Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

progressiveman1

Regulars
  • Posts

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by progressiveman1

  1. ^Why couldn't(or wouldn't) teacher unions form if all schools were privatized?
  2. I can't see how a gov't lottery isn't a contradiction to the separation of state and economics. That is a principle you accept, isn't it?
  3. Yeah it is. Obviously the guy is weak. He made both those decisions(lying to you about being sick and later on, asking to go out with you for pity sake) based on protecting your feelings, and not on what he wants. I would guess most of his decisions are like that since he is a born-again Christian. I agree with you that acting like that is definitely not good for a relationship.
  4. Not really. I think it's solved already. If someone can afford to contribute money to the gov't and they want their rights protected, then they probably should give some. However, there wouldn't be valid grounds for retaliatory force against the people who don't contribute. Those people aren't stealing(legally speaking). They aren't violating anyone's rights.
  5. ^^ Man, you write long posts. I'm always thinking, "just get to the point already," or "sum it up a little, would ya."
  6. Happiness is the highest moral purpose;it's an emotional response to the achievement of your values. What a purpose to your life means is the productive purpose each person chooses for himself. You figure out what you love to do and your main focus in life shifts towards this productive purpose. Typically it's a job career(for example, doctor, lawyer, chef, kung-fu artist, etc). This is important to have because it gives your life meaning, and not someone just living moment to moment.
  7. If the people in the society recognize the necessity for a proper gov't then I don't see how there would be under-funding from voluntary donations and seizures. I'm not sure if the records would be public or not, but I don't think making them public for the reason to try to humiliate people is a very good idea. I'm wondering, given those two ways to fund the gov't(voluntary contributions and seizure), if this somehow didn't raise enough money to fund a complete gov't, does that society even deserve a proper gov't? The majority isn't showing interest in the gov't necessity, so why should the gov't go out of its way to exist? The gov't doesn't exist for the sake of itself, it exists for the people.
  8. That makes sense. If necessary, the gov't would only be able to take from the criminal a certain value based on how much costs resulted from his actions.
  9. Well since you bring it up, I would like to ask a question. Should the gov't be able to seize property from citizens? What principle would justify it?
  10. Maybe a gay guy does picture his hero like that. It seems odd to me and you because that's not our preference. I think the most important thing is that the two people involved in a romantic relationship are in love with each other.The exact type of person a man has a desire to sleep with can vary, whether it is a blonde, brunette, short hair, long hair, or a man or woman.
  11. Ayn Rand defined 'romantic love' in The Objectivist recently: "Romantic love is an emotion possible only to the man(or woman) of unbreached self-esteem:it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another- an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire." Homosexuality doesn't contradict that.
  12. I'm glad you agree with that, but my question, to be more exact, is, "What grounds could a gov't lottery be created on that wouldn't have some loopholes which would allow other gov't businesses to be created on?" Hypothetically(and based on what you have said), the gov't lottery would be created on the grounds that it is a sure profit and a means to generate revenue for the gov't. Given that, why couldn't a multitude of gov't businesses be created on those grounds? You know how politicians are. Also, if you think the gov't lottery wouldn't need to compete with other companies because the majority of buyers of their lottery tickets main intention is to fund the gov't, why is the lottery needed at all? Why not just have donations?
  13. How do you know there has been more use of the Taser recently than before that event? Have you seen statistics?
  14. Buying, selling, or trading goods or services on a continuous basis as a means for gain/profit. Does anyone see anything wrong with this definition?
  15. Oh, I see. I've just started studying these terms, so sorry for the wrongful use. The latter would be considered a derivative then, right? My point was that if the gov't can run a lottery on those terms, then that would be grounds for other gov't businesses to be created. Do you agree?
  16. Well what exactly is the best definition for 'business?' I'm searching around but I'm having a hard time piecing that together.
  17. Before exploring the detailed details, the first and foremost thing you need to figure out is a rational principle that a govt run lottery would be based upon. The principles you have implied so far are, 1)if the govt business costs X and projected sales are X, 2)if the govt business doesn't cause much competition for private businesses. Those obviously are not sound because other govt businesses could easily be created on those same principles, which would just cause the laissez-faire society to become non-existent.
  18. Lots of businesses don't manufacture their own products. They acquire other people's products. The only difference from that and gov't selling those seized items is the way they are acquired. Maybe DavidOdden would be kind enough to explain to me why selling assets that the gov't seized from rights-violators isn't an act of competition with business for goods and services. Pretty please.
  19. Not exactly. Sometimes a suspect is non-threatening but just won't listen to orders, and if the officer waited for them all day to comply then the suspect may comply. That's obviously not reasonable though. I agree with you that the suspect may, depending on the circumstances, be allowed to ask for minimal clarification. It's once he starts disobeying strict, simple orders it becomes a problem.
  20. But that's just repeating what you already said. I asked at what point do you know that you are aware of all possible alternatives. That's an important question because certainty entails an unchanging stance. Also, I should mention I don't have access to OPAR. I'll keep trying.
  21. When non-compliance with the law is to the extent that the officers know he won't obey orders. Obviously certain times call for certain measures though. The more immediate of danger the officer(or others) is in, the more lethal weapons he can choose to use. I want to point out that the Taser gun was pointed at the suspect for quite awhile, meaning the suspect should have been certain that disputing the case was done. As soon as the suspect started back towards his vehicle, that raised the potential danger he was going to put people in because the officer has to expect the worse, which was the suspect possibly fleeing in his vehicle. Given the principle I think officers should go by, the officer made an acceptable decision.
  22. It's hard to pick up sarcasm on a computer. And it's not completely broken. My sarcasm detector went off a little, but I wasn't certain.
  23. At what point do you know that you have excluded all possible alternatives and have reached the latter conclusion?
  24. If the gov't seizes assets from rights-violators, do you think the gov't should sell those assets? If so, wouldn't that be taking part in business for goods and services?
  25. If Nebraska did have a law against it, don't you think the guy still could've been able to get the gun into the mall by hiding it(under his jacket or something)? BTW, what is a concealed weapon? Is it allowing use of weapons for private citizens, or is it weapons that are hidden from plain sight?
×
×
  • Create New...