Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Mnrchst

Regulars
  • Content Count

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mnrchst

  1. First, s/he hasn't made much of a case for why reputation counts. Second, it implies that someone is violating my property if they damage my reputation without their spreading what they believe to be falsehoods, but by just saying the truth about me. You could argue that I've already damaged my own property by doing whatever, but I haven't because I'm not telling people about this. The other people are ultimately responsible for their volitional actions. If a few ex-girlfriends of Obama tell us he likes yogurt up his ass and a popsicle in his mouth, then they are the ones damaging his re
  2. If you can't demonstrate what would have happened if X hadn't happened, then you can't say X is bad. You're basically saying "Person A spreads falsehood about person B, and as a result, persons C and D stop buying stuff from person B, therefore, person A committed a crime against person B, but, if no one stopped buying from person B, then person A didn't commit a crime." The problem with this argument is that person A's actions did not damage person B, even in the sense that person B is less well off, because what actually made person B less well off were the actions of persons C and D. Per
  3. I've already made it clear that I'm talking about when an entire society is at risk of being enslaved by an invading force, not when one guy starts acting irrationally. In other words, I don't want taxes just because there are a few terrorists out there.
  4. In the sense that their government doesn't want to kill them, sure. However, everyone in this O-ist society has been thrust into the law of the jungle because they're being invaded. Just because the Nazis aren't marching into New York doesn't mean there isn't a war on. You can look at the concrete of the government not wanting to initiate force against its citizens, but there's also the abstract context of how for everyone in that society everything is now at stake. They're in the process of being thrown into the jungle, so to speak.
  5. I think force can be initiated by nature (or whoever is responsible for putting you out into the ocean in the first place). True, but it does mean that there are some actions which used to be initiations of force and no longer are. No--you can only take actions which will be effective at defeating the enemy (i.e. outright slaves aren’t going to be effective workers), otherwise, you are doing harm by making enemy victory more likely. No--I said they’re doing harm, not initiating force. They’re doing harm because by not funding the war effort, they are making defeat more likely
  6. Wouldn't this mean that if people believed such things, that those who published the material should be punished even if it's incredibly stupid. And wouldn't damage be done if just one person behaved irrationally as a result? And how can we prove they wouldn't have behaved exactly the same anyway if the info wasn't published? I definitely agree fraud is a crime, but I think it only applies when there's a contract. In other words, if I sign a contract with someone where they're obligated to tell me what they think is the truth, fine. Otherwise, where is the fraud if I tell people things I
  7. I'm not sure if I totally agree with ZSorenson's post, but it's definitely at least close to what I'm advocating. As for what 2046 just said, remember that governments are just abstractions. If it's valid for a government to initiate an attack against another government under X circumstances, then I see no reason why it isn't valid for individuals to do so against others under such circumstances as well (because, in the end, we're always talking about individuals). When there's two people and one lifeboat, force has already been initiated against both people--they can't initiate force ag
  8. No, only IF it's clear that there's a third party which is capable of killing and/or enslaving you and your buddy.
  9. " If the dentist did not have a disease and lost business due to the defamatory reports then the cause can only be those people who spread the false reports, and the dentist should win the suit. " That's the only thing which appears to justify this. I don't see that as making sense. The problem isn't that people spread false reports--it's that people believed them. Let's say I'm a popular newspaper columnist and I write that the newest line of cars from a major manufacturer are going to explode after a couple years of use. Should I be punished for this? Where do we draw the line? How out
  10. EC, what if only 99% of the people want to donate to the military, and it's highly likely that their contributions will make the difference between victory or defeat?
  11. This has nothing to do with quotes. Your response doesn't address our arguments. You say "you're initiating force" and our argument is that there are very different rules when we're in a "lifeboat scenario/similar".
  12. I like the first one. I don't like the second one--it doesn't look as cool, the words aren't as compelling, and "you" are the most important person in the universe...? You mean to yourself? Sure, but that isn't mentioned.
  13. Grames, you keep telling me what this is without telling me why you think it should exist. I don't see how reputation can be considered property. How do you argue that is?
  14. Grames, what, then, do you think are the requirements of speech/communication in the general defamation as a tort violation and why? Is it just if they violate a contract? I'm asking (I shouldn't made this more clear, I'm sorry) about speech which is illegal under any circumstances (regardless of contracts). The only ones I can think of are which seem bad to me are threats, and distribution of information which involved a violation of privacy and/or child pornography. Should there be more? (i.e. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, which I have no problem with, unless there's a rule by the
  15. Grames, you're not attempting to persuade me that slander should be a crime--you just provided a link that goes over the concept without attempting to justify it. What are your responses to my arguments that slander is not a crime?
  16. I think threats are probably force (I'm open to persuasion here). If someone calls you up and says "I'm coming to kill you!", then you're going to worry about whether or not that's true, thereby forcing you to react. I think you can argue threats are force along the same lines that fraud is force: (this is from a pro-Rand website) " Suppose a man reads an advertisement for a used car and goes to check it out. The owner assures the man that the car’s odometer reading is correct; this, however, is not true, and the owner knows it because he turned back the mileage himself. As far as th
  17. Atlas, numerous people have already responded to this argument in this thread. You should read those and respond if you want to contribute.
  18. This is definitely true with respect to transportation. However, it's not for direct subsidies--it's far easier to avoid those than the transportation subsidies.
  19. From my first post: "I'm definitely undecided on this though." That's your opinion. You said "nothing is learned from answering that sort of question" and I'm saying "Yes, you do learn something by answering that question (if you've got the correct answer), and what you've learned is the answer to the question. And even if we don't find an answer we can convince ourselves is the correct one (like ethical egoism, which is much easier to prove than a specific policy in the complex real world), that doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer (i.e. just because picking a sexual consent/voting/d
  20. Why should there be any restrictions on speech (or, more appropriately, communication/expression)? By what standard do you judge when someone should get forced used against them for their expression and when they shouldn't? Why is it aggression/similar if I write a letter to the president saying I'm going to kill him?
  21. Actually, we've learned the answer to the question, which is something that we've learned from it, regardless of how unusual it is. Sure there is, it's just that it's impossible for us to determine where the line between "enough" and "not enough" is. But that doesn't mean that these don't exist and/or that we shouldn't attempt to assign where they are (for example, even though selecting a sexual consent age is somewhat arbitrary, that doesn't mean we shouldn't). It seems you're thinking I introduced the topic of "where do we draw the line?" Actually, I started a topic on "Is X moral on
  22. There's a pretty standard convention on this forum: when people start a thread and ask for people's opinions on something, we're also implicitly asking for justifications for those opinions. So far, all Grames has said (other than informing me of the fact that there are laws restricting speech, which I never asked about) is "This is correct and good."
  23. But you're not liberating it unless you've gotten the law changed to reduce taxes. If you take that money, then, ultimately, it's not going to "the government" (an abstraction), but to other people. This means you're effectively saying "I deserve money I didn't earn more than the people who actually did earn it" (because they are being taxed more than subsidized) or "I know how better to spend money than you do, so I'll let the government take it from you by force." I think it's moral to not take more money from the government than what it gives you, because you're otherwise ensuring that m
  24. We could, but then they're taking more territory (power) to use against us. Sure. To be specific: A fascist foreign nation is invading our O-ist nation and we have every reason to believe they will take over our entire nation (and more) if they have the opportunity, and we are pretty certain they will win unless we tax people in our nation. Therefore, we have to tax people in order to preserve our capitalist tax-free way of life. No one inherently owes you anything, except to not initiate force against you, sure. However, in this context, people do owe you their property and we shou
×
×
  • Create New...