Leaderboard

No, it isn't a particularly good question. A human being is what it is: we don't define it in or out of being. The entity that is a human being one minute post-delivery is also a human being one minute beforehand; to say that it is not yet "a human life" because it fails to satisfy some ad hoc, contrived definition (in this case, because it is "connected") is a classic example of rationalism. There's no need to resort to such outlandish scenarios. Actual existence provides sufficient material. Conjoined twins are "connected"; according the definitions and reasoning you've supplied, neither twin is a "human life" or has rights? But no. It is an admitted complication for "individual rights" that neither twin is individuated, but our resolution is not that either twin has the "right" to murder its twin (because the victimized twin somehow fails to meet our definition of entity (!), or human being). Conjoined twins still have rights, because they are entities possessed of rights by their nature. In real life, a mother carries a child for some time before birth. It is a human child. The point at which that is true is not conception (where that "potential human child" is but a collection of cells, and fully the mother's to do with what she wishes), but it is true at some point thereafter. The proper way to reason about this has nothing to do with the umbilical cord, which is meaningless. Suppose a full "test tube" process, where there is no umbilical cord at all, no "connection." At conception, the potential child in the test tube would be a clump of cells, property, and wholly the mother's to dispose of. At some point thereafter, this would no longer be true. The cells in the test tube will have developed into a human being, and no longer be the mother's property (though the parental relationship is still special, and this special relationship persists for some time). At this point, the human child has rights and cannot be aborted. The difference is not according to placenta or umbilical cord or birth, but based on the nature of the entity itself.

What appears to be missing from these woe-begotten arguments about abortion is the right of the woman to her body. Government has no right, moral or otherwise, to legislate what a woman should do with her body. The decision to give birth or abort is hers and hers alone. So debate as you may about this issue, but never forget that government trying to restrict abortion is, at the very least, government laying yet another layer of regulation on individuals, and yet another wanton, illicit restriction on our lives.

I've always thought that Rand made wayyyyyy too strong of a claim here. I agree that it was a violation of property rights, but I think the overall violation of property rights against black people especially was reduced. The worst breach? Hardly. Besides, I don't think similar laws have become more oppressive. Perhaps more petty, but not more oppressive. And anyway, I don't think it reflects an erosion of property rights. Rather, even though it doesn't reflect an improvement of property rights, I think it pushes people to think about property rights more. But it doesn't change the dynamics of anything. It's a confused notion of property rights (that the public should have a say with any property that interacts with the rest of the public), but it's nothing like actual erosion of property rights. I don't know what you mean that white racists have been victimized the most. The most I guess because they are the only ones being racist? I don't know what you mean that antidiscrimination laws have disproportionately affected white people. With affirmative action, sure, but that's not what you're talking about. Part of my thinking is that this is a symptom of fear that laws will necessarily get worse. Fear that the laws will get worse because of foreigners distorting the national culture. Except, it's not property rights they are reacting to. They are reacting to an implementation of public property rights that they don't like, but they would approve laws that violate the property rights of others. After all, people like this are anti-capitalists. Property rights aren't even on their mind. In a way, actions like this, murdering people, is a far greater erosion of property rights. I think property rights have gradually improved since the Civil Rights Act. So I don't think the erosion of property rights explanation works here. I think it's more about identity politics, which is the primary thing that will erode property rights. You would be right though as far as laws that are created because of identity politics. But not all antidiscrimination laws are created for that reason.

What is disturbing is a world that looks at this staged event as something that can be understood on its own merits. If it is reason and rationality that are to be embraced, then ignorance and irrationality are the default conditions that represent the state of an unachieved human stature. Even in a world where the embrace of reason and rationality are the norm, there will be aberrations from that norm. At the age of 29, Ayn Rand stated in her journal As to psychology—learn whether the base of all psychology is really logic, and psychology as a science is really pathology, the science of how these psychological processes depart from reason. This departure is the disease. What caused it? Isn't it faulty thinking, thinking not based on logic[?] By the age of 55, she had set up three essential categorizations for man dealing with the conceptual level of consciousness. The producer achieved this human stature. The stature she described of the other two categorizations in For The New Intellectual dealt with thinking, not as a means of perceiving reality, but as a means of justifying their escape from the necessity of rational perception. The Churchchrist shooter's manifesto is hardly a man writing the Constitution of the United States as protection against the actions of the irrational that may violate the rights of those living peaceably. In medicine, diseases are identified as a means of organizing, conceptually, the various ones that exist, and further identifying which are treatable by what means. When a malignancy such as Brenton Tarrant develops in the "body of humanity", until a cure or a method of preventing such a malady from occurring in the first place exists, the approach need be one to excise or isolate the anomaly in such a way as to protect the "body of humanity" from the ravages of such a disease.

Sonic & Knuckles, You're covering a lot of topics; you might consider breaking it down a little, or searching for threads related to each of these areas of discussion. Nonetheless, I'll take a few of your questions and try to answer briefly. work is generally being replaced by machines. Yes, labor intense work is often replaced by machines. Machines increase productivity. Increased productivity results in greater output at a lower cost. Net result: More people will be able to afford the goods and services that, at present, only the higher income market can afford. Services made more efficient through high-speed communications are another improvement. So many jobs are going to be gone in the next decade. I think this is going to make the distortions and socio-economic gaps we already have in society much worse. What you are describing has been a concern since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, especially in mass manufacturing. The blacksmiths and candlestick makers were taking a terrible beating back then, but it certainly wasn't the end of the world. You are right to be concerned about being "left behind." I think every young person, (and for that matter, middle-aged people stuck in jobs of the aging industries) ought to seriously plan for the reality of mechanization in the Digital-Age. Objectivist ethics requires one to face the facts, and to deal with them accordingly. As for society getting worse, I think the worst will affect those at the economic bottom, as it always has. The changing ways of doing business like watching a movie or shopping, and the effects of business like concentration of ownership of media with newspapers and (formerly) locally-managed TV/radio stations is creating a scenario in the private market that can be analogous to centralization or Communism in many ways. If the media outlets are privately owned, it certainly wouldn't qualify as Communism, which means that the media are a monopoly owned and operated by the government; so long as the internet stays relatively unregulated, centralization of information is unlikely. I would say the greater problem is the reaction of the general public to hysteria inflamed by the media. As long as there is a market for entertainment and information products, be they physical or digital on-demand, those products will be produced. Ask anyone with a vinyl record collection. As for your neurological condition, I have no comments. I hope the best for your improvement, and by all means, spend some time reading some of the works of Ayn Rand.