Godless Capitalist

One more point: it's important to separate the scientific evidence for the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang, which is overwhelming, from some interpretations of this evidence, which may be irrational.

There is a big difference between "a few millimeters" and "a literal zero volume." The latter is impossible, the former isn't. The idea that the universe must have expanded into some already existing space (like a grenade exploding in a room) is another very common misconception. Space is within the universe, not the other way around. Note that rejecting the Big Bang theory, by the way, doesn't solve this "problem." If the universe was static, you could still have the misconception that the universe had some sort of boundary and that there was something ouside it.

If you want to define "feminine" and "masculine" purely in terms of physical characteristics, I can go along with that. I can also agree that "strength" is an important aspect of masculinity. But I don't see any way to get from there to the idea that "hero worship" is an important aspect of femininity or that heterosexuality is more "normal" or rational than heterosexuality. (On "hero worship," which is more heroic, building a successful business or being able to bench-press 400 lbs?) On the determinism aspect, there is considerable scientific evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by exposure to hormones in the uterus. If true, that would be a scientific fact about the nature of man and trump any philosophical position. There are many aspects of personality that are known to be affected by levels of various chemicals in the brain; the mind is not something completely independent from and unaffected by the body.

If we accept David's reasoning (which appears valid to me) the problem goes well beyond witnesses. The police would not even be able to arrest suspected criminals, conduct searches, etc. without first proving the suspect's guilt. Our current system, in which police only need probable cause to get arrest and search warrants, would violate individual rights. Our current system requires a limited violation of the rights of a few suspects in order to achieve the greater goal of justice for everyone. But I don't see how that sort of "rights tradeoff" would be allowable under an Objectivist political system.

lol I prefer somewhat muscular women (eg Jessica Biel http://www.fresh99.com/images/jessicabiel/...-picture-21.jpg ) to the more typical preference for softer women (eg Jessica Alba). I don't find extreme muscles esthetically pleasing on either women or men. But that's all my personal preference, and not some sort of universal standard that should apply to everyone. In some cultures thinness is considered ugly and only fat women are considered beautiful. In any case, men are generally more muscular than women for genetic reasons. Its a physiological difference that has no relevance to concepts like "hero worship."

Here is one explanation, admittedly more carefully worded than most: "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky." (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html) Properly described, the Big Bang theory does not say that the Universe began with the Big Bang (just its current form) or that it was ever infinitely small.

I did the update and restarted. Still having the problem, though, usually when I try to replay to someone else's post.

Thanks, David! I'll see if that helps.

I'm running Safari (1.3.1 (v312.3.3)) on a Mac Mini (OS 10.3.9) Fairly regularly the site will hang up loading a page, then the whole browser crashes. It's not a connection speed issue because I have cable modem. Any advice?

I don't think those are inconsistent, no. I think that it is inconsistent to support coercing witnesses but not support taxation to pay the police and the military. I'm not aware of any statements by Ayn Rand on coercing witnesses; this seems to be an issue that Objectivism does not directly address.

Very creative! But such a solution may not always be possible. Suppose your only weapon is a shotgun. If the only way to defend your life would be to shoot an innocent person along with the person threatening you, I think it would be justifiable to do so. Daedalus did quote Ayn Rand's words, and in my opinion interpreted them correctly. My issue is with applying this principle to situations where there is no immediate threat, eg compelling witnesses in order to prosecute a criminal.

I realize that some libertarians are self-described anarchists. However, most libertarians I meet descibe themselves as advocates of limited government very similar to Objectivism's ideal government. So, for those who believe that most or all libertarians are really anarchists, what is your basis for this belief?

^^agreed I don't know. I'm not even sure that "femininity" and "masculinity" are valid concepts.

Dmoney: That's not a meaningful question because you are essentially asking "Where did reality come from?" Since the universe is everything that exists, it could not have come from somehere else. It has always existed and always will. Unfortunately the idea that "Big Bang" = "creation of something from nothing" seems to be a very common misconception among Objectivists, perhaps due to people not trained in physics learning about cosmology from misleading "pop sci" books.

Yes, that's what I'm arguing. The difference is that the US government has an obligation to protect the rights of US citizens, but the same obligation does not apply to enemy citizens. On the infant example specifically, killing the infant might be justifiable to prevent other civilian deaths, but not simply to prevent property loss or the esccape of a criminal. On the draft issue, I agree the draft is not equivalent to compelling a witness. However, I think taxation is roughly comparable to compelling a witness, perhaps less onerous. Suppose the country is attacked and the government does not have enough money to adequately fund the military to repel the attack. Does that justify taxing the citizens to raise the money, on the grounds that it is really the attacker that is responsible for the tax? The same question applies if the government does not have enough money to pay the police or the judges. Your reasoning seems to lead to justification for permanent coercive taxes.

Fair enough; the situations are not really comparable. edit: The idea of immediately executing Saddam, though, is based on the Objectivist concept of justice, which is not accepted by our lawfully elected government. The idea of killing the cartoonists is based on the radical Islamic concept of justice, which is also not accepted by our government. They are still not strictly comparable, but there is a double-edged sword here ... Suppose one of Saddam's jailers were to read the ARI piece, decide that it was correct, and kill Saddam in his cell. Should ARI be criminally charged for "inciting violence"? As it happens, I met Dr. Brook today and asked him this directly. He tried to equate the sign-waver with a Mafia boss who orders a hit (I'm paraphrasing). I'm having trouble with that, though; I see a distinction between planning and/or ordering a specific crime and general encouragement of violence without a specific plan or direct danger to the victim.

It has been pointed out that this is Ayn Rand's view. I don't see that any objective evidence has been presented to support it, though. Yes, men on average are physically stronger than women but this has little or no relevance in modern life or romantic relationships. There are probably some couples where the woman is stronger than the man; so what? Hero-worship is even more problematic. I admire my wife's good qualities, and she admires mine. Neither of us hero-worships the other, and if we did it would be reciprocal. I don't see any justification for hero-worship being solely the province of women.

The issue of civilian casualties in a war is an entirely different issue from this thread. The responsibility for those casualties falls on the enemy leaders. Onkar Ghate's statements quoted above equating the two in my opinion draw a faulty analogy.

I thought that it was never justifiable for government to violate rights, and that rights cannot conflict. Thus I think the proper position is that a potential witness has the right to chose not to testify, even if it means that justice is thwarted. Refusing to testify is not an initiation of force and not a rights violation. The same principle would apply to the original question. Failing to notify the police of a probable future crime is not an initiation of force and not a rights violation.

^^In order for the possibility of an accident to be 0, you would have to guarantee that no human being involved in designing, building, and operating the plant would ever make a mistake. You would have to make this guarantee even of future workers who have not even been hired and trained yet. You would also have to guarantee that the plant could not be damaged by some unforseen natural event such as an earthquake. (As yet scientists cannot predict earthquakes, and they do sometimes occur in regions thought to be geologically stable.) So basically you would have to somehow have to have complete contol of uncontrollable factors such as human behavior and geology, which is impossible. Even assuming one could somehow eliminate all risk (for example, by requiring that the plant be built on the far side of the moon), the cost could be astronomical. It would not be reasonable for government to insist that a plant be made 100% safe at a cost substantially higher than 99% safety. A priniciple like this applied to all human activities would bring society to a crashing halt. (changing topics) I agree with Rationalis about Chernobyl. Remember, though, that the Three Mile Island accident did expose the public to some small amount of radiation, which if I remember correctly is expected to lead to one premature death from cancer. As for market forces, the potential risk from a power plant falls on those who live near it, who may not be the same people who are buying the power. I don't have the slightest idea where my electricity is generated or how safe the generating plant is. So consumer pressure alone will not resolve the issue.

^^Interesting discussion but I don't see how it applies to situations like nuclear power plant safety. No matter how well engineered the plant is and how well trained the workers are, there is always some possibility of an accident that could harm someone. The possibility might be very small, but I don't see how it could ever be zero. So then the question becomes what level of possible harm is equivalent to unreasonable negligence and thus justifies some sort of government intervention? Perhaps the answer is that it would be left to the elected legislature ...

Has Gates never needed a plumber, or an auto mechanic, or a fridge repairman, or a carpenter, etc, etc? As a homeowner, I can assure you that people with good hands-on technical installation and repair skills are in great demand and can easily make a good living.

Excellent! This describes my 2-yr-old perfectly. I think what is going on with these studies is that evolutionary theory suggests that altruism has little or no survival value, yet some people seem to think that altruism is a good thing. Some also think that all behavior is genetically determined. So they need to somehow find a way to interpret observations to show that altruism occurs naturally.

Nothing can ever be perfectly safe. In fact, the idea of perfect safety is what is behind some of the current excessive regulations on nuclear power plants, levels of chemicals in food, etc, etc. In my opinion government intervention would only be justified in situations equivalent to someone walking around with a live grenade with the pin out; ie where there was demonstable and immediate risk of harm to others.

""You don't have the right to call to (for the) murder of cartoonists, to incite violence," Brook said, adding that violent reactions against free speech are wrong, regardless of the content. " So does Dr. Brook think that people should be arrested for waving signs that say "kill the cartoonists"? Since we have free will, doesn't the responsiility for a murder fall on the person who actually commits it, not someone else who "incited" them to do so? Note that ARI itself has a piece calling for Saddam's execution: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_...rticle&id=11727