Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Nicky

Regulars
  • Content count

    3442
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nicky

  1. Are you saying that you'd be better off if they didn't exist? "bad" implies a choice. But cops, prosecutors, and even judges, don't get to choose which laws they enforce. Their only choice is between enforcing all laws, or quitting. Did they make the wrong choice? Would it be better if the laws went unenforced?
  2. Of course not. But every politician I know of, left or right, is on the record as opposed to suicide bombings, genital mutilation and the second-class status of women. Who's refusing to speak out against these things?
  3. I think your premise is wrong: it hasn't been proven that continuing to burn fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate change. The only proven fact is that it will cause mild warming, that is in no way catastrophic, and will be harmful to some but beneficial to others (the net effect depends on how people who are affected adapt to the changes). The people predicting catastrophes can't even agree on a single narrative on how and why these catastrophes will occur, let alone prove it.
  4. You might want to look into what introspect means. Until you do, just keep it simple: the appropriate verb to use there is think. Better to keep it basic and right than be pretentious and wrong. And no, the issue isn't that people don't think about what cops are supposed to do. The issue is that people have empathy for cops: they don't just think about what the cop was supposed to do in theory, they also think about how difficult it is to be a cop. The reason why this jury didn't find the cop guilty is because they had a long time to think about every aspect of not just the case, but of the dangers and stress a cop is subjected to on a daily bases, and concluded that they themselves might not have handled the job any better either. Couple that with the justified contempt the average American feels for the militant left behind all the protests and anti-cop, anti-white propaganda, and it's easy to see why a thoughtful jury will never deliver a guilty verdict in a case like this.
  5. That would be less laughable if it was just this one jury you disagreed with. But this decision isn't an outlier, it's typical. Case after case, juries refuse to hold cops to the silly "standard" you want to hold them to. And yet, you (along with a small minority of leftist and anarchist leaning loud mouths) seem convinced that you understand American law, and American juries keep delivering the "wrong" verdict one after another because they just can't match your intellect.
  6. What happened to the feature where I was able to put mods on ignore? Who decided to get rid of that one?
  7. Obviously, the cop wasn't supposed to shoot him. At least not without seeing a gun first. He's clearly bad at being a cop. He should've read the situation and realized that the guy isn't a killer, he's just an idiot. That's why he was fired. But being bad at your job isn't what it takes to be convicted of a serious crime. The notion that a cop should be perfect at his job, or he's going to prison for 10+ years is ridiculous, and incompatible with American legal principles. Open carry means that you can point your gun at people?
  8. The life and death scenario was obviously caused by the presence of the gun, not the traffic stop. If you don't even understand that, there's really no explaining anything to you. Being a safe gun owner requires a certain degree of competence. If you aren't competent, you are risking your life and that of people around you. This man clearly failed to be a competent gun owner. A competent gun owner would not have done what he did.
  9. That's the big argument this guy thinks could convince a jury to send a cop to prison? What a joke. What kind of an idiot doesn't realize that once you mention that you have a thing that can kill everybody...that's the new topic of conversation. We're no longer talking about the license...now we're talking about the deadly weapon. If you decide to be a gun owner, it's your responsibility to handle it, and yourself, properly. If you're not prepared to handle a routine encounter with a cop calmly, without creating the impression that you're about to pull your gun on him, don't be a gun owner. How 'bout running through this exact scenario ahead of time, in your head? Figure out that once you mention your gun, there's no further reaching into anywhere, until the cop has time to think the situation through and tell you what to do next?
  10. Okay, then the answer to your question is easy: it's because American government officials are bound by the First Amendment not to favor or dis-favor any religion over another. Even if they privately have a negative view of Islam, it would be irresponsible of them to share that view in public, because it would create the appearance of religious discrimination every time one of their decisions goes against a Muslim person, group or country/countries. Case and point: the anti-Muslim views expressed by Donald Trump during the election are being used (so far, successfully, I might add) in Court to challenge some of his administration's actions, especially the temporary ban on travel from several Muslim nations. This is an act that a President who hadn't expressed a bias against Islam (Obama, for instance) would've probably been able to enact without any serious challenge...precisely because it would've been impossible to prove in Court that Obama is anti-Muslim. Even if, maybe, in private, he has some negative views about parts of Islam. Religious debates belong in academia and the media, not in politics. Every time a politician opens his mouth on religion, he is threading on thin ice. Not just in the US...everywhere.
  11. Which leftist leaders are pro-Islam? I know leftist politicians tend to refuse to condemn Islam or blame it for terrorism, but does that make them "pro" Islam? Are they choosing/promoting Islam ahead of other belief systems?
  12. Would you mind explaining what you mean by "globalism", in more concrete terms? As far as I know, the main two causes politicians who are dubbed "globalists" (Clinton, Obama, Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, etc.) have promoted on the international stage are free trade agreements and fewer restrictions on immigration. The far left (Bernie Sanders and the like) is opposed to "globalism" precisely because of that. There are some global warming related agreements as well, but they tend to be non-binding (which makes them almost irrelevant). Anything else I left out, that would be considered "globalism"?
  13. I already addressed this point. If you're going to just keep repeating yourself, you're welcome to it. Just don't expect a response. You're clinging to a preconception in the face of the obvious. "lebensraum" means livings space (literally, living room...it's only a few letters off). Makes absolutely no distinction between living on land and living in the middle of the sea. Wherever you're living, that's where the collectivists want to expand their control to, to make you live the way they want you to. You could be on Pluto, and nothing would change. You'd still need to be able to defend your way of life.
  14. If you study the history of Luxembourg, you'll find that it was founded by a very powerful family (the House of Luxembourg), in close alliance with the Catholic Church (also extremely powerful at the time) and various other centers of European power. Members of the House of Luxembourg served as Holy Roman Emperors, a position second only to the Pope, in Western Europe, at the time. After the rulers of Luxembourg lost their influence (due to shifting alliances, the Reformation, etc.), Luxembourg was left at the mercy of surrounding states, and exchanged hands many times over the course of the centuries (depending on who had the most power in the region, at any given time). Just in the past 100 years, Luxembourg was taken over twice (by Germany, in both World Wars), and they would still be under Nazi control if the militaries of Russia, the United States, Britain, Canada, etc. hadn't liberated it. After WW2 they became members of NATO (the largest military alliance in the world), the Benelux alliance, and, eventually, the EU. So they clearly don't stand on their own, without a powerful military. They are protected by the greatest military force in the history of mankind, and, as an EU country, they are subject to EU laws. Is that the kind of state you wish to form? One that's sitting at the center of European power, and mooching off the US military for its' protection? Doesn't seem very Objectivist. There's nothing wrong with a country founded by Objectivists entering into an alliance with the United States (or Europe, or the UK, or even China), but surely, Objectivists wouldn't want that alliance to be one sided. We would want to contribute our fair share, and have a strong military that's ready to fight if any of the members of the alliance are attacked (the way the US was attacked on 9/11, for instance), no? Isn't the entire reason for trying to form your own country that productive people are subject to legal theft, in existing countries? How is it implausible that, if you can't defend what you have, someone will want to take it from you?
  15. Well they go hand in hand. You can't have freedom without military might. Are you planning on building this "Atlantis" of yours without a military? Because that's a fatal flaw right there.
  16. By the way, most of the people who show their patriotism don't do so because they think their country (whichever country it is) is perfect. They know it's not. But they still see the good in it, and that's what they celebrate by singing the anthem or raising the flag. Do you see the good in your country? Do you think the US military for instance is a force for good in the world? Or that law enforcement, the court system, etc., does a lot of good? Or do you think it's all bad?
  17. You're justified in removing the flag from your house...simply because you don't seem to have a reason to have it there. You're also justified in not saluting it...same reason. But refusing to stand for the national anthem isn't just "not respecting the flag", it's a sign of disrespect for the people around you, who are there expressing their patriotism in a planned event. If you don't want to stand for the anthem, don't go to events where people do that. Don't show up just to be insulting.
  18. So? Does that mean you should never fire anyone? We don't know how competent or incompetent this guy is. We don't even know the exact reason for the firing. We don't even know for sure that he's fired. Just because he got hired doesn't mean he's competent. From the sound of it, the development team isn't the one doing the hiring at this company, it's the HR team. I've heard stories of HR teams doing a comical job of determining competence and ability, before hiring somebody. It's perfectly plausible that this mistake wasn't the immediate cause of the firing, and instead just caused a deeper look into the decision to hire him.
  19. That's not how the guy's story goes. He is claiming that he was given some documentation (to help him set up a development environment for himself), and that documentation contained credentials to the production database...and that he inadvertently used those credentials, accessed that database, and did something (it's not clear what, he doesn't know) to it. It's reachable for the sake of convenience. There's no imperative for a software company to protect its stuff from systems within the company, with anything more than a username/password. If it was a major bank, or some kind of critical infrastructure, sure, you have certain parts of the system behind locked doors, physically cut off from the rest. But this is just a software company. I can't imagine any small/medium software company would cut off access, from any workstation in their office, to any system/database. You need credentials only key employees should have, of course, but, with those credentials, it makes sense for the db to be reachable from any workstation.
  20. Only businessmen left the country? Other specializations didn't?
  21. Well yeah, you're not gonna get 66% of voters to all agree with one platform. Only 24% voted for Macron in the first round. The rest are people with different political beliefs (from conservatives all the way to the far left) all voting against Le Pen.
  22. What's your impression of Macron, as a person? Is he honest, manipulative, arrogant, that sort of thing...(I can look up facts about French politics in English, but my French isn't good enough to make a character judgement, so it'd be interesting to know what your best guess is about him). Also, what are his views on foreign policy? Does he support Holland's pretty aggressive/interventionist style?
  23. As far as I know, reservation laws on the vast majority of reservations are very similar to regular local laws. The problem is that federal law prevents non tribe members from owning land on the reservation. So while you can transfer ownership, you can only transfer it within the confines of small tribes (the biggest are the Navajo, at 300,000, but after that it's 20,000 or less), you can't transfer it to outsiders. Which has all kinds of consequences: 1. property values are low 2. real estate can't be used as collateral in loans or mortgages (since the bank can't own it). 3. reservations can't attract investment the way other jurisdictions can (there are lots of countries that restrict land ownership by foreigners, and they end up having the same problem). So young tribe members wishing to build a life, who have trouble raising the money to buy a home (or start a business) react in two different ways: they either decide to depend on local government for help, or they leave the reservation. It's easy to guess which type of person does which, and what the effect is on the overall prosperity levels on reservations. This problem could be solved without any intrusive measures, land confiscations, or any further interference with the sovereignty of reservation governments. There's no need to cause any protests, or any violent reaction, by mandating anything. All that's needed is to remove the race restriction on the federal level. Leave the decision up to the reservation's government. If they want to open up to the world, and invite non-natives to buy land and join their community, fine. If they don't, that's fine as well. Let them be racist. It's their loss, and, eventually, their population would leave, and that would be that.
  24. Reservations don't provide refuge from federal law, only state and local laws. They're a separate jurisdiction from the states...but they have similar forms of government (mixed governments, part capitalist part socialist, same as every other jurisdiction in the US). So for any practical purposes, they only really provide refuge from taxation (hence the casinos). They're not different from regular local jurisdictions in any significant way. Reservations aren't socialist communes. They have private property rights. People who live under the jurisdiction of a reservation already own/rent the land they live on, same as people who live under state or city jurisdictions. Are you suggesting privately owned land should be confiscated, and re-distributed evenly? And sure, there is also public land within reservations. Lots of it. Some under the control of the local government, most under the control of the federal government, just like the public land the feds own outside reservations. I'm all for privatizing public lands, but "dividing it equally to all who live there"? Would you follow the same principle with land outside reservations? People who live in the countryside (especially in the western US) would suddenly become millionaires, while people who live in cities would get almost nothing. Wouldn't it make more sense to sell public lands on the open market, and use the money to pay off debts and then finance the legitimate functions of the government?