Anirudh Silai

So the causal factors would be both, then? Both the relative importance to you and your expectations?

But am I correct about the nature of the psychological impact?

I see your point applies to my 2nd question about psychological impact. Let's say now that I am applying for a job. If I am expecting that I will get the job, then I will be bummed out if I end up not getting it. However, if I am not expecting that I will get it, then I will not be bummed out by not getting the job. Maybe the impact of a "potential" value on you depends on your expectations. If you go in with either realistic expectations or with no expectations at all, then you have nothing to lose emotionally. But, if you go in with unrealistic expectations, then you may be crushed.

Thanks for the quick reply. I'll elaborate with two questions: Let's say that Bob is raising money for a procedure that could restore eyesight to his blind brother Dick, and he values the potential of Dick's eventual sight. Then Dick ends up getting the procedure and begins to see. After his recovery, would Bob categorically value Dick's actual sight as well? Likewise, let's rewind the scenario back to when Bob is raising the money. He values Dick's potential sight, and also values his own efforts to help his brother. If a bank robber were to steal some money, would he be attacking Bob's potential value so as to give Bob psychological distress? In other words, does the failure to reach a potential X cause as much distress as losing the actual X? What is the comparison?

I was on this closed thread - http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?/topic/4332-weighing-actual-versus-potential-values/&page=1 - and I came across a puzzle that I can't quite figure out. One of the commentators said that, for any value X, the actual X is always more desirable than a potential X. But, is he wrong if I value a potential X while not valuing the actual X? Is it even possible for me to do so - to value a potential X without valuing the actual X? If so, what is an example?

Here are two scenarios: 01) John Smith decides to run for office on a tax-spend-heavy platform and Billy and Bob vote for him. John Smith wins and puts his agenda into place. 02) Billy and Bob start a "Draft Smith movement" to persuade John Smith to run, and he ends up agreeing to it. John Smith wins and puts his agenda into place. Am I correct in saying that: In scenario 1, John Smith is the initiator of force, whereas Billy and Bob are willing consenters? While, in scenario 2, Billy and Bob are the initiators of force while John Smith is a willing consenter?

Thanks. Applying it more specifically, what about today in America? Do you guys think that, for most Americans, taxation is indeed force? Is there a gray area here?

I have a question: If I vote in a Congressman or President who says he will raise my taxes, and he does so, does that still count as force from the govt against me? That is, specifically regarding the people who voted for the politician who raised their taxes, is it still an initiation of force against those specific people as well?

I'll definitely check out your other post. I've been busy with a lot of things. Thanks, though!

I wouldn't lead a life of crime because I respect others. Some people do not. But most people reject such a principle. Even if encouraged, few would adopt such a principle. Most (but not all; not 100%) would agree with me that stealing is wrong. Some would assume, albeit incorrectly, that they'd surely risk detection - despite the plethora of unreported and unsolved crimes. Many people are averse to even the slightest risks. Some wouldn't be able to live with themselves. But there are people who asses the risk, find it to be small, and can indeed live with themselves, and comfortably. I am certainly not saying that one ought to steal sometimes or that one ought to lead a life of crime. I am only saying that some acts of theft are entirely compatible with the self-interest of the thief.

Hey everyone, Here's an interesting thought to consider: http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/the-objectivist-ethics.html - Here Rand says, "if some men attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud, by looting, robbing, cheating or enslaving the men who produce, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by their victims, only by the men who choose to think and to produce the goods which they, the looters, are seizing...The men who attempt to survive, not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals...Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own." - By destruction, she means physical and psychological (with regard to self-esteem). But what about criminals who get away with it successfully? Consider that man must act with reason in order to survive. Consider a thief who reasons that the risk of getting caught is very low, even that the likelihood of his victim even reporting the crime is low. Finally consider that criminals, on average, even those who are caught, have higher-than-average self-esteem, according to the APA. Or, as an insignificant example, consider that once, when I was little, I was feeling hungry and I easily snagged a couple of potato chips from a friend.

How doesn't it promote Adam's life? That's why I brought up indebtedness and retaliation.

I get it, that Adam is the altruist. So, by applying altruist mentality to Bert, is Adam defeating his own self-interest as well? Is he defeating his own self-interest because, by doing that to Bert, he is incurring a debt that will be enforced by law?

Well, why, then?

But why wouldn't it be altruism? What makes it either egoist or neutral?