_j_

http://www.facebook....232656623450415 *** Mod's note: Adding the details from that link, for those who don't use Facebook... - sN ***

Dr. Peikoff's first Q&A podcast has been released at http://peikoff.com

Didn't include this in my original post. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/080.PDF DavidOdden says, "police would not say "Oh, look, a perp. I get to kill him!"." I think that some robotic yahoos exist in law enforcement that may do this. My non-Objectivist younger brother is in law enforcement and loves to point out laws that he thinks that I will disagree with. Our discussion of an issue similar to the the old lady and a vandal is what led to my post on arson. My state says a person may use deadly force if it is believed that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony involving use of force, and that a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/055.PDF I believe that I see these issues as DavidOdden sees them, and believe that this is in line with Ayn Rand's comments on initiation of force in Chapter eight of OPAR. Off topic, but here is another item regarding use of force that my brother has brought up in regards to disciplining children. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/110.PDF

I skimmed through this online yesterday at the C-Span BookTV site. There was some mention of ARI, mostly by Crane and Hudgins in the last panel. Towards the end Hudgins mocks Brook for his attendance of a "libertarian" Atlas Economic Research Foundation meeting by making a quip about Kelley getting "kicked out" for this. Found it odd that at the end of each of the panels C-Span showed a link to ARI's site.

In my state, the use of deadly physical force is allowed against a person commiting or attempting to commit arson. Could this be considered moral when there is no threat to human life?

How easy is it to enter into a foreign state if you live in a small one? I have no problem understanding why the government regulations are wrong.

I am concerned with being put on a train with "irrational" people where I do not have a choice to board or not. A little bit more about where I am coming from...Generally when I have a question about the application of Objectivist principles, or if someone asks me how I think some situation could be handled without the government, I find that the philosophy leaves a way of "policing" itself, rational solutions to common problems. As an example, I have been approached before about the issue of speed limits. Easy solutions while applying principles are available for those concerned with this aspect of safety. This issue however leaves me unsettled.

Just for the record. I am not referring necessarily to a nuclear, Chernobyl, type accident. I am referring to possible situations where there is a potential for instant losses in the tens of thousands or greater, and over a widespread area.

I recently read this article about the indictment of nuclear plant workers charged with hiding reactor damage. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...ate=printpicart This got me wondering how safety issues would be addresses ideally, in circumstances where neglect could lend to the potential for mass casualties. Are there bases, in Objectivist terms, for allowing government mandated safety inspections of private businesses in situations such as these?