Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Old Geezer

Regulars
  • Posts

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Old Geezer

  1. exactly my point.... Any insurance company which thinks it will save money by discriminating against married gay people would really only be logical if it discriminated against certain lifestyle choices (such as polygamy, unprotected anal sex etc) since it is these lifestyle choices not the "gayness" that affects someones health
  2. To an extent yes and that is where most of the spread comes from, but also remember that the Anal membranes and the vaginal membranes are very thin in comparison to the skin of the penis. (therefore all unprotected anal sex is somewhat more dangerous to the recipient)
  3. i) A private corporation by definistion is not necessarilly American. (for instance Dynecorp (serves both the American and Saudi Arabian Militaries) AND they are free to hire whom they want. ii) standard of proof. A mercenary is a mercenary is a mercenary. Please explain to me how the two are different. various government militaries have been a threat to various nation's security throughout the world. Thats why our system of government developed oversights etc. (yet still we sell WMD to saddam) According to its own factbook, 11% dyncorps revenues come from overseas, in such places as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan Russia, Egypt etc. Their largest contractual obligation is to the Saudi Military. Also, they do not have to go Rogue to pose a threat to national security, all they have to do is decide that other ventures might be more profitable. Then they exercise their legal rights to not continue contracting. During the war in Afghanistan, most of the Alliances we won on the ground were won by bringing in large briefcases full of money. A mercenary corporation is a formalized example of this. In afghanistan, if the alliance shifted back it didnt matter because we had superior technology and could still destroy the "rogue" alliance. But if our Military lets a private entity use the same level of technology and training as the government, the government no longer has the physical ability to dictate the terms of use of that force.
  4. Out of curiosity, how did you come to the decision to do a .net as opposed to a .com?
  5. i) History; The British used German Mercenaries against the US during the revolutionary war. They had no stake in the battle and no commitment to anything but money, what happened? Washington crossed the Delaware and Romped their drunken asses. We have relied on arming and paying armies in the past with disastorous results (remember the muhajideen?) ii) motive as is the case in Saudi Arabia, private armies originally made for our purposes are now working for the Saudi Regime. Why? cause Saudi Arabia has money. Now when the shit hits the fan over there, we have to not only deal with their crappy forces, but the private armies we initiated. I didn't say breaches, I said potential breaches... I dunno, maybe it was the fact that they are literally flying all over combat zones with US military Airships??
  6. The American Military is increasingly contracting military services which is a relief in some ways (cheaper, more efficient, and frees up the military for other purposes) but can it pose a threat to national security??? Is it potentially a breach of the monopoly on force? is the danger worth the savings?
  7. Hey, you seem to be curious about emotions according to Ayn Rand, emotions are "a sort of sum total of ones thoughts" (From one of Ayn Rand's books "the fountainhead" if you ever got curious about Rand and wanted to pick up a book, "Anthem" is pretty short) what this means is that 1st something happens to you (such as seeing something, or hearing words etc) 2nd you think about what happens to you 3rd you form emotions in response to what you think.
  8. where'd I put that goddamn invisible hand? It will happen, and the beauty of capitilism is that it will happen largely without force.
  9. Hey, at least Carter made "peace" with castro all we are say-ing, is give unjust peace a chance!
  10. Thats great now how does that respond to any of my statements?
  11. I don't necessarily refer to spaces that need effort to be in. also, if all the land is owned and I get kicked off one piece of land (plot A owned by person A) and the surrounding land is owned by someone else (Plot B owned by person B ) what are the obligations of person A under such circumstances? Certainly person B is under no obligation to take on people into his property
  12. " if there is no place for me to stand without being on someone's private property, than physical coercion would always be legal.
  13. I have been particularly struck by snippets people have left on this forum... about overcoming adversity, confronting evil etc.... and bragging, when well earned, is respectable within an objectivist social context. If you got em, Id love to hear em.
  14. 1. interactions among men are supposed to be mutual and voluntary 2. It would not be possible exist without having your physical movement under the control of someone else. (I am imagining a world without public walkways/streets etc)
  15. As a sidebar, If your Soc. Prof is an activist one, I sympathize... (and so too does my former sociology prof who claimed she almost stopped teaching when she saw all the activists claiming to be sociologists)
  16. I don't think there is anything wrong with using one's voice as a consumer to try to negotiate how a product is made. (as long as you are willing to pay the price, you can negotiate to have them dance the salsa while humming porn tunes while they pick tomatoes if for some reason that thought helped you enjoy tomatoes more) The problem is why you would WANT to. if for instance you do not think that Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan is worth the $100,000,000 that Nike pays them, but that the people who make your quality sneakers provide more value to you and you want them to get a raise for some reason. (such as a belief that your shoes might be more sturdy if the people working 20 hour days could feed their family well and were not distracted by anxiety about that)
  17. Thats not what I am getting at... Not necessarilly true. sometimes he makes the unowned INTO property. not true. if you dropped a hundred naked capitilists onto an island and they began to trade/sell things, only the things that they apply effort to has the property of value that allows it to be considered property. Thats not necesarilly true. all employees have value to their employers otherwise they wouldnt be employees, all girlfriends have value for their boyfriends otherwise they wouldnt be girlfriends etc. etc.... such is not the case for parenthood. also, in much of india for instance babies are killed according to the parents gender preference. Now one might argue that those parents SHOULD value their babies, but not that they DO otherwise they wouldnt kill them. another example that comes to mind is that of No, they need freedom of movement or freedom of communication, not something necessarilly allowed on other people's private property But it means that you are always accessing SOMEONE ELSES physical environment which means you are not able to exist on purely your own efforts, and must engage in interaction with another person.
  18. I don't understand, can you elaborate? Man either exists by his mind and property or his mind and non property which he makes his own. Man does not live on mind alone. By this I suspect you mean material which they were free to use (such as forests etc) in which case their ability to own something de facto is still present, as is the case in Manhatten. (for instance I am free to perform on a sidewalk to earn money) What will happen to men born with no property and no access to anything that can be turned to property??
  19. Just a suggestion, and I havent thought out the implications... but the politics and political philosophy forum seems to be packed these days. Perhaps its arbitrary hair splitting, but perhaps there is a way that it could be split into two forums Politics and Political Philosophy it might create more work than its worth, but its an idea to toy with
  20. Assuming the trend towards privatization of property continues, what will happen when all physical material is owned? If distribution of resources is not yet a reflection of merit by that time, will this mean that the status quo will remain? If man exists by applying his mind to his physical environment, what will happen when he has no access to a physical environment? (born without property)
  21. Thanks, Im wondering if you might have stumbled on something that visually depicts the middle men and middle companies etc between Saudi sand and my car He spends an hour or so searching every week the closest we have found is some place in Brittain, it seems to lean too much towards maintaining Islam in the constitution.,,,, The filters are a problem yes, but the literal physical detention and destruction of the dissenters is a bigger problem everyones afraid to talk. I whole heartedly agree, thanks for keeping an eye open
  22. "Do you think that credibility still stands? (I'm not actually sure...)" I do, in fact I would challenge you to find someone in the world who has voiced an opinion to the contrary. I dont, after all .... a) we have been CONSTANT state of military conflict with various countries since we proved our willingness to drop bombs b)we just destroyed one of worlds 15 largest armies in a couple weeks. c) We did it without the stamp of majority domestic support, and without the stamp of world approval. D) our National security strategy document has strengthened our stance on Nuclear retaliation, and our defense secretary has reiterated such a stance. On top of that, the Administration is crawling with Neo Con's and PNAC peoples, we have thousands of Nukes ready, etc etc etc. I
  23. The US already has Nuclear weopans credibility, in fact we are the only nation EVER to use them
  24. I had figured as much. I am leaning more towards an overall reduction in spending on gasoline good assumption... any suggestions about secular reform groups?.
×
×
  • Create New...