2046

Yes but if you've been following, we've made a distinction between a totalitarian dictatorship and what he considered a proper redistribution scheme under a democracy. We're not talking about emergency ethics or a lifeboat scenario or life in Soviet Russia. He is talking about his need for medecine and his feeling of entitlement to it at someone else's expense. In this case, the fact that morality ends at the barrel of a gun is totally against his point.

Why create an unecessary breach between morality and survival? Morality doesn't exist so that you can serve it and be obidient to it, it exists so that men can survive on planet earth. Survival is not a "pre-moral" question, else how would you know how to survive in the first place? Man has no automatic knowledge and no automatic code of survival. Do you think on a deserted island you would not need morality? It is the attempt to survive and live that makes morality necessary. Since it is impossible to seperate the two, you don't succeed in pre-empting morality, you succeed in creating an evil one, and try to blank out or evade the evil it leads to. Your attempt to seperate the two has resulted in your desire to make property out of others, it means you demand the right to turn other people into productive cattle for you. Your need to survive does not mean you have a right to force another man at gunpoint to fulfill your needs at his expense. Your right to life means mean this and only this: that it would be immoral for another man to stop you from living by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. It does not mean you have a right to take from another by the use of aggresive violence, some unearned resource or value which you feel you deserve simply because you have a pulse. There is no conflict between my rights and your survival, or my rights and your rights. The rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned. If they did, then the entire concept of rights would be impossible because the only option open to us would be to rob or be robbed, destroy or be destroyed, which is exactly what you suggest: -if I have bread, you steal it from me; if you have bread, I steal it from you; and life is not possible as whichever one of us tries to survive will be punished for the act of succeeding at it. There are no rights in your world, only "need" and he who needs is master, he whole achieves is slave. The question of your survival does not demand that you steal from me, that is a fallacy of false alternative, and it is certainly not in your interest to live in such a society, as that would require living in contradiction to your own nature as a man, where you attempt to survive not by your mind, but by your ability to induce guilt into and overpower by force those who are virtuous enough to produce values, for no other reason than they were able to produce them. Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. If you succeed at gaining values, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. It's definitely not in my interest to live in such a society either, since I as a competent, productive individual have absolutely nothing to gain from you as an incompetent parasite. I am not your brother nor your keeper. So then the question remaining for you is: what are you going to do when your hosts decide to stop feeding you?

Okay, so making laws which violate rights is bad now? Why is that? I thought if you needed something, that was more important that such "hypothetical" things like rights? According to you, you feel like a majority of the people can decide to take any amount of my income which they decide upon. But now you say a majority cannot vote to violate the rights of a minority? Which is it? Yeah except that's not the question that was asked of you. The question was: Do your needs negate my rights? Thus far you haven't indicated your willingness to answer it directly, it can only be positive or negatory. You cannot say such a thing as "yes you have inalienable rights, but only on every second Tuesday, or when I decide I need something from you." So which is it? You've stated two inconsistent answers in this thread: maybe if you think you can vote to take away my rights you can, but then maybe you can't? I don't know which one your going with at any given moment, and what criteria do you use to decide when you like stealing from people and when you like the rule of law based on individual rights? Which incorrect assumption is the concept of individual rights based on?

Disagree. The government does not exist to protect its citizens from making bad choices, it exists to protect their individual rights, that is, to protect them from force and fraud. Since free trade is not an initiation of force, the government has no right to regulate it. The notion that the average consumer does not have the tools to make decisions, therefore the FDA is needed and private certification is not is also based on false assumptions. This is based on the view that the consumer is an idiot who cannot make decisions for himself, so some government official, selected by the same idiots are needed to approve which goods he should be allowed to purchase or not. This assumes the FDA is in fact not staffed with people from the same social pool that says the federal government already has the necessary resources to regulate food and drugs but rather with wizards that posses special magical powers that the rest of us don’t and can somehow determine the “goodness” of foods and drugs for human consumption. It assumes the FDA doesn’t even need humans to determine the human effects of foods and drugs, it just knows and has the power to force its divinely revealed knowlege on the rest of us idiots for our own good. Of course this is false, the FDA has only the resources that they take from the private sector in the way of taxes, debt, inflation, manpower and scientific research. Furthermore, it conducts clinical trials on humans who volunteer to participate. Basically, that means that the FDA gets volunteers to try new foods and drugs and then they sit back and watch what happens. If the volunteers have bad side effects, like their heads turn purple, their hair falls out, they are maimed, sickened or die, then the FDA disseminates this information to the public and the food or drug is not approved for sale in the U.S. and so people have no choice: they cannot buy it even if they wanted to. So, in summation, the government's job is to protect rights, not to regulate people's affairs. This means it requires market participants to sell their products openly, honestly, without deception. So if a company sells a product as in your example, and it causes harm to the purchaser under false pretenses, the government can bring any criminal fraud charges which may apply against the shyster, and/or the purchaser and his legal representation can sue for damages in a civil case.

Does it seem hyperbolic? Does it seem a little bit absurd? Well, it definitely is, but it's your position in reductio ad absurdum form. Me and my friends have been voted in, we call ourselves a democracy. We are the majority. We were voted in by "the majority." We represent "the majority." Now do your social duty and do what I say, give me your money, or I will come to your house and take it. Do you disagree, yes or no? Do my "needs" negate your rights, yes or no? Any differences would be superficial and/or would be non sequitur to this discussion. Do you recognize individual rights or not? What difference does it make to me whether I am robbed or enslaved by a random thug or highwayman or an armed tax-feeder in government costume? If I have 10 apples and am deprived of 3, I am still worse off, and the principle of my rights is no question. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber, and neither does the tyrannical junta gangster. His position is simply a matter of "might makes right" and he does as he desires. Furthermore, having taken your money, the individual criminal or thug leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "leader" or "your representative in government," on account of the "services" he "provides" you. He does not keep "serving" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or sufficiently resist his demands. He does not attempt to make me his "subject" or his "constituent" or his slave. The difference is, I would much rather have less of my rights violated than more, and have them violated less often, and preferably not at all. So how much worse is it if the highwayman who victimizes me claims sole right to rule over me and take what he wants does so more frequently, claiming to do it under the color of law and morality, claiming it is right because everyone agrees it is the right thing to do, and does it on the principle that your needs negate my rights?

Any. So you don't believe in rights. (Probably because you appear to not know what they are.) So, if me and a bunch of my friends got together and decided that we need to have X, Y, or Z, in order to stay alive, (strictly in the interest of "exercising our reason" of course) and we decided to call ourselves "the government" and pass a law forcing you to pay for X, Y, and Z, you would agree that you have a social responsibility to pay for our needs and you wouldn't have a problem if we sent men with guns to your house to take your money and property and force you to labour for our needs? Or do you disagree?

Do you think your "needs" negate my rights?

"I think it's important that everybody gets some form of health care, so to offer a basic plan for everybody, I think, is important." Quote of the day? Who said it? If you guessed Scott Brown, you'd be correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygy0HbbKVM8

If you have a functioning brain and/or a mostly functioning body, you can do something productive. Steven Hawking seems to be doing well for himself. We're just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, it's not right to rob people, and that your needs establish no moral claim on the life of any other man. Besides, it's not like voluntary charity doesn't exist. If you recognize that a man can keep 100% of his production by right, and not by permission, then people will generally have more money and you'll likely have people giving move money to causes they approve of.

I always thought that conservates were the real civil liberty-haters, (and they are) but man liberals really hate civil liberties too. This underscores the uselessness of the traditional left-right paradigm. From the Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/21/82...atives-Fascists. How about no government subsidies for industries? How about no bailouts? How about no corporate welfare? How about no pressure group warfare? How about seperation of state and economy? How about individual rights? Oh but left-liberals love the power of the state and love expanding it in any way they can, so of course they will scream about lobbyists if it helps them reduce free speech and expand the negation of liberty. I used to think liberals were broadly supportive of civil liberties and were just followers of the mind-body dichotomy, genuinely opposed to fascism and corporatism, but now I see "fascist" is nothing more than "anyone who is not left-liberal" and their ideology is more totalitarian in nature than I once thought.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister came out today with his belief that 9/11 was staged. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad cited that there was evidence, but only offered one: "If they can make Avatar, they can make anything!" In his view, the goal of staging 9/11 was to launch a war of aggression on Islam. http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNew...121-193339.html

The premise A that we are talking about, which you were referring to. Rand stated that position clearly in "Government Financing in a Free Society:" In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Here there is a distinction regarding the presence of coercion. I'm concluding when you say "Taxation for our protection - as the only practical means of paying for protection - cannot also be considered force," you are making a false statement. If you mean "voluntary financing" when you suggest not "all taxation" is immoral, then I get what you are saying, but I don't think taxation and voluntary financing can be the same concept under the same term. A tax is not a voluntary donation, but an enforced free, exacted pursuant to legislative authority against a taxpayer. Yeah that is what I concluded. If you meant something else, sorry, but I agree with the others that A is the Objectivist position and not an anarchist position.

It's sad how effective their propaganda has been... Do you actually think that happens at hospitals in America?

When considering the various advocates of egoism or self-interest throughout the history of philosophy, it is important to examine the epistemology involved. It might also be pertinent to note the Objectivist view of all the other attempts at validating egoism without what they consider to be the right epistemology. I am reminded of a paragraph talking about these defenses of self-interest from OPAR: "Unfortunately, for a reason I shall soon indicate, egoism has been advocated through the centuries mainly by subjectivists. The result is several corrupt versions of egoism, which most people now regard as the self-evident meaning of the concept. So I must keep stressing the fact that Objectivism upholds objectivity and therefore rejects all these versions. We reject the idea that egoism permits the evasion of principles. We reject the equation of egoism with irresponsibility, context-dropping, and whim-worship. We reject the notion that selfishness means "doing whatever you feel like doing." The fact that you feel like taking some action does not necessarily make it an action compatible with your "interests," in the legitimate sense of that term. There are countless examples of people who desire and pursue self-destructive courses of behavior. One such course consists of a person sacrificing others to himself." Peikoff, OPAR, p.234

That's not what that says. It says taxation is immoral, because it is an initiation of force, not that any central government is force. A is the Objectivist position. B is the non-Objectivist "libertarian" or "conservative" position. Zip pretty much said it. There are ways to fund legitimate services without taxation or the initiation of force. So saying violating rights is necessary to protect rights is an ethical contradiction and a false alternative.

The Hartfort Courant gives Peter some bad press over the fact that he is successful, going over the details of his personal wealth and what they call his "lack of faith" in the US economy. http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sc...0,1763929.story Of course they don't go into as much detail about his opponent's even greater fortune, but actually commend her for wanting to spend more of it on the race.

Now Barney Frank is calling for a constitutional change to eliminate the rule requiring a 60 vote supermajority and to ban the filibuster. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/b...r_n_428408.html We have a serious constitutional problem. There has been a de facto amendment of the U.S. Constitution in an anti-small-D democratic direction."

Avatar has officially been banned in China, due to the government fearing people will figure out these things called "property rights" start wanting them respected (can't imagine why)(and also that it will detract from the latest Chow-Yun Fat flick. Can't have that now can we?): http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/article/11...d-in-china.html

He and his guest apparently thought it was comparable to "state's rights" being a racist code in the '60s. But of course it still is, and actually anyone who dissents from Obama has a "racist element." Duh. Uh oh.... What does THIS mean then???

Olbermann stated that Scott Brown was a racist teabagging redneck homopohobic misogynist ex-nude model that likes to beat women. (Or something equivalent to that.) This was based on what he considered "racist elements" and "racist codes" in his campaign. These "racist codes?" The fact that he drives a pick-up truck. Pick-up truck = liberal code for racist. Wow, I am reminded of the Ayn Rand's description of the environmental movement, "...one may justifiably conclude that, as an intellectual power, the collectivist movement is through."

We are already hearing the propaganda commentaries: Oh if only Haiti's government could be strong enough to efficiently tax and spend, then they could have imposed Kalifornia-style building regulations on their citizens and have enough welfare programs in place to help the poor! See what small-government conservatism results in?!

He didn't just blame "global warming" for causing the earthquake, but the cause of the earthquake was specifically due to the lack of agreement at Copenhagen. Wow.

Apparently, the US State Department has launched a campaign to spread propaganda promote democracy on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. http://www.facebook.com/democracychallenge?v=app_10531514314 http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/us-st...ontest/19307630 http://www.videochallenge.america.gov/ http://www.breitbart.tv/state-department-l...witter-contest/ If you and your friends have accounts on these things, be sure to log in and let them know what you think.

That's not what "exploitation" is either. The "exploitation" according to Marxist class theory is not simply "working for low wages." It's working for any wage. Wages themselves are exploitation, they say. If I have an apple orchard and employ some guy to pick apples, if I give him anything less than 100% of the apples he picks, then I am exploiting him. If I net a 50 apple per day profit from him and only pay him 10 apples a day, I am exploiting him according to Marx. You should tell your friend that exploition is initiating force (such as when the government exploits people via minimum wage laws) and not employing people in any voluntary scenario.

But the fetus was taken out of her, and the baby lived. (I'm assuming we call it a baby when it's out of the mother.) So, in theory, at what point does a killing blow on the fetus/baby become a second homocide?