor people to earn less, not more. For every poor person who gets lucky and gets slightly higher wages over a new minimum wage law, many more lose their job.

I don't think people misunderstand the meaning of the word selfishness. They choose to smear that meaning, by claiming it is the source of evil, but they understand what it is. Using the word makes it clear that Objectivism is antithetical with that notion, and that we hold selfishness to be the source of good. That's not an artificial disagreement, caused by a misunderstanding over what selfishness means. It is a fundamental disagreement. It should be named as bluntly as humanly possible. Ayn Rand does exactly that.

Because your premise is wrong. In a world without stock fund managers, the uninformed small investors would be investing in all kinds of nonsense. The management fees would be eliminated along with any knowledge and effort put into what is and what isn't worth an investment.

It's a non-issue. Even if there was credible proof that he lied, and he's not American born, it would still be a non-issue for me. I don't care enough to look over the evidence. Although I would like to point out that the people attacking Thomas with cheap insults, for making an honest effort to look at the evidence, while they themselves did not make such an effort (and are just going off of a general media consensus which ends up being superficial or even purposefully misleading all the time), are clearly being irrational and arrogant. And they're also breaking the forum rules.

According to Objectivism, we don't have any inherent responsibilities towards others, need doesn't cause us to have such responsibilities, and involuntary actions aren't subject to ethical evaluation. That leaves responsibilities that are: A. assumed. B. caused, by our voluntary actions. So, the people who have any responsibility are the people who are causing the collectivist system to exist. Those who did nothing (voluntary) to bring it about or further it, aren't responsible for its functioning in any way whatsoever.

Watch it, buddy, you're getting dangerously close to a noodly fatwa issued against you. FSM is the one true God, nothing proverbial about it.

Why would anyone want to be an annoying douche?

Yes, you are misunderstanding the meaning of that quote. The government does in fact have the power to act preemptively against objective threats. When a group of people conspire to violently overthrow the government, that is an example of initialization of force. It is action that is part of the process of overthrowing the government. As long as there is proof that that is their intention, the government does have the right to act. It of course doesn't have the right to act against all gun owners, or any random "militia", only people and groups proven to be planning crimes.

OP's first scenario: It's easy to construct hypothetical situations in which real world patent laws, applied without full understanding of their purpose, will result in injustice. I don't think your scenario is realistic. But, if I'm wrong, there will be time to fix that mistake once that does happen. As far as I know, it hasn't happened yet. In the real world, patent laws are either just or unjust towards the patent holders. ------------------------------------------ Point nr. 2: Yes, you can say that we need others to not act like savages and rob and kill us, sure. So? Are you suggesting that contradicts something Ayn Rand said? If you consider the context of Rand's statements about need, and the context of your statement, you will note that the two contexts are very different, and with that in mind, the two statements don't contradict each other. ------------------------------------------ As for "How do we change others?", there are two answers: 1. Through logical arguments. 2. When 1. fails, we don't. We give up on trying to change them and we use force to ensure they can't hurt us.

It's nonsense because that part is meant as a joke. Jokes, taken literally, are nonsense. And sure, there's an overall point, if you set that joke aside, which points out the inconsistency in applying flawless logic to thousands of gods, but missing one. The joke about the Pope being practically an atheist is meant to ridicule that inconsistency. I responded to Daniel, because he was trying to prove that it's not inconsistent to use logic to reject some gods but not all, via a false analogy.

Oooh, I can play this game. Just because a gorilla rejects most fruits does not make them anti-fruit. Just because a lumberjack rejects most oh I don't know let's go with fruit again, does not make them anti-banana. Yes, if you take a perfectly sensible statement, and replace a couple of the words with unrelated ones, you can turn that statement into nonsense. Why did you replace gods with philosophies, in Dawkins' statement? What do you think that proves? What kind of logical argument were you going for? Are you saying the concepts philosophy and god have some kind of essential trait that makes them suited for an argument from analogy? What might that trait be?

There are two potentially rational ways to handle this, depending on the circumstances: give her a chance to decide for herself whether she's out of your league, or just move on with your life by never seeing her (or looking at another picture, finding out what she's doing, etc). Everything in between is just irrational indulgence. Oh and if she's an adult then the age difference is not important. The societal taboo about adults of different ages dating is nonsense, you should ignore it completely.

I don't know whether this is a scam or not (depends on whether all their claims are REALLY true or not), but a Ponzi scheme is an unproductive enterprise by definition. It is aimed at redistributing value, not at producing it. Scam or not, that is immoral. A casino doesn't fit that description because it produces entertainment.