SapereAude

Fair point given the info contained here. Although all this falls plague to the same ills as qall other hypotheticals. Superheros generally avoid killing because of an agreed-upon commonplace morality that most of the writers subscribe to- that is the "might does not equal right" ethic. Generally speaking a Superhero is so strong that it would (by that mentality) be immoral for them to kill someone so much weaker than them. Like a grown man beating up a child. I am not endorsing this view- just stating that this is the logic behind it. To address the Ragnar issue brought up by J13- the world of comic books generally presumes that the US government is a legitimate government with a legitimate (if sometimes flawed) legal system. So in theory, unless absolutely necessary to preserve the lives of innocents, criminals should be turned over to these authorities for "justice". In the world of Atlas Shrugged the government has given up any objective claim to legitimacy- as has the court system, hence the morality of justice outside of the government that is now unjust.

hmmm... I'm not a fan of deliberate lies of omission with intent to gain value via withholding vital information but what about this- what about omitting information just because you don't believe it's any of the asker's damn business and it is not worth having a confrontation over?

You should note Kate, that the use of "dictatorship" to refer to a government that holds power without the consent of the governed is very recent and as such those value judgements can be flawed as you already noted that you were mistaken about Friedman. You need to be careful in your definitions. An authoritarian democracy can be fascist while a liberal dictatorship can, in theory at least, be relatively free. If generally interested in learning more on this topic there is a good book by Jacob Talmon about the concept of "totalitarian democracy" which he believes could apply to such as the Nazis.

Your reasoning doesn't quite hold. Most weapons developed as multipurpose tools- that is- hunting for food, defense against predators and defense/offense against other people. Which only makes sense because it follows that what will kill an animal for food will kill a predator will kill a person. Clubs, slings, spears, bows, crossbows, guns all developed as multipurpose tools. Now- you could say the use of *gun powder* was originally invented as a tool of conflict- but it was originally used in fireworks which were celebratory (7th century China) so that doesn't hold either. The first gun-like weapon in war definitely predates guns use in hunting- the first gun like weapon was the "firestick" in 9th century China, but it doesn't resemble a gun really so much- it is more a tube that is a combination flamethrower that also can blast some shrapnel out. Of course, any of this only matters if you believe that the original intent behind the invention of a tool is a legitimate reason for a government to infringe on an individual's right to possess it. By the time we get to anything resembling what we would know as "guns" (hand cannons) used in war even then they were used to kill only rarely and incidentally as they were difficult to use and were very innaccurate. They were used more than anything to cause confusion and scare the horses. (1200s) Just noisemakers really. By the time guns had been developed in a way that would be used to aim and fire with intent to kill- matchlocks (1400s) they developed as hunting weapons and weapons of battle concurrently.

I can verify the Oregon one. The media seems to be deliberately underreporting cases where armed citizens end these things, but if you look you can find them. In the case of the recent Oregon mall shooting a man with a CCL was shopping with a female friend and her baby. When the gunman started shooting the man got his friend and her baby under cover then made his way to a pillar with his gun out trying to get a shot at the shooter. This is the point where the shooter's gun jammed. The CCL man attempted to get a shot at the gunman but another man behind the gunman was of concern (didn't want to miss and accidentally shoot a bystander). When the gunman saw he was being stalked by an armed man he killed himself.

This is the best and most comprehensive explanation of why gun banning is not only counterproductive, but also will not work, that I've seen since this started. I warn you, it is very long, but if you are taking the issue seriously I highly recommend it. Dante, there is also a thorough answer to the question you asked about things like magazine/clip capacity as well as other break downs of information such as "what is an 'assault gun'?". http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

I think you may not understand the dynamics of crisis situations like these. Sometimes, in the defense of others the best you may be able to do is to buy time. Most mass shooters either surrender or commit suicide when confronted by a similarly armed person. This woman cared about her job and cared about the children. Knowing she could do nothing to stop the killer she bought some time for authorities to arrive. As the children she protected survived, she was successful. Heroic is a fair description for her rational choice to protect that which she valued.

SSRI medications have warnings about the need to watch for erratic behavior changes for good reason. They have been shown to cause “anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania" (this taken straight from a label) in clinical studies. The problem with any meaningful diologue on the correlation/causation part of this is that these drugs are relatively new and they work on different people in different ways. My wife supervises the administration of these drugs in her line of work (she is a mental health utilization review specialist) and it is for her the most frustrating aspect that treatment with these drugs is quite literally case by case trial and error. This is what happens- 1) diagnosis 2) prescription 3) drug starts being taken 4) wait and see what changes for good or bad 5) wait and see what changes for good or bad, adjust dosage if bad 6) wait and see what changes for good or bad, adjust dosage if bad 7) wait and see what changes for good or bad, adjust dosage *or* switch to different SSRI if very bad and so on and so on. Another issue being that mentally ill people are unreliable and don't always take their meds. Suddenly ending your SSRI routine can have terrible effects. So, while I wouldn't *blame* the drugs (some people are helped by them and some are harmed by them) I would say that the culture that pretends the drugs are a magic fix-all is problematic.

I was discussing amongst friends the other day the curious fact that the British are so obsessed with how Americans "should" govern themselves. The British always seem to have such strong opinions about how we should adopt their style of government healthcare, their style of welfare state, their completely unsuccessful police state weapons bans. I can only conclude that deep down the Bristish are ashamed of their cradle to grave dependency on government and so feel the desire to see us brought down to their level.

He's an Asian American professor best known for his arguments against the Japanese internments during WW2 and the Korematsu v US decision of the Supreme Court.

Open carry and the civil rights movement: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/what-are-you-going-to-do-with-your-gun/

I don't think the author of the article is claiming "she went away" but she certainly has made a comeback as far as relevence in the mainstream media. In the '90s and earlier '00s the majority of people I'd mention Rand to had not heard of her, or if they had heard of her they maybe had heard of The Fountainhead but not read it. Now you will rarely encounter someone who hasn't heard of Rand. Unfortunately most of what most people have heard is misinformation still.

I liked that as well.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/09/22/terence-corcoran-ayn-rand-still-the-most-dangerous-woman-in-america/

What you are missing here is that I could never be "permanently without a job through no fault of my own". There are many things I could do that would not involve using coercion against others, including ceasing to exist. But the easier would be to be very, very closeted. Unhappy, yes. Inconvenient, yes and more still. But you need to learn what principles are Kate, and why they are so important. Let us turn the tables. In the USA, it is being bandied about by politcians that perhaps employers screening for and not hiring convicted felons is discriimination and that convicted felons need to become a protected class that you cannot show bias against in hiring. This is not a hypothetical scenario, Kate, this is really happening. Now, what if I were to be forced to hire a person who was accused of gross crimes against women, or a bigoted killer of gays, or violent rapist? I would burn my business to the ground before I would comply. As I would not prefer someone to do to me I would not do unto anyone.

Neither you, nor any government you might choose to elect have any business forcing people into therapy. Let's take an example from my own life. I'm gay. At a position I held about 12 years ago the owner found out I was gay (and by found out I mean that I am not "obvious" nor do I scream it from the mountaintops) and started behaving in a terrible manner towards me. No need to go into details. It lasted about two weeks and I assume he was trying to get me to quit and evenetually would have fired me had I not walked out in the middle of one of his sessions of bullshit. I chose not to file suit against him as I could have for harassment and hostile workplace because such should not be the domain of government. It is irrelevent that not being wealthy I needed to always be employed. It is *my* responsibility to make myself a desirable enough employee that I am always hirable. Obviously he was a jackass and should be shunned by decent people. But end of the day, he was the victim, not I. I was hired to save his failing business, and up until the day I walked out it was working. He was unable to get anyone else of my skill level willing to work for what he was offering. He was closed within 6 months, bankrupt and facing several lawsuits and an IRS investigation. No government interference desired or required. He was brought down by his own bigotry, whereas the project I began after walking out gained me even more notoriety in my field than I enjoyed before. So you see, I have been the victim of so called "bigotry" and still I must call bullshit. He had every right as a "Christian" man to not want anything to do with me. Frankly, it would have been better for all involved if he hadn't been too cowardly to just fire me. Note to add- I purpose in telling this personal story Kate86 is that you seem to be taking an emotional approach to this issue, not an objective rational one. You are focusing on what you perceive to be the plight of victims. This story is merely to demonstrate in a very concrete way that assumptions of the results of victimhood aren't always accurate. What matters is the rights of individuals to associate voluntarily with whomever they please.

While in general I'd say you're correct, the problem is that the government is doing everything they can (slowly, in the manner of bringing a frog to a boil) to elimiinate the ability to get around their power monopolies. I do not use utility co generated heat in my home- my home is heated only by my wood fireplace. However, in some cities (not mine yet, but there's been grumbling) fireplaces are being banned under the guise of "pollution" and "global warming". Same with grills if you don't want to use electric/gas to cook. In many places it is now illegal to collect rainwater on your own property. Several cities have started enacting ordinances to discourage or limit production of one's one vegetables on their own property. The choices are vanishing as we speak.

Because you are incorrect and there ARE consequences. Consequence 1) frivolous lawsuits- they happen all the time in America. Someone of a "minority" group decides they got discriminated against whether or not that is why they didn't get hired. Then they sue. Then, contrary to the way our legal system is *supposed* to work the employer must prove their innnocence- and it is impossible to prove intentions. Consequence 2) the employer loses their right to free voluntary association. Someone should not lose their right to consort or not to consort with who they wish. There are more but lets start here.

Here ya go JASKN >>spoilers in link ahead<<< http://reciperifle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/bond-villain.html

If you are interested in hilarity you could read some articles in feminist blogs and journals about how terribly anti woman this movie is and how no one should watch it.

Ah yes.... "Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: "Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop." Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them "for their own good" — not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it."

Exactly. http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2004/09/14/price_gouging_in_florida/page/full/

Interesting, given the nature of the protagonists Whedon created in Firefly, that he's such a dyed in the wool statist.

New Jersey has a "price gouging" law. It is illegal for retailers, including gas stations to raise their prices by more than 10% during emergencies. The penalties are pretty severe.

Your point seems to be my point. Each of us should absolutely expect that- but I don't know that that would make the attacks "just" or "moral". I was arguing against Nicky's assertion that the citizen noncombatants of Japan were guilty of what their government was doing. They had no say, no representation, no dmeocracy. So to say that to kill them because it was practical to do so I can accept. What I will not accept is that they were responsible for what their government did and thus deserving of their deaths as some seem to be saying here.