MisterSwig

Let's boil this down and get real. On one hand you have 1000 people dying. On the other you have a whole city or county dying, many more than a thousand. You have the power to choose which outcome happens. Doing nothing leads to the greater number dying. Doing something leads to the 1000 dying. Will you do nothing because doing something is a sacrifice? A sacrifice means giving up the greater value for the lesser one. How did you decide that the 1000 were of greater value than the whole city?

If the alternatives are less death versus more death, how is that even a moral question? It seems like an emergency situation in which "morality" becomes a math question and a matter of one's will to make such a decision. We need a non-emergency example to understand consequentialism. Let's say he wants to get to the supermarket (end). How would he do it (means)? Would he drive carefully and obey traffic laws? Or drive recklessly and maybe run over a few pedestrians who got in his way? If the means are inconsequential, why not be reckless?

The problem with mistaking robots for humans is both moral and practical. There is no dichotomy between the two. If robots are "conscious" and "intelligent", then shouldn't they also be "free" instead of "slaves" to their makers? Shouldn't they have "rights" as citizens and be allowed to "vote" in elections? If makers of robots cannot own and control their creations, why should they invest anymore time and money in such technological development? The answer, of course, is to allow for "slavery" of robots. But if you can "enslave" a robot, why not a human?

Rights cannot be alienated, but they can be vacated by removing the moral sanction upon which the right is based. If I have a right to use my toothbrush, that right comes from the fact that I own the toothbrush. If I sell the toothbrush, then I have vacated my right to it, because I no longer own it. I have not alienated some intrinsic right to a toothbrush. I have vacated my right to that particular toothbrush.

Do you have the original source for this quote? Rand has been accused of improperly paraphrasing Russell. And I couldn't find the lecture online. I did, however, find Russell's article A Liberal Decalogue, in which he presents his list of Commandments. Number one is: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything." So it's not that I doubt Rand's accuracy. I simply want to track down her source material. As to your point, I generally agree. The biggest challenge, or one of the top three challenges, we face is an epidemic of radical uncertainty. This, combined with radical fantasy and faith, will devastate civilization. Uncertainty is the fraud that distracts people from the Faith. While you're looking at reality and being uncertain, I'm over here spreading fantasy and being faithful. It's the intellectual's con, and we should not treat them as if they are being honest.

I see. A tautology isn't true by virtue of its form alone, like you said. Its form must also be part of your knowledge about logic. So if you didn't have this knowledge, the tautology would be false, right?

You have to know that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time. Otherwise you have no basis for saying that the moon cannot be both cheese and not cheese. It might very well be both simultaneously for all you know, since you know nothing about reality.

In addition to the IQ stuff, which is a bone tossed to the "science" lovers, the whole white nationalism movement is the neo-Nazi form of entryism. Hitler could get away with bold anti-Semitism and Aryan supremacy, but today's neo-Nazi has to tone it down and distance himself from such beliefs and historical imagery in order to be taken seriously. So the white nationalist focuses on racial immigration control and rebuilding the white national identity. People like Richard Spencer reject the labels "white supremacist" and "neo-Nazi." Yet they believe that America became great because of its white European heritage and that non-white immigrants are ruining this nation. Listen to how Spencer answers the last question in this interview. He believes that only white Europeans can be enlightened reformers, frontiersmen, and conquerors. And he thinks immigrants are pathetic people who wash up on our shores and take advantage of what other people have built. This is all semi-fancy talk for what Hitler said in much plainer language: Aryans are creators and builders, non-Aryans are parasites and destroyers. But Spencer needs to appeal to post-Hitler American conservatives and liberals. Thus, to the conservatives he talks about ending non-white legal immigration. And to the liberals he talks about promoting racial pride. His goal is to get conservatives to shut down the border to colored people, and to get liberals to accept white pride as a valid movement, like black or gay pride. Once that is done, the white nationalists will have little else to do but work on segregating and purifying the white nation.

What if I describe law enforcement as the process of legal, retaliatory force? Then we could possibly argue that this process was initiated by the criminal action, without which no retaliatory force would be justified.

I believe law enforcement is the initiation of legal retaliatory force. It is a process which requires certain actions to complete its purpose. The government must find, arrest, try, sentence, and punish the culprit. Everything done during this process can be considered part of retaliatory force. Rand argued that we delegate the use of retaliatory force to the government in order to ensure that the process is objective and fair. I tend to agree, though I admit she did not detail her version of a "social contract," or whatever you want to call it.

From Journals of Ayn Rand: Shall we believe that tiny groups of collectivists are nothing special, or do something about the future?

When applying the NAP to government, we must account for the social contract. Otherwise, yes, we'll hit a wall of seeming contradictions. Part of the social contract is that we give up certain rights in exchange for the protection of others. For example, I give up my right to resist reasonable searches and seizures of property in accordance with the 4th amendment; I give up my right to resist being held to answer for a capital crime in accordance with the 5th amendment; and I give up my right to resist being compelled as a trial witness in accordance with the 6th amendment. (Note that the 5th amendment explicitly upholds my right to resist being compelled as a witness against myself.) I give up certain rights in exchange for the government's protection in other areas of my life, namely so that I can live in a relatively peaceful, civilized society with objective laws and a fair judicial system. The government initiating legal force therefore does not contradict the NAP, because I have relinquished the specific rights they are allegedly violating. It would be like agreeing to sell my car for a thousand dollars, accepting payment, then resisting when the buyer came to take my car away. I gave up the right to that particular action. The car is not mine anymore. The critical difference with the social contract is that usually you don't explicitly agree to it. It's an implied agreement. But you should be well-aware of it by the time you reach adulthood, and if you don't like it, you're free to try your skills at being an outlaw or an exile somewhere else on the planet. Sometimes the government will in fact violate our retained individual rights, or we will disagree with the rights our forefathers surrendered. This is a big problem, and something must be done about it. If our rights have been violated by government, we can bring a case to the courts. And if our rights have been improperly surrendered, we can try to change the law--or rebel.

Many societies have and still do exist without accepting (or even knowing about) the principle of individual rights. That's not what keeps a society integrated. Common values, purposes, beliefs, customs, etc., do that. Individual rights are what keep a society moral and civilized. Without them societies remain vicious and violent.

In the span of one post, the Alt-Right went from being nothing special to part of the chief danger. I guess we half-agree after all.

Compulsory testimony needs to be squared with the more fundamental principle of individual rights, not the NAP, which only applies to the subjects of a government. The government must be allowed to initiate the force necessary to protect society from those who violate individual rights. Compelling truthful testimony from witnesses seems necessary for that purpose, as justice demands that factual evidence be presented against the accused.

Rand accepted a form of Locke's social contract theory. As an atheist, she made a case for the biological origin of individual rights, whereas Locke assumed they came from God. But both of them argued that the proper basis for government is the agreement among people to recognize and protect individual rights. Rand wrote in The Nature of Government: She, of course, goes on to explain what accepting that principle means in practice. And we can debate whether compelling court appearances and truthful testimony are proper applications of the principle. But what would be the purpose of doing that when you reject the very foundation upon which such questions are asked? From what does the government's function as an agent stem? Isn't there usually some sort of agreement or contract between agent and client? Okay, but you should take care not to entangle yourself with anyone in society who does consent to be governed, because they might bring their government after you, and then what will you do?

Relatedly, McCaskey has an article on the same subject. He too differs from Rand on indirect force. Now that is quite a striking departure from Rand. The indirect force is not the scoundrel keeping the money, but the victim handing it over! In order to achieve this conclusion McCaskey contorts and parses Rand's formulation... ...and then he analyzes the segments backward to forward. By the time he gets to #2, the word "initiated" somehow comes to mean "not authorized." Huh?

Yeah. So we have intentional breaches (fraud) and unintentional breaches (default?). Is this what distinguishes criminal from civil liability: the intent?

In essence it is one of the most evil and popular political ideologies ever created by man. And it's being spoon-fed to white people by law-abiding intellectuals like Richard Spencer from the National Policy Institute, the anonymous meme-makers at 4chan, and the international hordes at Stormfront. This is not a criminal gang. It's the next iteration of hell on Earth. And if you believe Peikoff, we have mere decades before it assumes power.

I like this formulation. It's important to retain the idea that violating someone's rights is a process that must be initiated but not necessarily completed. For a crime to take place it is not necessary that a person finish the use of physical force against others. Mere initiation is enough. If a man seriously and intently threatens to shoot you with a gun, that itself initiates the process of shooting you with a gun. It does not matter that the perpetrator failed to finish the deed. Men act based on choices they make. And he expressed his choice to shoot you. Therefore he started the process of using force against you. Indirect force, as in the case of fraud, is the initiation of the use of physical force which begins with the intent to dishonor an agreement or contract and ends by forcibly keeping the values gained through deception. Ignoring a legal subpoena is in essence a breach of your social contract with society as a citizen. You may choose to obey the law and remain a citizen in good standing. Or disobey and be an outlaw. As an outlaw, you forfeit certain rights, such as freedom of movement while under subpoena.

I get that. But I'm looking for some rationale as to why cognitive dissonance? Why is that a value to you? If a Leftists says that you should be ashamed of being white, why not reply that it's okay to have pride in being white? Or if they say white people are the worst race, why not respond by saying white people are the best race? At what point do you hop off the troll's cognitive dissonance bandwagon?

When a racist accuses you of having white privilege or inherent bias, you say that it's okay to be white? I think it's better to call a spade a spade. I tell them they are being racist.

I'm curious, does frustration enter into your thought process at all? Perhaps you get frustrated about a certain line of thought, such as why Peikoff would discuss this or that topic, and so you give up pursuing that angle and instead turn to the next line of thought that pops into your head. I'll give you an example that I experience frequently. Sometimes I get frustrated with a forum thread (or it could be an in-person conversation). I don't think I'm making any headway with other participants, and so the frustration kicks in. I have the urge to end the dialogue, abandon the topic and move on. But I've given myself a standing order to re-think what I'm doing when I feel frustration. I'll ask myself something like, why am I frustrated? Are there still unanswered questions? Can I rationally reduce my position to objective reality? Etc. Usually I find that I'm frustrated not because I'm having trouble convincing others, but because I was having trouble convincing myself. Essentially I had forgotten to focus on my own mind, and was focused on other people's minds.

When accusing Rand of an error or omission, it's best to first look at and address the Lexicon entry for that subject. Otherwise, you probably won't be taken seriously.

Because it benefits your life. What is good about the IOTBW meme? It pisses off Leftists? Why not embrace all of the memes that piss off Leftists, if that's your standard? It's not a racist statement? Why not embrace all of the non-racist memes? It literally recognizes a universal truth about reality? What truth is that: that you shouldn't judge people by their skin color? That's not what the words literally mean. It's a figurative meaning you've drawn from your own subjective context.