Mikee

http://dailycollegian.com/2011/12/05/need-photooccupiers-check-objectivist-society/

can you explain this a bit further

the argument by supporters of this idea is that income inequality can lead to social instability. Particularly income disparity is socially destabilizing and often this phenomenon is attributed to the disappearance of the middle class in the United States. Other examples that supporters point to is the current economies of most central and south american countries with large income inequality gap.

another video:

this is a good book on the subject as well: http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Corporation-HOOVER-PRESS-PUBLICATION/dp/081797072X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319849579&sr=8-1

here is a clearer view:

My concern: practically speaking, the police function, by its nature, requires rapid response. There is no time to verify whether or not a citizen has paid for this or that program of protection. Also, it is to my self-interest to have all citizens covered by the police, since uncovered citizens would become a source of social violence, either as victims of criminals, thus increasing criminality, or criminals themselves, out of a need for self-defense.

some libertarian writers do indeed think what was done is immoral. For instance: http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html

[playing DA] Your logic falls apart when you say “agreement with a collectivist counter-party”. Any individual in the U.S. is one person, the rest of us is the collective “us”. 99% of the activity that person engages in affects the collective us (how many in the collective us specifically depends on each act). That package deal is amorphous and changes with time, as it should, as society changes over time. Your point about “contradicting the motive to enter into” is specious. All contracts have punitive clauses–even the tacit ones–that contradict the motive for entering into. The motive for ALL contracts entered into freely is mutual benefit. If someone feels that they receive NO benefits whatsoever from the tacit contract they live under in the U.S., that person has the choice of 1) changing it, 2) leaving or 3) accepting it.

this sounds rather rawlsian: ‎

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/

this might shed more light: http://winstonsmith33.blogspot.com/2011/08/riots-in-london-are-culmination-of.html

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686 "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

So the chief problem seems to be coming from the government

I will attempt to play devil's advocate so here goes: There are good public school teachers. My son has had some fine public school teachers, although he is now in a private school. There ARE totally incompetent parents out there, and it'd be a shame if their kids were just left to fend for themselves. Thus public education is necessary

how are anarchists atomists?

I'm not sue if government would be better off than private investments on this issue Grames. Recently in Australia the evnironmental minister refused to build a damn because of irrational concerns for some extinct species

would the constitution be regarded as a form of "social contract"

"The case for abortion rests on when the fetus obtains rights. Individual rights. I've personally heard arguments from Andrew Bernstein on this matter which in summary state that in order to properly place individual rights onto a fetus, that fetus would have to have reached a point in their development where they’ve achieved individuation as an organism sufficient enough that it could survive independently of its host organism i.e., the mother. The weakness in Bernstein’s argument is that you could have fetus’s that’ve developed conscious faculties being aborted at 8 and 9 months. Babies who could well be able to survive outside of the mother as human beings. In other words his argument is a good one but is flawed in that he bases rights on the event of physical individuation and negates the fact that a conscious being is being terminated."

would you agree that conditional love is not love at all?

A quote indeed from a guy I was debating about objectivism and rand's fiction

so apparently AS is a novel detached from reality according to some: You don't have to read trashy novels to recognize trashy novels. Her writings are long-winded and utterly detached from reality, at the briefest glance. Sorry that you don't have any taste.

here is Sam Harris on the subject once again: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-id-rather-not-speak-about-torture1/

can you give example(s) of that?