Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

redmartian89

Regulars
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About redmartian89

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Michael
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    Hello, y'all. I am Michael. I like astronatuical engineering and philsophy.
  1. What if a group of individuals wishes to secede from whatever political unit they are members of, and then provide their own government services of law creation, enforcement, and protection to whomever (voluntarily) joins them? The state will do one of two things: assert its sovereignty and crush this group, or let them secede and thus give away its own power over them. If the state crushes them, the notion of civil rights will necessarily be limited in scope and association mandatory rather then voluntary. From a self-interest standpoint, it seems that the state MUST be firm in its dealings with the separatist group. The state MUST initiate force in order to purge the nation of all competition as service provider, unless it lets the people choose a multiple of different "state" options and stops being the sole legal provider of said services. If the state lets them secede, explain what the state has to gain from having their power derived only when all the area residents desire it.
  2. I agree. Romney is much more marketable a candidate then McCain or Huck. Although Ron Paul's my #1 pick, Romney has much more media attention and has consistently done the best so far (of all the Republican candidates). Super-Tuesday will tell for sure, though.
  3. I voted Ron Paul. He's been consistently for liberty and, except for abortion, right on the money.
  4. Declaration of Independence and Constitution Victory over totalitarianism in WW2 and Cold War Industrial revolution Moon landing Jazz Age
  5. My personal view is that only confirmed terrorists morally qualify for torture, because they are a known threat to civilization and should be dealt with as such. Allowing it for suspected terrorists would be somewhat of a slippery slope for me. It's moral to question the suspects, but not torture. At least not until you can establish a clear motive and have an iron-clad case against the would-be terrorist.
  6. Is torture a moral way to get information out of a terrorist? Is it moral for use only on known terrorists, or is it moral also on suspected terrorists as well?
  7. redmartian89

    Death sports

    Is a duel, consented to by both parties before, permissible? Or is it an immoral use of force?
  8. To answer the OP, yes, an Objectivist political system would have to be amoral. It would be because the state's prime functions are to prohibit the use of force by either domestic or foreign criminals, not to enforce morality. Church and state are separate for this reason. The state, if it is free, cannot have any moral stances other then "thou shalt not initiateth force". Picking a moral stance is similar to picking a stance on religion, or even a stance on the best hamburger stand. In a world where there are competing philosophies and religions, the government is forced into a position of neutrality, as to not be tyrannical. The only justified action (by the State) is to prevent these debates from turning into wars. The state is legally bound to be neutral, and so, yes, it will be amoral on non-force issues.
  9. So far, I have not seen free market anarchism (FMA) put to the test. After all, you cannot damn an idea for not having been tried out. But if I'm wrong and the "great experiment" has taken place, please enlighten me to it. Please also try to remember that I am not an apologist for FMA. I'm still trying to see if FMA is even possible to be drawn to its logical conclusion. So far, Josh (the FMA friend of mine) gives me the simple argument that: if markets can work for all the non-State domains, why not go to 100% privatization? The contradiction I see in Objectivist politics is that competition is allowed and is justified in everything except police, courts, and the military. Why not extend the market to these functions as well? I cannot see the consistency in this argument (unless you argue that free elections are the necessary "competition" for the State functions), because as brought up in the Open Letter to Rand: Legal or illegal to provide these State services (in the Objectivist society)? Would legalizing this create legitimate mob activity, or improve protection for citizens?
  10. What amendments do you purpose to create an more "ironclad" defense against abuse of power? Would the state be limited to what Rand lined out: no complusory taxes, and only provide the services of police, courts, and defensive military (none of which use of initiative force)? Exactly how will the State be prohibited from writing in new powers?
  11. The topic of minarchism vs anarchism is widely looked at in this forum, but I cannot seem to defend what I see as a contradiction in Objectivism. The question, posed by an anarcho-capitalist friend of mine, is: when has the state ever been limited? And by that, since when haven't politicans, no matter what their ideology, tried to seek more power for themselves (hence becoming pull peddlers, or power brokers)? Ayn Rand defended the existence of the State as the instrument of providing individual rights, however she also has described political power as inherently coercive rather then liberating, as it is maintained by coercion rather then consent. She maintained that the State's only moral foundation is elimination of the initiation of force, however she rightly mentions that this legal monopoly has the authority to disarm its citizens, even though this violates amendment 2. This in mind, as well as keeping consistent, taxation by force was to be eliminated in a truly free society. Ayn Rand was consistent in her message that the State was to operate by consent of the governed, a real social contract. But, is this consistent? Is the State, a non-producing parasite fed by taxation and maintained by coercion, able to be controlled even by a Constitution. Many laws today are anathema to freedom: such as complusory taxation, Selective Service, or even driver's licenses and registration. How long will any State resist that all-encompassing urge to seize absolute power? Can truly limited government even exist?
  12. Can you not argue that the servitude is toward the teachers or the school administrators? These people being the recipients of the funds derived from taxes, they are the ones being served by the students and the funding attached to each one.
  13. The 13th amendment prohibits "involuntary servitude". Currently, all students up to the age of 16 (with parental consent), or 18 (with own consent), are legally required to be in school. Is this a violation of the 13th amendment?
  14. livescience article google video If the predictions hold true, in 25 years, a human being could live without biological aging. I find the prospect of living potentially forever as very awesome, because I love life and I do not want to end (at least, not right now). I also want to see those around me to do this as well. I actually would like to research the causes of aging and develop a "cure" for it. If I do not go into bioresarch, I would still love to invest in a biocompany that will. Do you want to (potentially) life forever? Would you invest in it? Or do you think that aging research is a psuedoscience?
  15. I'm trying to explain Objectivism to my friend Sam, but he seems a bit confused on the topic of objective morality. How would you explain to him the concept of how objective morality is defined?
×
×
  • Create New...