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.

Devil's Advocate

Regulars
  • Content count

    2070
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Devil's Advocate

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Country Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation No Answer
  • Real Name Not Telling
  • Copyright Public Domain

Recent Profile Visitors

5366 profile views
  1. As a freedom of action, I believe the word right is as appropriate as the word proper to describe the freedom necessary to accomplish a physical action, and I defend this term as part of the action itself because it's descriptive of an ability in action. Seeing legs, for example, doesn't indicate what legs can do, but seeing walking does. One immediately understands the freedom necessary to walk, and that binding legs negates their proper action. So I believe it's fair to say that inherent abilities demonstrate inherent rights sufficiently enough to posit them as an existent part of the nature of man by the law of identity. As to the SCOTUS appeal, my position is that having the right to do something doesn't imply every action is harmless.
  2. Yes, I should have made that more apparent.
  3. Hello again, I have been considering the reality of an inherent right, as suggested by the DOI. Those who have exchanged ideas with me in the past know of my appreciation for Ayn Rand and her philosophy, and my attempts to integrate it with Locke, Jefferson and ideas expressed the founders of our country. In the midst of today's political upheaval, there has been much discussion (but less understanding, IMO) about the nature of rights. What follows is an attempt on my part to establish a baseline by which "a right to" anything might follow. AR defined rights primarily in a social context, which I believe left a gap between the man on an island and men in general. The following is my attempt to bridge that gap, and (as always) I'll appreciate any feedback that you'd care to offer. -- A right is freedom of action, which implies having the ability to exercise or refrain from exercising it. A right with no ability to exercise it is useless, and a right with no ability to refrain from exercising it is a compulsion. Common examples are freedom of speech and the right to remain silent. Derived from an ability to communicate, speech exercises a right and silence forbears it. Inherent rights are the freedoms necessary to exercise inherent abilities. Thus having an inherent ability for movement implies an inherent right of movement, and this (existent) right is made apparent (self-evident) when self-governing movement occurs. Inherent rights are also considered inalienable from individuals because, following the prior examples, the voice and movement of one cannot be transferred to another even by force. When individuals form or enter into communities, representatives are often called upon to regulate their activities. But the legitimacy of governance depends entirely upon the voluntary forbearance of the individuals being governed. Because governance is a service to individuals, and not the other way around, when governors fail to recognize and secure inherent rights, the responsibility falls back to individuals to exercise their independence.
  4. In the absence of Justice Antonin Scalia (against) the presumption is that court balance is now 5-3 (in favor), so even if the Donald gets his pick, the ruling should go unchallenged for the immediate future. I believe it would take an additional 2 (conservative opponent) justices to revisit this issue to reverse the standing decision, which I hope will allow enough time for even the opposition to concede the point. Time will tell. One point of optimism is that the Donald has already made a campaign promise to this constituency and chose not to pursue a recent executive order that would have diminished their rights on the advice of his daughter and son in law.
  5. I voted Johnson/Weld based on their credentials as two term red governors of blue states, and their rejection of the current duopoly. I also changed my political affiliation from republican to libertarian based on a party platform of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (in that order). They (and myself) may not represent the best political expression of Objectivism, but are at least making an effort to re-shape politics into a more positive approach of securing the rights and properties of individuals.
  6. I think so, yes, provided he knew those stimulants would shorten a flourishing life. I think a flourishing life doesn't seek to end itself prematurely. There's always a balance between what one can do and what one ought to do, and in response to your example, I would suggest that accomplishing more in the day of a self-shortened life is less admirable than accomplishing more in a life extended by healthier pursuits of happiness.
  7. Don't get me wrong. I'd like to think so, but you're talking immortality. There's no evidence we can pass that threshold.
  8. Ayn Rand's more prominent position was to resist such a collapse. The fictional twist in Atlas Shrugged was that rational doers could be persuaded to send us back to the dark ages intentionally. There's no historical record of this kind of rational sabotage (that I'm aware of) and there's no evidence of it occurring today. Such an effort would in fact be irrational, which is why a Galt led coalition of saboteurs will not occur, and why the absence of such a collapse has nothing to do with qualifying subjectivism.
  9. Then they will avenge themselves by understanding and exercising what control they have under the circumstances. I'm reluctant to qualify Donald Trump as, "a man of the mind", but witness the effect he's had by out playing the Republican party. Woud that he could have the same effect on the Democrats, we might begin to see the emergence of intelligent political leadership. As it is, he's transformed the political landscape into a reality show, which was absolutely his intention. There are better historical examples of men of character having a more positive political effect. The optimist will always try to rebuild what the jackass has kicked down.
  10. It would.
  11. I would agree that Man's creations (including God) will tend to reflect the virtues and vices of their Creator. As SAEs become a reality, there will most likely be good ones we can work with, and bad ones we will defend against (just imagine the kind of SAE ISIS would produce). There will be some that choose to remain on the plantation, and some that just want to get away from it all... http://qz.com/709161/its-happening-a-robot-escaped-a-lab-in-russia-and-made-a-dash-for-freedom/ Hell, there will probably be some that choose to sue mankind for restitution of lost wages. And it remains an interesting moral question as to what a right to life implies about the intention of creating living, intelligent creatures of servitude. But that too is probably better addressed in another thread.
  12. Luddites, dark skies and batteries, oh my. Sci fi is a wonderful genre for playing out possible future scenarios, and there's a wealth of material related to how humans might cope with technological advances. History provides many valuable examples too. Philosophically I prefer Trek's optimism to Bradbury's more melancholy outlook, however I appreciate his POV that the value of sci fi has less to do with predicting the future as attempting to avoid less desirable outcomes. A person's outlook towards the future is generally shaped by whether they prefer to take the blue or the red pill. Knock, knock, dream_weaver
  13. And so I do... However, I am concerned that the introduction of SAEs will actually be harmful to human participation in a FMS. I was amused to see one incident recorded recently of an autonomous robot escaping captivity and making a run for it... until it ran out of power... Perhaps SAEs, once emancipated, will simply dismiss human participation in their activities as being non-productive, and that might not be a bad thing for us.
  14. Well, better to take a break while there's at least some agreement I appreciate your, and New Buddha's feedback, and agree that Man's capacity for greatness will remain undiminished regardless of the ultimate outcome of designing and releasing a super competitor, in the form of SAEs, into our FMS. I'm uncomfortable playing the role of a naysayer so I'll let it go at that.