2046

No, it's not. That's something I didn't feel it necessary to mention on an Objectivist board, but the site presents the fallacy of false alternative declaring that since government is good because it does things for you, then a government that does more things for you is better and a governmen that doesn't do anything for you, or no government, is bad because there are no police, courts, or national defense. It even contradicts itself by saying a "free market is inherntly anarchic" when ranting about how private industry exists to kill its own customers, and then has an entire section devoted to how "capitalism can't exist without government." (Which is true, but not for the reasons it names.) A government is only good or evil on the degree to which it respects individual rights.

It won't cause anything bad to happen to us, it is itself just an effect of Obama's multiculturalism, where he thinks America's virtues are its vices instead. Obama's philosophies will hurt us, the bowing to monarchs is just an effect of that. I don't think the bowing in itself will cause bad things to happen, you'll notice no one is saying the sky is falling because of this bow. It's just disgraceful. Note that he has apologized for the US's virtues in the past, he is the first president that has declined to defend the atomic bombings that ended the second world war, and the embarrassing lack of protocol shown with the bow to Akihito is in part because the way he is doing is indeed in the manner of an apology (past saikeirei level, and coupled with a handshake = grovelling.) He probably wasn't thinking grovelling, but that's partially why it's so embarrassing because you would think he would be better informed on that.

Note that it was the Emperor and Empress, not PM.

Imo, those were pretty shit answers. I do not feel confident enough to answer this accurately, but I think it lies somewhere in the realm of the nature of attempting to gain values by the use of physical force as an abandonment of reason which is inadequate for you to survive. It doesn't create any value for you to take a dollar from someone else, it is destruction. You are facilitating destruction simply for the fact that you are unable to act on reason and someone else is, so you act to sacrifice him. You are also putting yourself in danger because the person may retaliate against you. Now, stealing a dollar from a millionaire likely doesn't cause a huge calamity for his life, nor does any "what if I only steal really, really, small almost worthless items from people who will never miss them" questions, but as freestyle said, that person has a right to spend that one dollar how he sees fit, not you.

I don't know if I'm putting this in the right place, but oh well. Here is a new site that I read about: http://www.governmentisgood.com/ At first, I thought this had to be parody, but no, it is 100% for real. Created by a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, Douglass Amy (author of such brilliant sounding books as "Real Choices, New Voices: How Proportional Representation Elections Could Revitalize American Democracy" and "The Politics of Environmental Meditation") to combat the rightwing assault on the source of all things good in civilization: big government. The crux of his argument: government does things for you, and you should be grateful for that. Without government those things would either A.) not get done, or B.) be done by the private sector. A contradiction? Why no, because you see, the private sector exists to lie, cheat, steal, and kill everyone. Basically, the world is divided into two political categories: those who run private businesses in order to cheat and kill you, and those selfless government workers who tirelessly labor to keep those other evil people from harming you. How do we know this? Well because he says so. It's "in the public interest" to restrict the behavior of individuals. The private sector wants to kill you. Businesses exist simply to kill all of their customers. Be thankful that our beneficent social engineers are there to keep them in line. The site has a page called "A Day in Your Life" where it shows in great detail: "Though we usually fail to notice it, government programs and policies improve our daily lives in innumerable ways." http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1 It's not just roads and garbage disposal, and it's not just keeping those evil businessmen at bay, it's much more in depth than that. The professor is for capitalism you see, and big government is the only way to have capitalism. You can see how government rescued us foolish private citizens from our own stupidity and the free market's inherent unsustainability: http://www.governmentisgood.com/feature.php?fid=26 "Without government coming to the rescue over and over again, life in a free market system would be unpalatable for most people." In addition to things like police and courts, private enterprise itself would not exist because because government fiat money is sound and wonderful, not like that dishonest private money that used to exist: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13&p=1 All those things you've been thinking are caused be government inteventions - they're caused by laissez-faire actually! http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13&p=5 He goes on, Environmental Pollution (gasp!), Exploitation! (seriously? Still using the Labor Theory of Value?) Unsafe and Ineffective Products!, Ignoring "Needs", "Hidden Information", Inequality, Neglect of "Public Goods", didn't I tell you the private sector wants to kill you? He even gives us this moment of genius: Which brings us to an excellent point, all liberties and freedoms are a product of government: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=19&p=1 There you have it. Without government, rights would not exist. In fact, more government means more freedom! Duh! The professor brilliantly explains: Government Coercion is Good! http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=18&p=4 (No, I'm not joking!) He goes on: In conclusion, less government is less freedom because you have to stop at red lights and stop signs! So that's where Ayn Rand went so wrong! Can you imagine what it would be like if no one stopped at red lights?! Think of the red lights, people! He concludes: "Actually, these rules are immensely liberating... [W]ithout these elaborate controls on our behavior, the traffic system would break down and we would not free to drive anywhere." If government coercion is good, then surely "Taxes are Good!" http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17 You see, without taxes, civilization wouldn't exist. Taxes are the reasons for civilization, no the evil private sector: You see, it's your "dues." Pay your dues, or else. And like most people who see government as something that does things for you instead of forcing you at gunpoint to do things for it, he basically employs the "love it or leave it" AKA the "give me your property or get the fuck out" argument quoting FDR, "after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." So there you go. All your property are belong to Uncle Sam and if you want the privilege of living in our society, you pay, otherwise get the fuck out. Taxes: the ransom you pay for the privilege of living. This went on for a bit longer than I thought, but I will just point out one more thing when he addresses totalitarianism. Seeing as how Professor Amy quite clearly loves the Total State, with articles like "The Case FOR Bureaucracy" and "Why We Need More Government" it is interesting to see how he approaches the non-existence of recognition of individual rights in dictatorships. Citing from Obama's Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein's book The Costs of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=19&p=2 Well gee, I didn't know that Stalin murdered millions and enslaved nearly an entire continent simply because he couldn't "tax and spend effectively." Too bad the Soviet Union did not have this website to teach it how to more efficiently tax and spend so that it could properly be a beacon of good government, then maybe it wouldn't have broken up. Well anyway, lest you think this is satire, they actually produced a satire video of their own about conservatives for Youtube: Enjoy.

I want to chaulk comments like that up to the fact that Obama worships at the altar of multiculturalism, but in the back of my mind I always think it's probably something far more evil.

Something I learned about this movie: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Roland-Emme...Fear-15505.html No Islamic Landmarks Were Harmed in the Making of '2012' http://www.cinematical.com/2009/11/02/no-i...making-of-2012/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...hito-japan.html Also note that in Japanese custom, a bow is a sign of respect, and a handshake is a sign of respect. It is one or the other, not both simultaneously. That would be a sign of humility. So what do you think? The White House just plain denied that Obama bowed to the Saudi King Abdullah last time, even though it was on video and has not bowed to any other monarchs since. Should the US President bow to any foreign leaders, ever? http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/p...t-of-world.html

Craig24, Person A is now employing the "love it or leave it" argument, or more succinctly, the "do what I tell you to do, give me your money, give me your liberty, and ultimately, give me your life, or get the fuck out" argument, which is what it really is. Of course, this is Person A's country, he owns it. His beliefs are the only one's acceptible for living in America, and if you don't agree with his delusions about "society's services" (the notion of which you should pounce on immediately) then you either have to do what he forces you to do, or get the fuck out, his arguments are infallible. If you disagree to paying extortion money to a gang of thugs to fund wars, welfare, and non-objective laws that take away your own freedom to act, then you have to get the fuck out, or get shot or thrown into a government cage. He says it is necessary to steal from you in order to protect you from violations of your freedom (like... theft for example?) So ask him, if this is the "land of the free" why does Person B have to leave? If he doesn't like what you are doing with your freedom, why doesn't he get the fuck out, because honestly it sounds like his problem. And after that point you can begin to explain to him that if this is a truly free country, then nobody should be forced to leave for the same reason nobody should be forced to give their property to someone else at gunpoint, nobody should be forced to do anything because that's what freedom is. If he wants "services" go ahead and ask for money to fund them. If he wants social security, wars, government education, socialized medicine, the war on drugs, anti-immigrant laws, fiat money, government monopolies, and people paid specifically to tell him how to live his life, then feel free to ask for money from whoever agrees with him and feel free to exclude the rest of us that want to be left alone. Not a very rigorous response, but I hope it helps.

One has an obligation to pay for living on a certain piece of land only in the feduciary sense, if they are buying it, renting it, or otherwise as a legitimate voluntary market function. One does not have an obligation to pay for something simply because a group of people get together and decide to threaten punitive action on anyone who doesn't comply. When referring to theft in the ethical sense, one refers to someone forcefully seizing someone else's justfully-acquired property against their will. That applies to all taxes. If one person stealing from another is wrong, then one person stealing from another is wrong, even if one person calls himself an "IRS Agent." Voluntary financing. How a specific system would work, that is a question for reasonable people to debate on, but the principle under capitalism is that only a voluntary system would be moral.

It depends. Why shouldn't ARI appear to whoever will invite them and give them a fair hearing, provided they have a target audience. I don't know why you keep focusing on conspiracy theorists and Alex Jones though. I've never even heard of him until I read about him on here and researched him. What exactly is the danger he poses? And if he is so anti-reason, all the better to go on and speak the truth, if he has a big enough audience to merit the time spent on it. Was it "inappropriate" for Peikoff to appear on The O'Reilly Factor? What is the reason for these rules on where you should or shouldn't be allowed to appear?

Yes I worded that wrong as I was in a hurry. I meant to suggest that the particular brand of "natural law" Napolitano subscribes to is the kind of libertarian theory postulated by Rothbard and his paleolibertarian/conservative groupies. I agree that one of the positive aspects of Beck's show is the segments where he delves into some of the Obama cadre.

In an attempt to unconfuse you, rights do not come from "natural law," the Judge is wrong when he talks about natural rights. Natural law is a muddled libertarian concept that comes from Rothbard, Hoppe, and others who plagiarize from Rand and inject their own (bad) ideas into a libertarian ethics system. That is false. The Judge is religious and mentions religion less than Beck certainly, but it's not a contest of who mentions things less than the other. They're both wrong when it comes to rights.

Evil. You don't combat racism with more racism, only from the "opposite" tribe. Plus, as you say, they are Communists. If you want to promote individual rights, you support capitalism, not socialism, which means their goal is not justice or equality, but evil.

More of this nonsense? I'm not seeing how appearing on a show equals to a "sanction of the radical right!" Did Binswanger saything about conspiracy theories? Did he say anything about racism? Did he say anything about anarchism? No, he talked about press freedom. So what's the problem then? Supported with his appearance? What does that even mean? Is he only supposed to "appear" next to other Objectivists? Am I sanctioning the "radical right" because my parents are conservatives and I go to their house? I don't get it.

This sentence completely contradicts itself. Islam can't cause anyone to do anything.

It's called free will. Being a Muslim doesn't determine your actions for you in some manner beyond your control. There are plenty of people who choose to be Muslims and simultaneously choose not go around shooting the kafir. (ie., choose to follow most aspects of Islam, but for some reason choose not to follow Mohammed's orders regarding holy war.)

The taxes that I pay are to be considered a product of extortion. I don't pay my taxes because of some moral mandate to follow the law just because it's a law. No. We expect immoral laws to be broken whenever possible and repealed whenever possible. No. You have criminals that shouldn't be criminals in a free society. Are you a machine that refuses to make decisions on what is good or evil in your life? Do you just leave it up to a vote, or up to some judge sitting somewhere to tell you what is wrong and right and decide for you what you are going to do? Why do you refuse to make decisions on which laws are immoral and which ones ought to be broken or repealed? If a law told you to jump off of a bridge or immoate yourself would you do it simply because there was a law telling you to? Who are you to question your leaders? Who are you to be an arbiter of your own life?

Unbelievable. 2/3 of these posts ought to just be deleted.

That is an unreasoned assumption. There is nothing wrong with asking about the nature of morality in lifeboat scenarios and there was nothing accusational in the question, implicitly or otherwise. The person just most likely wants to know about the subject. The reason he thanked me is probably because I wasn't being a dick. Edit: Summer: if you listen to the question and answer segment from Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum speech "Of Living Death" she talks about lifeboat scenarios and they discuss a court case from England in which the jury is unable to decide (which Rand agreed with) but the judge comes to the conclusion that there is a "higher moral obligation" to sacrifice your life (needless to say, Rand disagreed.) She states that if it were her life, she would be unable to cause someone else to die, but if it were her husband's life, for example, she would choose him over ten other hostages, if necessary. http://atlasshrugged.com/ayn-rand-works/ar...ving-death.html

Man, that was a total non sequitur answer. Why would you do that? Instead of arguing against any of those points, you just call into question the user that posted it, or the other videos that the user posted, or the fact that it was on youtube and suggest there's something questionable about the kind of people that would be concerned about that, so it must be wrong. Now I don't care one bit about conspiracy theories, I don't listen to Alex Jones, and I don't even know what he talks about or what topics he brings up, I've never listened to him or any 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why would you start going off on me about those things? I don't know anything about that. I'm just talking about the fact that the National Guard and police did go door to door in New Orleans, enter houses without warrant or cause, kick down doors with weapons drawn, and do everything shy of arresting people to try to make people leave (and did use force to make people leave in some instances) and seized everyone's weapons they could get their hands on. So the content of PatrioticResistance's post was accurate. Don't come telling about Fox News and Alex Jones and birthers.

Well, you aren't the one killing someone. You are under threat of execution from an attacker. If the attacker forces you to kill someone, then he is killing the person and he is the one acting immorally, not you, even if you choose option number 1. It is no different than if he put a gun in your hand and grabbed your hand and made you shoot someone. You couldn't possibly be responsible for that. Imo ex_banana-eater is being unnecessarily rude.

Ad hominem. I am not concerned with what other videos the person hosted, or what the host's personal opinions are, just the facts of the discussion. You asked for evidence, there it is.

You are right about the morality of this scenario. Nobody can say what the proper course of action is because of the imposition of force someone will die no matter what and all responsibility, no mater what choice, falls on the aggressor imposing the scenario. Either of those choices would be subjectively correct, but choice three is rather interesting. If refusing to act will assuredly result in both you and the other hostage's death, then I think perhaps option two would be preferable to that. As far as what I would do, for me it depends on if I know anything about the stranger. But seeing as how you said "stranger," you probably mean that I know absolutely nothing about who it is that the aggressor will kill. So, because of that I will choose number 2: tell the aggressor to kill me and allow the stranger to go.

I don't want to go off topic, but I worked as a private security guard in New Orleans during the aftermath of the Katrina disaster, and I can confirm that police and National Guard did actually go door to door enter houses with weapons drawn and seize private weapons. As far as evidence, as he said, search Youtube and there is some videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2gNwzav3hQ A USMC spokesman even says Marines will disobey if ordered to violate the Constitution: