CrowEpistemologist

Fair enough. I guess it depends on the context. In the context of politics and law, the only thing that matters is that you obtained your wealth morally and legally. There's nothing immoral about receiving inheritance or any other sort of dumb luck. That is why I wondered why you'd care about the answer to this question.
 
But you are right, people can get careless, epistemologically speaking. People should be equal before the law, no matter how super-cool/uncool we think they are as a person. People with more money (however they legally obtained it) should not be treated any differently than people with less money, in principle (i.e. everybody should pay taxes according to their own use of government services however big/small that may be).
 
I think you are (all) expanding on my shortly-made point as well: that wealth and worth (personal moral worth) is an extremely complicated, context-driven thing.
 
In that sense we're saying exactly the same thing: you can't talk about this point in a quick soundbite, and making blanket statements is bad...

In the event there remain a few (more than two) in this forum who aren't intransigent anarchists, I'd like to introduce an interesting link to a discussion on, "What is the Role of Government Vis-à-Vis Capitalism?"
 
sample:  "Scott's primary thesis is that "Two systems of governance—capitalism (involving economic actors) and democracy (involving political actors)—prevail in the world today … [T]hey can and do influence each other. Indeed, participants in one system can use their positions in that system as a base from which to compete for power in the other."
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6304.html
 
I found it useful in attempting to evaluate where the tipping points between providing security for a free market vs directing the actions of a free market were.  I wasn't prepared to defend taxation against the POV of an anarchist whose position on the morality of taxation is redundant at best, following from their primary view that all government is evil just because, which I don't consider to be a serious response to the OP.

A good example of your point, the Federal Highway System is an example of a system that was actually set up well and the funding was reasonable (i.e. a use based system) which was smart call for the era it was created (tolls were more popular bu they disregarded conventional wisdom).  It was petty corruption that slowly managed to screw it up, locally and nationally.  

Crowepistomology,
Greater progress is possible if we can deescalate the toxic tone of this debate. I am under no delusions about demystifying the mind of a murderer. Some people are maladjusted and homicidal, and seek no rational alternative other than carrying out some murderous act. Case in point: On Thursday November 25, 2014, in Moore, Oklahoma, Alton Alexander Nolen decapitated a 54-year-old woman in broad daylight. I sight this specific case, not that it implicates Muslims, rather that it indeed illustrates the complexity of homicidal maniacs. It appears to be the only recently reported case of decapitation not attributed to a terror organization. However, it does appear from the reports that Nolen claimed to have converted to Islam. By all that I could guess, this is a psycho-killer doing a copy-cat of the recent ISIS decapitation of a Western journalist. What exactly motivates such behavior, I do not pretend to know. But, the common link is the teachings of the Koran. While Islam is the most popular of the world's major religions, it appears obvious that not all of the people of Muslim identity engage in such behavior. Nolen was not born a Muslim, he learned it. No doubt, the media attention of the ISIS decapitation was part of the learning process. As far as I could ascertain, there have been nine or more victims of Western or Japanese nationality beheaded as part of several organized Islamic offensives. Hundreds of casualties in the on-going violence taking place in Syria and Iraq are finalized with decapitation. This tactic, the severing of the head, is proscribed in the Koran, and I don't feel the need to site chapter and verse, but that would not be a problem.
 
When a person is born to devoutly religious family traditions, it is common that that person carries some of those traditions until they reach their own conclusions as to their own participation in their traditional faith. I don't think this is too much of an assumption, although you are entitled to disagree. When the tenets of that religion include taking up violent struggle in defense of the faith, and include various forms of bodily dismemberment, it may have the effect of either causing the religious student to question why such brutal methods are necessary to be a true follower of the faith, or it may have the effect of his/her interpreting it as explicit instructions from God. If that student of faith has religious instructors encouraging him/her to make the supreme sacrifice, you may have the making of a suicidal-homicidal holy warrior. Now, of course I have no magical insight into the mind of such a person. There may be numerous complicating factors of a psychological nature, such as the case of Nolen. But it's quite obvious they are coming from somewhere. There is sufficient evidence that agents of international Islamic terror organizations recruit with a variety of methods, including Imams, the internet, and basically old-fashioned networking. The job of radicalizing a suicidal-homicidal warrior is made so much easier when the family traditions includes seeking guidance in a book that glorifies treachery and mutilation. Such a faith is Islam. I know of no other. If you can put another religion or ideology up to compare with this, one that has been nearly so effective at spreading terror, please let me know.
 
It is my sincere hope that all people of all faiths can live in harmony. And as I've repeated so many times, if such a state of affairs can be achieved only through living a life of hypocrisy to one's faith, then it is best to be a hypocrite, and live the good life. It really isn't any more complicated than starting with abandoning the violent ways of one's ancient, or not so ancient, traditions.

Tesla isn't going to do it alone, and they are going to compromise if they need to. They are small a business with an interest in succeeding, not martyrs. Maybe in some states they will be the proverbial Jane Roe, but in the mean time they are going to do what they need to do, even if it means paying off the looters for a little while.
 
What needs to happen to Snider and the other Repubs who voted for this law is for them to lose the next election because of low voter turnout by their party. That will send the right message.

Uh yeah, that's totally what I meant. I'm a socialist, totally. That's why I find this law so ghastly, because I hate free enterprise.

But it was signed into law by a Republican governor, so witness the whitewashing above ^^^^^. The law isn't so bad. It's just a one word change. Tesla is evil too. GM is evil. Saddam Hussein was evil. It rained yesterday in northern Idaho. Nothing to see here. Ignore the Republican behind the green curtain.
 
Can you imagine the outrage among the Objectapublicans here if the same law was signed by a Democrat? The outrage would leap off the screen. Maybe I should have posted as much since they don't pay much much attention to facts anyhow...

Wow, that's right out of the governor's official talking points--that the change in the law was one word so... big deal, right?
 
Absolutely incredible to see people who apparently call themselves "objectivists" defending this blatantly socialist move. Incredible.

This sucks more than anything has sucked in a very long time:
 
http://online.wsj.com/articles/gm-urges-michigan-gov-to-sign-anti-tesla-bill-1413912419
 
It's worth noting that Republicans were very much behind this in MI, as well as our Demo bailed-out friends at GM...
 
And while I don't indulge in off-topic rants too often, I'll say in the most objective terms I can that car dealers are lower than the deepest layer of prehistoric frog shit at the bottom of a New Jersey scum swamp. They add absolutely no value to our civilization. They could all go away tomorrow and we'd all be better off. I think of the countless, pointless hours I've spent in car dealers trying to by a fucking car after I walked in and knew exactly what I wanted and had cash for it. You can go to the local jeweler and buy a $30k watch in 5 minutes. A $30k car takes 2 hours. What bullshit. They only get away with this because they are a government-protected monopoly. The sick part is that they seem to know it and enjoy a sick power trip as they hold you there captive waiting for a 80s-vintage printer to ooze out a 15 page "contract" and try to up-sell you floor mats and sealer wax or whatever the high-end equivalent is these days.
 
In other words, I didn't think it was possible to hate car dealers any more than I did before today, but I was wrong.
 
 

Exactly. And to expand my maybe-too-cryptic point above ("our house our rules"), it's simply unrealistic to imagine that any government-financed institution will remain free for very long. Voters won't put up with their money going someplace they don't like, and the politicians will come in and make a career out of it, and so forth. Private schools that start taking vouchers will be defacto government schools within a decade or sooner. Vouchers are just a way to slowly-but-surely turn private schools into government-run schools (and Charters are just a way to instantly turn private schools into a public schools).
 
I dread the day my fellow parents greedily accept a discount on their school tuition in exchange for their long-term freedom. They will have sold their future for a trifle.

I just read the article and noticed it's not finished yet, it's still just a floating abstraction... :-)

I guess the way I interpreted that is that Obama is identifying strategic races of people throughout the world who will come here and vote Democrat, and he's busy bribing them all to do so.
 
The alternative seems to be that he is going to scour the world to find all of the racists, and bribe them to come here to vote Democrat.
 
Okay, maybe.
 
Both notions are batshit insane...

Don't share. :-)
 
Seriously, while politics might try to force you to pick some group to associate with, you should resist that. Don't support politicians or political parties. In this day and age you will only be compromising with evil every single time by definition. If a politician gets elected, that means they are not even remotely rational in their views. If they were, they wouldn't get elected.
 
This sucks, but this is reality ladies and gentlemen. Objectivists can only expect a (rare) victory on some point issue. Forget about a sweeping change and forget about having "the right candidate" in office since there is no such thing. If you let your emotions get in the way on this you'll end up with another Paul Ryan or Rand Paul--politicians who tell people, Objectivists included, what they want to hear in order to get elected.
 
Again, support an issue and make that issue a popular one, in your case getting rid of certain liquor laws. Invite both parties to cease upon your issue and exploit it for their own gain. Etc.

I just read the article and noticed it's not finished yet, it's still just a floating abstraction... :-)

I just read the article and noticed it's not finished yet, it's still just a floating abstraction... :-)

Yes, that's far preferable than dismissing my comments out of hand as completely ignorant. Have at it--I'd love to be proven wrong on that thread.

Recursive? I think this was already discussed here.

Recursive? I think this was already discussed here.

I told you a million times to stop exaggerating.

I hope so. I mentioned the other day here that immigration was excellent low hanging fruit for Objectivists to insert a more principled stance into the political discussion. Individual Rights are universal, based on logic and reason and a scientific study of the nature of man, etc. A stance on open immigration is way to underscore this principle. On a practical level, it's a big problem that needs to be solved.
 
--> Come to think of it, I recall saying that a principled stance on immigration would be an excellent way for the Republicans to have a shot at the Whitehouse again, as they can reverse the demographic bleeding on Hispanics take Texas out of play and even put CA back in play if they get a strong candidate there.

Try to refrain from using the following terms:
Dirty (as it relates to sex, unless actual dirt is involved) Filthy (see above) Slut/Slutty Smut/Smutty Whore (unless there is a transaction involved, but even then this term is derogatory; see: prostitution) Indecent Naughty Raunchy Sex is none of those things.
 
Music videos make no sense to me. Music is music--observed the ears. The video part is... strange. The video of the performers making the actual music helps your enjoyment of the music sometimes, but anything else is... weird to me...
 
Other than that, Miley and the rest of her ilk seem to have a niche in the ~2.3% of adult males left on the planet who still do not have consistent access to porn and are stuck with this sort of thing. For the rest she is simply a poor specimen. Or at least that's what's consistent with my context...

You are right about the tower you are building, but remember that sometimes you'll need to pull out things that are somewhere closer to the middle of your tower, not just on the very top. Sometimes its a bit of a mess and requires a lot of re-thinking.
 
The bottom floor, however, should never move.
 
Oh, and be careful about classifying knowledge as belonging on the first floor and therefore being immutable. Not too much belongs there. It feels great to put stuff down there because you can feel comfortable that you won't have to go through the pain of re-thinking a whole bunch of things, but if you truly commit yourself to reality you must keep what is often called, "an open mind" (which is to say an active mind). It means you don't shy away from questioning any of your long-held beliefs. You can do this because you know that your deepest beliefs in reality and reason will never change.

:-), :-( *
 
 
* Funny (because it makes my point), but sad (because it makes my point)...

Children are themselves property of the parents. They have ultimate legal and moral control of a child insofar as they properly retain this right and do not violate the rights a child does have.
 
However, the question you might be asking might not pertain to the legal or even the (directly) moral: you may be asking for an opinion about good parenting. This isn't in the realm of philosophy, but certainly a good question.
 
In this case, my opinion is that you'd want to teach your child not to be dickish by keeping a toy they don't even play with or care about just to keep it from somebody else, and instead see the value in helping out somebody that you (and they) might care about and see them enjoy something. Teach them that things are not ends in themselves, but rather a means to and end, and a toy you don't play with has no value (and that clutter from a bunch of crap you'll never use is an anti-value :-)). Also, generosity, among people whom you care about, is a virtue. A good parent would teach their child this, I think...

Sigh. And while Objectivists here argue about arcane laws that have no actual bearing on our everyday lives, there's an absolute emergency going on that needs our attention going on in another forum. Focus on real issues that curtail real freedom people!