oso

And therefore you shouldn't bribe in order to violate rights, get out of contracts, etc. We need government and we should not violate rights but that doesn't mean we need to accept all of government.

But what if you can act against the law and get away with it? What if the risk of ending up behind bars does not outweigh the benefits of taking on the risk? These situations exist. If bribery is a constant way of life for you, and you have to do it in all sorts of different ways with different people, then that probably isn't a good way to live, but there are still plenty of cases where it would be 100% practical. For example, if you're a building contractor but it is impossible to get anything built if you don't pay off the insepector once for each job. Or if you want to open a bar but the only way to get a liquor license is bribery. Or if the goverernment is going to shut down your buisness if you don't pay off the enviromental inspector once a year (and it's literally impossible for anyone to meet regulations). Or if you're a street vendor, and you will have all your wares confiscated and will be thrown in jail if you don't pay off the cops.

http://www.peikoff.com/?s=bribery One thing which I think it's important which he points out is the routine nature of bribery in many cases which makes the chance of being caught next to zero. Another is that something can be properly illegal but still completely moral as subverting bad laws is not arbitrary.

Your entire argument that bribery is self-deception hinges on bribery never being practical. Bribery is a risk. You might be arrested, you might be paying too much, but you also might not. Bribe is a risk but often, it is a minimal risk and it is often completely practical. You can not tell me that paying bribes is never practical when you agree that the only other options are to run your buisness honestly, which is impossible, or to shrug, which would be complete sacrifice for most people living in a mixed economy and literal suicide for many people living in countries worse off than ours. Taking a risk does not mean self-deception and a risk is all that bribery is. When you subvert arbitrary laws, you aren't substituting your own arbitrary laws, you are substituting them with your own rational judgement. Using reason to determine that a law is a violation of your rights and then subverting it is not arbitrary. Except that force is being initiated against them. If the state is going to shut down your buisness unless you pay a bribe, force is being initiated against you. You still have a choice but the choices are give up everything, or give up some money while taking on a (often minimal) risk of being caught. The person in the position of having to pay a bribe is a victim who built something that a thug is threatening to take away by force while the starving man reached his situation by his own failures and the option of stealing would be a violation of rights. However, you are certainly justified in stealing to survive if you live in a dictatorship. In many cases bribery is the only thing that can prevent you from going to jail, especially in foreign countries.

Paying a bribe is not an attempt to evade any reality at all and it is not self-deception. If you think it is, prove it or at least give some reasoning, don't just say it. Maybe having money extorted from you and some fear of being caught is not good for your self-esteem, but I'm sure giving in to the government and sacrificing your buisness would be even worse. It would mean that you were beaten by the system. What would having your children being put in a foster home while you're in jail do to your self-esteem? I think if you explained how bribery is different than lying to the mugger, it would clarify your rationale. Why not? It's completely possible for someone to realize that a law that he subverts is still in existence despite his subversion.

No he doesn't.

I still don't see where bribery becomes self-deception, nor do I see why anybody should feel guilt or reduced self-esteem. There is nothing wrong with becoming a criminal if you're not violating anybodys rights and to follow the law would be self-destruction. Yes, bribery is and should be a criminal offense, but when you live in a mixed market or worse, it's not a law that you should necessarily abide by. The issue of fear is legitimate in some context where there is a real chance of being caught and it is a good reason to not be in a buisness where regular bribery is necessary but this is simply a matter of practicality. You open yourself up to being caught or blackmail when you bribe but if the alternative is having your buisness rendered worthless, or going to jail when you have kids to feed then I couldn't imagine how taking on the risk would be impractical. Again, tell me how faking reality to a rights violating government by bribing an official is any different than faking reality to a mugger by telling him that you don't have any more money when you actually have some hidden away in your shoe.

He instructed Dagny to lie in order to make it seem as if Galt was her enemy. Yes, her life was under threat, but if that is an excuse to fake reality, I don't see how your buisness, your livelihood being under threat is not. Rearden lived in world of Atlas Shrugged, but what about those who live in modern day USA, whose buisnesses are just as impossible to run without bribery and for whom going on strike or selling the buisness is not practical in any way at all? Faking reality is completely justifiable when you are doing it against people who don't recognize the facts of reality and decide to violate your rights. Faking reality to the government so that they won't destroy your buisness by bribing an official to tell them that you meet envriomental standards is no different than faking reality to a mugger by lying to him and saying you don't have any more money when you actually have several hundred dollars sewed into your shoe sole. You aren't hoping that your bribe can eliminate government thuggery just as you aren't hoping that the mugger doesn't have a gun and isn't demanding your money. It's simply self-defense.

I think it would be better to not discuss divorce. I don't know enough about the state of divorce law to say if bribery would be moral or not. As for your buisness affairs, yes, in the face of otherwise insurmountable government regulation, bribery is moral. If a man can't operate his buisness without bribing corrupt officials to get his enviormental clearance, building permits, liquor license, etc., what else is he to do? He can abandon his buisness or he can pay the protection money. There aren't going to be many cases where the former would not be a sacrifice for an Objectivist.

It isn't wrong, it isn't a moral compromise and it shouldn't do anything to your moral stature and self-esteem. It is simply self-defense for situations when your rights are being violated and you have no real options. It is no more immoral than paying mafia protection money. It's not your responsibility to sacrifice any freedom you can buy simply because other people set up a system which violates your rights.

I am nearly certain that we will not only have QE4, but, as I said, endless QE if Obama is reelected. I'm not positive that Romney will prevent QE4 but everything I know points towards it being less likely than Obama. Romney has even come openly against more stimulus. I'll take what I can get. QE3 has not happened yet, but it is incoming and has been inevitable ever since QE2 which was inevitable ever since QE1. It has been inevitable because QE causes a temporary economic high and then wears off leaving the economy sicker than before. If you believe that QE is the proper response to recession, get the affirmation that you are right from a temporary high, and have plunged youreself into a cycle where more recessions are inevitable endless QE is your only solution, everytime beliving that it will be the last one. We will survive QE3 but at some point, unless we accept a hard recession and stop the cycle, hyper-inflation is the only possible outcome. Obama will not accept a hard recession without the belief that he needs to take drastic action. He will see a depression coming down on America and he will remember FDR.

Based on the condescending tone of your post I can't help but suspect that it is aimed at Objectivists intending to vote for Romney and you're not just giving general advice. If that is the case, you really aren't making any point as they clearly think that they are selfishly voting for the lesser of two evils.

Fun and self-defense.

There are three things that a rational military will do to protect individual rights: The first is to simply do what their job is. Under the knowledge that their country needs defenders and that the goverment is the only way to properly decide how to go about defending rights, they would follow all orders that come down, rational or not. This is what our military is currently doing. The second is to go on strike once they are doing more harm than good. The third is to revolt when the country is facing dictatorship. What they don't have the ability to do is anything inbetween any of these three options. They can't decide to follow the good orders and disobey the bad. They can't decide to take foreign policy into their own hands and act on their own without government consent. They can't bring about peaceful change simply through the power of being the holders of force. Once, violent change is necessary, an intellectual and enlightened military is extremely important, but chances are you aren't going to have that if peaceful change is impossible.

I don't want to see QE4 let alone the endless, unsurviable QE that Obama will bring down upon us in the face of the next economic disaster. Therefore, I support for Romney.

No, rising to the level of a trusted number two at a transcontinental railroad company. Ayn Rand was showing the great hights to which an average, good man can rise in a semi-free world, but also the fate he faces when the prime movers are removed from society. Eddie's only true failure was his inability to let a world go which was dying despite his efforts.

I think one negative effect is that the Tea Party would probably be a lot weaker. Obama has energized the Tea Party and a Republican president might turn a lot of them into the cheerleaders instead of the activists they need to be.

This has been adressed. Just because you admire someone, doens't mean you admire their entirety.

One thing Peikoff mentioned was the consequences of having an economic disaster during a Democratic presidency. That is as relevant as ever today but the differencce is, an incorrect response to a disaster today could very well push the dollar over the edge resulting in hyper-inflation and all it's consequences.

One thing I've noticed is that something such as a video illustrating the size of the universe, will cause people to bring up how supposedly insignificant or unimportent we are in the grand scheme of things. They've clearly failed to realize that signficance and importance has to be significant or important to something.

I believe it. I know that Ryan is against abortion and I also know that he is decently intelligent and intellectual. He supports abortion based on the definition of a fetus as a human being and the existence of individual rights. To make an exception in the cases of rape and incest would be the most inconsistent, anti-intellectual position possible.

Conciousness can be explained, but that is not reduction.

Self-defense ends and immoral behavior begins when you use force, not to defend yourself, but to dole out justice. Only the government can properly do that and when it does so, it can't be morally done in the heat of the moment, such as with self-defense, but it must be procedural and objective (self-defense must be objective too of course). The line is not whether people get killed or not, it is whether it is reasonable force for the purpose of self-defense or force for the purpose of justice.

No, the reason I have the right to keep and bear arms is that I have the right to liberty. It doesn't matter whether I'm using it for self-defense or hunting or as a mantle piece. As long as I'm not violating anyone's rights with my guns, I have the right to own them regardless of the issue of self-defense. The right to self-defense is the reason the right to keep and bear arms is so important, but it is not the reason it exists. Also, I was referring to handguns in that post. Guns are obviously necessary for self-defense but one could say that handguns aren't necessary because even if handguns were banned, one could still defend themself with long guns. However, just as lobster not being necessary for survival does not make your freedom to capture and eat them morally void, handguns (hypothetically) not being necessary for self-defense would not mean that the freedom to own them is morally void. Would you say that, because heroin isn't neccessary for survival or happiness, that your freedom to own and use it is morally void?

First of all, it doesn't matter whether or not handguns are necessary for self-defense. Lack of neccessity does not justify curbing freedom. Just because I might be able to defend myself with a rifle doesn't mean that you have the right to force that inconvinience on me by banning handguns. Second, concealable weapons really are necessary for self-defense because when you openly carry, you become the first target of anyone dedicated to killing indiscriminantly.