Devil's Advocate

I used the word "restored", as in restored to office via the courts (unlikely, but possible), or re-elected in 2024 (more likely). I said what occurred on January 6th was an insurrection. I did not say I supported it (or any future one), and I'm surprised at you, Eiuol, for making that connection and clinging to it.

A "similar tipping point" in the context of a strike, yes, or hunkering down in Galt's Gultch.

Perhaps, but at what cost?

Only to the degree that Galt valued stopping the motor of the world to make a point. I don't recall that being portrayed in the book as being something irrational.

Themis would be my preference in the appearance of justice, looking you in the eye with scale and sword.

Lady Justice, yes. The blindfold is an unnecessary constraint given her task, and probably does more to suggest a weakness that can be exploited by those who would have her provide for just us.

Until what passes for republicans today can win elections without The Donald, nutty is as nutty does.

For the sake of the children, If you saw Lady Liberty, the giant who holds the free world on her shoulders, if you saw that she stood, blood running down her chest, her knees buckling, her arms trembling but still trying to hold her torch aloft with the last of her strength, and the greater her effort the heavier the looters and their children bore down upon her shoulders demanding freedom from want - What would you tell her? (Ayn Rand's Francisco d'Anconia, paraphrased)

I believe that January 6th was an insurrection promoted by republican party seditionists, to state it bluntly. You may judge me by that. My question (restated) is, "Should the Statue of Liberty shrug off securing the 'Blessings of Liberty' in order to drive home the need to secure it?"

I believe for a "self-governing individual" to have any meaning there is always a political context. We are "contractual animals", are we not? I mean "absence of society" in the context of, "letting it go".

Having found a source of water on the left, wouldn't it be more "purposeful" for the human to explore the right path for an additional source of water as the measure of volition?

For better or worse, the Former (to be restored) President is arguably the most influential political figure of the 21st Century, perhaps best evident in his catch phrases as adopted by current world leaders to maintain influence over their electorates. However, I'm not returning from hiatus to argue similarities between The Donald and John Galt. The Objectivist story of Atlas I read is essentially a primer on the proper use of political power in a social context. My question is, "Is there a similar tipping point in the Security of Liberty to that of the prosperity created by Producers, beyond which a rational self-interest in maintaining society ought to be withdrawn to promote the absence of society?"

Yes, along for the ride. I do not. It becomes an individual, which is the appropriate context for the kind of rights you are arguing for. Groups don't have rights, so coercing a pregnant individual not to have an abortion because a lot of other (well intentioned) individuals think so is a nonstarter. A majority of righted individuals cannot force the individual choice of another without negating their own rights.

Locke referred to God that which could not otherwise be rationally explained as a final argument in the form of sanction by an unimpeachable source. The structure of the following statement indicates the actual source of authority being appealed to: "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them", which is understood to mean as expressed by Bacon: "to be commanded, must be obeyed", and as expressed by Franklin, "helps those who help themselves." Nationality cannot be fully understood without coming to terms with the spiritual nature of the group, specifically what God they choose to obey. Credibility of the claim depends entirely on self-evidence of a common nature; "that all men are created equal". I think globalism is likely going to assert itself regardless of the spiritual divisiveness of those who embrace nationalism. I hope that the emerging government(s) will remain bound to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", which is generic enough to respect the free-will of all individuals to pursue a diversity of self-interests, and moral enough to operate within the context of ethical reciprocity. Leven en laten leven

Have the ability to express deliberately autonomous actions, i.e. it's along for the ride.

Rights are freedoms of action in a social context, so you may want to reconsider. The fetus has no ability to control the labor, and the mother retains the right to defend her life against whatever complications arise during the pregnancy, including labor, so...

The mother's actual rights subsume the potential rights of the fetus during these "interactions". Do you see how slippery the slope is now that you've fallen back to the second trimester?

Social interaction.

Agreed, because it is at this point that the newborn achieves independence, if not self-governance. Follow the umbilical. This remains an argument for potential at the highest point of the slippery slope. A right without choice or ability is a contradiction, and objective law requires non-contradictory application.

There's very little disagreement that a fetus begins as a potential man, or that It requires certain Rights to exist. The contention revolves around who, if anyone, is entitled to choose that It cease to exist. Even if no one gets to choose, Nature bats last. Either the Individual bearing that life is entitled to choose, or the State usurps that Right.

Fetal rights? No such thing, an egg yolk has no right to become a chicken. First off, pregnancy doesn't diminish or compromise individual rights because there's no contest between the actual and the potential. The whole concept of rights is dependent upon a choice of action, which a fetus certainly hasn't the ability to make, only the parent(s) do.

I don't believe the Law of Identity allows for any other interpretation. I believe that continuity implies the sameness of living, meaning those processes that any individual is in possession of that sustain their own life. A momentary lapse of mental faculty doesn't imply a death of self as long as the body that animates both flesh and mind retain the ability of self-generated action. Got body = got mind. The absence of a 2nd individual to dispute the original's claim to life implies no other definition is as reliable to posit self-hood, IMO.

No, for essentially the same reasons I point to in the Transporter Problem thread; the Law of Identity and the mind/body dichotomy. Easter philosophy and fake memories aside, this remains essentially the function of a particular body creating a particular mind. Resurrection or transportation constitute a closed loop (or zero sum game), whereas the introduction of new material, e.g. cloning, prosthetic bodies create duplication or additions to the original and therefore create a fundamentally different self.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." ~ Declaration of Independence Your willingness (and others) to choose (and be grateful for) a lesser evil, one you can live with, is likely why the ideal practice of rights remains beyond our ability to experience socially.

The distinction I was pointing to (that I hope you'll respond to) is that flawed as they were, the Founders actually dared to place a limit on their own rule by expressly establishing a rights violation benchmark that is objectively true. I believe this is unique in history, and makes "best in their time" argument irrelevant, because they fell short. Far from excusing all prior leaders for not knowing better, the truth of this benchmark determines the immorality of all prior forms of social leadership (including their own) because the lesser of two evils remains fundamentally evil. In addition, I will presume that even in the worst of historical times there were always those who not only met the rights benchmark individually but would have changed the history of social rights recognition had they not been prevented from doing so by the brutes who were in charge in their day (and ours). So I will reserve my gratitude to those individuals throughout history who not only knew better, but practiced it (which included certain individuals who were also Founders).