I agree that it's wrong, but I don't see how it actually controls people.

If someone puts a gun to someone else's head and demands something, I wouldn't blame them if they were to comply, but frankly I think it'd be best if they grabbed the gun and turned the whole situation inside-out.

In any concrete situation (not principles but actions; their physical application) there is always a third option, and a fourth, and a fifth, if you can think of them.

So, if you want someone to do something, I don't think coercion will accomplish it- just look at every law that people break, all the time.  I think that to actually control someone, as in successfully getting them to fulfill your desires, you have to recognize their mind; you have to reason with them and find out what they desire.

Taken to its logical conclusion (with that premise) to control someone would entail trade, commerce and Lassiez-Faire Capitalism.

Is this fallacious?  If so, how?

I have not watched the video yet and will be unable to for a while but in it David Harriman claims that Quantam Physics is mystical and invalid. Being someone who knows next to nothing about quantum physics and only slightly more about physics, can someone succinctly summarize on Harriman's arguments and elaborate if necesary. The general response from the FB crowd was to appeal to authority (ie. how can these philosophers challenge hard science) but I did not know enough on the subject to formulate a proper response.

I know the owner of an apartment building.

Usually the owner find new persons to rent apartments to by using a queue that is free for anybody to get into.

I am not in that queue. But the owner has offered me an apartment anyway.

If I accept the apartment I will get an apartment before the persons in the queue without standing in it myself.

Is it immoral of me to accept the apartment? Immoral because I "cut the line".

This question has tormented me and therefor I would appreciate your views on this.

Damon Thibodeaux has been proved innocent of a crime for which Louisiana has spent 15 years trying to kill him.

Apparently, that view has some currency among Objectivists, starting with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand Answers includes the following Q&A:

OY. I’m not a fan of mainstreaming disabled children in schools, except on a case-by-case basis, when everyone benefits thereby. However, the idea that disabled children ought to be kept away from normal children just flabbergasts me.

It’s simply a fact that some people in this world of ours suffer from mental and/or physical disabilities. Even otherwise normal people suffer from disabilities on occasion — not just injuries and illness, but the effects of aging too.

Disabled people are morally entitled to live their lives, pursuing their values to the best of their ability — just like everyone else. That means they’ll be out in the world, where children might see and/or interact with them. Hence, parents should speak to their children about disabilities, including how to interact with disabled people in a morally decent way. That’s an important part of a child’s moral education — if you don’t want little Johnny to push Grandma down the stairs because she was walking too slowly for his tastes, that is.

The moral education required here isn’t rocket science. Disabled people should be treated with civility and respect — just like everyone else. They might merit the effort of a bit of kindness, such as holding open a door or speaking slowly — just like everyone else. Of course, disabled people can be rude or disruptive or offensive or bothersome too. That’s pretty standard behavior for normal people too, albeit with less excuse. The sensible response is not to demand that disabled people be hidden from sight, but rather to put some distance between yourself and the bothersome person. See? Not rocket science!

Well… I’d better stop there, before I dive into a full-blown rant. I have plenty more to say on this topic on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio… so I hope that you join us!

Eros, in fact, is everything that Speak About It and the hookup culture are not. Casual sex, readily available sex, publicized sex, sloppy drunk sex, sex for the sake of self-gratification and self-discovery--this is not eros. "Sex-on-tap," Nehring writes in A Vindication of Love, "attenuates rather than inflames passion. It is for this reason that the relentless emphasis on sexual climax that distinguishes our day from most others in historical memory has a largely depleting effect on the life of the emotions... The natural distances between people have been diminished so radically as to make romance--which depends on the retention of other-ness, tensions, and reserve--impossible."

Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man's mind--by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem--a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.

Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another--an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values.

"On March 17, 2013, an object about the size of a small boulder hit the lunar surface in Mare Imbrium," says Bill Cooke of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office. "It exploded in a flash nearly 10 times as bright as anything we've ever seen before."

Anyone looking at the Moon at the moment of impact could have seen the explosion--no telescope required.  For about one second, the impact site was glowing like a 4th magnitude star.

• If you live near a college, university, or especially a conservatory for the arts, be sure to get on the school’s mailing list or check posted schedules regularly for free or low-cost performances. You’ll frequently find Shakespeare, dance productions, recitals, orchestra concerts, and sometimes even opera.
• Ballroom dance studios often offer free or low-price guest nights to attract new students. You can enjoy the free beginners’ lesson, then apply your new skills dancing with your date for the rest of the night.
• Many pubs and bars offer trivia nights. You and your date can be a two-person team.
• Some bars and restaurants offer themed wine-tasting nights.
• Picnic in the park. Bonus points if you make the food yourself and/or have a dog that likes to play.
• Follow dinner or drinks with board games instead of a movie.
• In the summer, many cities have food festivals or street fairs that it’s fun to browse with a date.
• If you and your date are sports fans, try minor-league or college games. Minor-league baseball is a particularly fun date, and usually costs the same or less than a movie ticket! If there’s no minor-league team in your area, catch a game at a sports bar.
• Go on a hike (but don’t pick too strenuous a trail; you want to be able to converse with your date).
• Visit your local zoo or botanical gardens to enjoy nature harnessed for man’s enjoyment.
• If your city has a Time Out magazine, subscribe to it (or visit timeout.com) to find all kinds of events.
• Many farmer’s markets offer free or low-cost cooking demonstrations. See how a dish is made, then buy the ingredients, go home and prepare it with your date.

Any other ideas? Post them in the comments!

If you’re interested in purchasing the podcast, that’s still available for just $20. You can find more information — and purchase it — here: Finding Good Prospects for Romance and Friendship.

Also, are there basic fundamental principles that all economists agree on regardless of their political beliefs?

And, is there any reason to select Wisconsin as the location for the 20th Century Motor Company? Did Frank Lloyd Wright have something to do with this location?

I find this a question worth answering because there is NO other device/creative artifact that would have given John Galt the power to convince others to join him. This motor is proof that hope is rational. 

Any suggestions for further reading would be appreciated.

Timothy Karr of Freepress.net and Gerry Smith of Huffington Post (among other writers) argue that governments should be permiitted to own and opperate CBNs because this provides “competition” against big internet service providers (ISPs) such as AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and Verizon.

But such arguments ignore the crucial distinction between government and private institutions. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. Unlike private companies, government can use its taxing powers to prop up its “businesses” by subsidizing rates and capital costs—or use its regulatory powers to hamper “competing” private companies. Private companies are legally forbidden to use physical force against anyone. To suggest that competition is possible between two adversaries—one armed (the government) and one not (private companies)—is absurd.

Genuine competition is possible only between private entities operating on the free market principles of voluntary trade and equality before the law.

Government CBNs also pose a major threat to First Amendment rights. By owning networks, government has the power to control content. What does this mean for freedom of speech and of the press? (Recent events should cause extra alarm on this count.)

As for claims that government involvement is “needed” because some communities are “underserved”: The government is not justified in violating the rights of some in order to meet the alleged needs of others. If “need” means that people want the services, then their desires constitute some degree of incentive for existing private companies to offer the services or for new companies to capitalize on the opportunity. If the incentive is not enough, then it’s not enough. There is no right to broadband.

A government that “competes” with private business violates our rights to control our own wealth and to contract voluntarily with others. Thankfully, government-owned CBNs are now legally restricted or banned in twenty states. The rest of the states should follow suit. If we value our economic liberty and our right to speak freely, we must fight to keep government out of the broadband business.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

• Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet
• Net Neutrality Means an Unfree, Slow, and ‘Stupid’ Internet

• Question 1: The Good in American Culture: How is American culture better today better than people think? I've heard lots of depressing claims about the abysmal state of American culture lately, particularly since Obama won the election. You've disputed that, arguing that America is better in its fundamentals that many people think. What are some of those overlooked but positive American values? How can they be leveraged for cultural and political change?
• Question 2: Romance Between an Atheist and a Believer: Can a romance between an atheist and a religious believer work? What are the major obstacles? Should the atheist attend church or church socials with his spouse? Should they have a religious wedding ceremony? Should they send their children to religious schools? Do the particular beliefs – or strength of beliefs – of the religious person matter?
• Question 3: The Limits of Humor: When does humor work against my values? Sometimes I wonder whether my jokes work against what I value. (For example, what's the most selfish sea creature? An Objectifish!) How do I draw the line?

As of this month, we've discovered 884 planets, 692 planetary systems, 132 of them with more than one planet and, strange to tell, almost none of them look like us.

And most controversial (to Americans) of all, your room key has to be inserted by the hotel-room door to turn on power and air-conditioning.

Yes, it means that your room takes a couple of minutes to cool when you return in the summer. But it also means that you can't leave for the day with all lights and chillers blazing. (As a handy by-product, you can't misplace your room key, either.)

For most children, mumps was a nuisance disease, nothing worse than a painful swelling of the salivary glands. But Dr. Hilleman knew that it could sometimes leave a child deaf or otherwise permanently impaired.

He quickly dressed and drove 20 minutes to pick up proper sampling equipment from his laboratory. Returning home, he woke [his sick daughter] Jeryl Lynn long enough to swab the back of her throat and immerse the specimen in a nutrient broth. Then he drove back to store it in the laboratory freezer.

Nude beaches in California have been under attack and many historically nude beaches have lost their designation.  The state of California is now wasting taxpayer money patrolling these beaches and citing people for nudity.  This is a travesty.  As I wrote in my essay on nude beaches

**********************************************************************

Copyright 2013 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration.

DATE: April 28, 2013

SUBJECT: California

TO: Naturists and other concerned citizens

Dear Naturist,

This is an Action Alert from the Naturist Action Committee. NAC is asking for your immediate involvement to support an effort to have the State of California create officially designated areas for clothing-optional recreation in state parks.

ACTION SUMMARY

1. Attend a meeting of the California Park and Recreation Commission on May 17.

2. Contact the Commission in writing.

CALIFORNIA STATE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION

The California State Park and Recreation Commission is NOT the same as the State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Under California law, the Commission has specific duties and authorizations, including:

• the approval of general plans for units of the State Park System,
• classifying units of the System,
• establishing general policies for the DPR Director,
• recommending to the Director a comprehensive recreation policy for the state.

In the wake of last year’s scandal involving the California Department of Parks and Recreation, NAC is looking for the appointed State Park bureaucracy to assert some leadership. The Commission has had the authority and the responsibility all along to establish general policy and to recommend policy to DPR, and that’s what NAC is seeking.

ACTION 1: ATTEND COMMISSION’S PUBLIC MEETING ON MAY 17 

If you’re near the Monterey Bay area of California (or you can arrange to be there), NAC requests that you attend a public meeting of the State Park and Recreation Commission that is scheduled to be held in Santa Cruz on Friday, May 17, 2013.

DATE: Friday, May 17, 2013

TIME: 9:00 a.m.

LOCATION:

Forest Conference Center

Hilton Santa Cruz/Scotts Valley

6001 La Madrona Drive

Santa Cruz, California 95060

The official public notice for the meeting may be viewed at:

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=27397

The Commission’s agenda for the meeting is available at: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=27398

The naturist issue is not on the agenda for the meeting. Regardless, we need to let the Commission know of our concerns and our expectations. Members of the public will have an opportunity to give brief statements during the public comment portion of the meeting. Whether you speak or not, your presence at the meeting is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to lend support to the message of naturists. We seek the setting aside of areas for clothing-optional recreation in State Park units.

There are few items on the meeting agenda for May 17, and the meeting is likely to move quickly. Please plan to be at the Hilton Santa Cruz/Scotts Valley in Santa Cruz no later than a half hour before the start of the meeting. Those who wish to speak must sign up to do so before the meeting commences.

The Commission has met infrequently and irregularly for the past four years, but NAC has been at every single one of the Commission’s meetings during that period of time. With your help and participation, we’ll make a significant showing at this meeting, too.

If you’re planning to attend the meeting, please contact:

NAC board member Allen Baylis

rab@baylislaw.com

(714) 962-0915

or NAC executive director Bob Morton

execdir@naturistaction.org

(512) 282-6621

ACTION 2: WRITE TO THE COMMISSION

If you’re unable to attend the meeting, you can still help. NAC asks that you write to the Commission. Send your comments by e-mail, fax or surface mail. Those who will be at the meeting on May 17 are also encouraged to write.

WHO SHOULD WRITE?

NAC is requesting ALL NATURISTS and other concerned individuals to contact California officials on this important matter, regardless of your place of residence. California understands the importance of out-of-state visitors who come to enjoy the state’s beaches, lakes and streams. The opportunity to provide diverse recreational opportunities applies to those visitors, as well as to California residents. While all are encouraged to make their voices heard, the participation of Californians is, of course, particularly important.

Send a letter, a fax or an e-mail. Phone calls will likely be ineffective in this specific context.

     California State Park & Recreation Commission 

     PO Box 942896

     Sacramento, CA 94296

     FAX: (916) 654-6374

     Louis Nastro, Assistant to the Commission

     E-MAIL: LNastro@parks.ca.gov 

Send a copy to:

     California Department of Natural Resources  

     Natural Resources Agency 

     1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 

     Sacramento, CA 95814 

     FAX: (916) 653-8102

     E-MAIL: secretary@resources.ca.gov 

NAC encourages you to send copies of your faxes and paper mail to:

NAC, PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903.

Send copies of your e-mails to: CA@naturistaction.org

WHAT SHOULD YOU SAY?

When you write:

a) Be polite.

b) Be known. Give your name and address. If you are a California resident or a frequent visitor to California, be sure to point that out. Anonymous letters have very little impact.

c) Be focused. Keep your correspondence brief and on target.

d) Be positive. Remember that we’re trying to ENCOURAGE the Parks Department to do something. Please do not take a scolding tone.

e) Be clear. Say that you SUPPORT the designation of clothing-optional areas in units of the State Park System.

f) Be sure to make a request that your correspondence (letter, fax, e-mail) be included in the permanent public record of the California Park and Recreation Commission meeting of May 17, 2013.

Additional talking / writing points:

1) On March 25, 2013, a state oversight agency, the Little Hoover Commission, issued a comprehensive review of the California State Park system. Among other conclusions, the report says that DPR lacks the flexibility to be responsive to the diversity of its users and supporters. We must encourage the Commission to respond positively to the deficiencies identified by the report.

2) Our focus is not exclusively on San Onofre State Beach or any other individual park. Although San Onofre was the first State Park unit at which DPR killed its policy for managing clothing-optional recreation, it has not been the last. Ticketing for mere nudity in State Park units has spread throughout the entire state of California. A unified policy that manages FOR a significant group of park users is exactly what the Commission is responsible for creating, but it has not done so for clothing-optional users. The present lack of a comprehensive statewide policy threatens ALL clothing-optional areas in California State Park units.

3) Clothing-optional recreation is a diverse use that’s well supported by the public, yet Parks Department policy against clothing-optional recreation is completely out of sync with public sentiment and the expressed preferences of California residents. A public opinion survey on this topic was commissioned in 2009 by the Naturist Education Foundation and was conducted by the prestigious polling firm of Zogby International. In that statewide poll:

79 percent of Californians believe people should be allowed to enjoy nude sunbathing on a beach or other location that is designated for that purpose.

60 percent of Californians say that they are not offended by the nonsexual nudity of others.

62 percent of Californians agree that the California Department of Parks and Recreation should exercise the legal authority it presently has to designate clothing-optional areas in state parks.

View details of the 2009 NEF California Poll:

www.naturisteducation.org/nef.ca.poll.2009/

4) For thirty years, the Department’s Cahill Policy allowed a means to manage for clothing-optional recreation in units of the State Park system. The nullification of the Cahill Policy has left the department with no statewide policy to address a form of recreation that’s obviously popular with the public. It’s the duty of the Commission to address matters of policy.

5) Some Park and Rec Commission members have suggested that a positive response for those who seek clothing-optional recreation in state parks somehow requires a new legislative solution. That view is incorrect. Title 14, Section 4322 of California Code of Regulations already gives DPR the power and authority to set aside areas for clothing-optional use. What the Department needs NOW is policy guidance from the Commission to do what the Department is already allowed to do TODAY.

MORE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES

Additional information and links are available, along with this NAC Action Alert on the web site of the Naturist Action Committee.

www.naturistaction.org

Select “Alerts” and find this NAC Action Alert under Current Alerts, or use this convenient shortcut: www.naturistaction.org/caparks Among the material on the NAC site, you’ll find the complete text of the Little Hoover Report.

PLEASE HELP NAC TO CONTINUE HELPING NATURISTS!

The Naturist Action Committee is the volunteer nonprofit political adjunct to The Naturist Society. NAC exists to advance and protect the rights and interests of naturists throughout North America. Fighting for the clothing-optional recreational use of public land is expensive. To do its job, NAC relies entirely on the voluntary generosity of supporters like you.

After you’ve made your plans to attend the Commission meeting on May 17 and/or contacted the officials at the Commission and the Natural Resources Agency, please take a moment to send a donation to:

   NAC

   PO Box 132

   Oshkosh, WI 54903

Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: www.naturistaction.org/donate/ 

Thank you for choosing to make a difference!

Naturally,

Bob Morton

Executive Director

Naturist Action Committee

—————————————————————

Naturist Action Committee (NAC) – PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903

Executive Dir. Bob Morton       – execdir@naturistaction.org

Board Member Allen Baylis      – rab@baylislaw.com

Board Member Charles Harris    – carlopianoforte@gmail.com

Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick  – naturist@sunclad.com

—————————————————————

I feel powerless in response since I have not yet fully understand and worked through the whole philosophy. I'm just very confused by how what seems like a very positive system of ideas can be met with such strong resistance by so many people.

I'd like to get some feedback on the above and also my emotional response.

I think there's a few things that cause this:

1. If people think her philosophy is so bad as to be something to laugh at then the world is evil. These people outnumber me and therefore I'm powerless even if I consciously prove it to myself.

Response: I felt this way when I held invalid beliefs that were challenged too. I "felt" I was right and anyone who challenged my view was evil - I saw their ideas as causing pain, suffering etc. 

Is the world really evil because some people laugh at her philosophy? Are these people who laugh at the philosophy convincing everyone else? What power do they have? Should I concern myself with them? What purpose to my feelings serve here - they don't help me at all. I'm not in this to help people but to make my life better and dedicating a portion of my time concerning myself with others ideas will not make my life better.

2. I'm still studying and trying to consciously work through everything right from the base, so right now all I have is 'feeling' for some of her ideas. I don't feel like I'm able to defend my beliefs against many arguments and every additional argument mean something else I'll have to study - which overwhelms me as trying to work through epistemology is frustrating enough.

Response: this is a valid concern - how can I study philosophy properly when I keep getting thrown astray by all kinds of concepts I don't understand. I've spent long enough as it is slowly working my way through OPAR.