Reason_Being

Well actually I'd say the real issue is the violation of the parents' rights to determine how their children spend their free time. It's also a violation of the video game companies' rights to freely trade. Whether or not the law is practical in achieving its aims is secondary. It's not the state's duty to discipline children.

This explanation doesn't fully address my concern. If altruism is a form of self-sacrifice, how can it be altruism if society is forcing you to sacrifice yourself? I guess you could say that if society (represented by the government in a democratic state) enforces laws that require one to be sacrificed for someone else, that would mean that members of society who support the government are voluntarily submitting themselves to laws that require them to sacrifice, and this perhaps would be altruism.

Explain?

Is it possible for altruism to be forced, or is "forced altruism" contradictory? Altruism is a form of self-sacrifice. If someone is forcing you to give up your life or property for someone else (example: government-enforced social programs), you are being sacrificed but it's not a self-sacrifice since you have no control over the matter. Must altruism be a conscious decision to live one's life for another? Is it correct to describe the society in a welfare state as an "altruistic" society if the welfare system is based on forced sacrifice?

So i bought this game the day it came out because I am a huge fan of the Diablo series. And I must say, I am not impressed. I find that this game is just not as engaging as the previous Diablo titles. I think it lacks the gloomy atmosphere that the other games in the series provided, and there are horribly cheesy scripted scenes that pop up all throughout the game which really irritate me. There are a bunch of other issues with this game and I was just curious to know what you guys think about it.

Well he admits that the production of electricity is competitive. So they can't really charge whatever they want because a more affordable provider would provide competition. He claims that delivery of electricity is limited to one set of wires set up by a single company, this would not necessarily be the case in a free market. That would only be possible with a government-guaranteed monopoly on this type of infrastructure, or if the market determines this. He claims that it is "reasonable" for only one provider to run the infrastructure, but unless he gives an explanation as to why that is the case, his point is moot. As for his claim that the government must then set the prices, that's not difficult to refute. Just allude to the fact that, without the electric company, people wouldn't have electricity. By saying that the government should dictate the price, he is claiming that simply having the ability to provide electricity makes the company morally obliged to provide it. Ask him what moral right the government has to force the company to trade at any given rate, and what the ethical implications are when a government sets prices. This means that the government must apply force against an individual and determine for the individual how much he values his own labour, and by extension how much he values his own life. Once he is forced to address ethics, his argument will quickly crumble. That's the thing about many economics professors. They are good with numbers economic theory but they flat out suck at philosophy.

I was simply addressing tothemax's claim that what determines rights is the act of being rational. Rights are not determined by whether one acts rationally but rather whether a one is a human being (human beings are the only animals to possess a rational faculty). That is the only point I was making. Your claim that a fetus has a rational faculty is unsubstantiated. And having the potential to be rational in the future is not what determines rights. A two year old baby isn't rational but we know that it is a human. When it comes to the fetus, it not only does not have a rational faculty but it is also a physical parasite to the mother. It does not exist as its own person and lacks any of the distinguishing features of a human being.

That is not the Objectivist position. The question is whether it has a rational faculty. A fetus has no rational faculty. A person who acts irrationally still has a rational faculty, and is still a human being and therefore possesses rights. A fetus is not a human being.

Freedom of speech. That's all you need to know.

Doesn't RP's foreign policy includes having a world bank? He's a globalist. He doesn't want small government he wants one big state.

Clearly the manner in which wars are funded is improper. But for the time being, wars are funded through mandatory taxation and that's just the reality we live in. To use this as a reason to not fight a war is irrational. By the same logic, the US should not have entered WWII and we'd all be speaking German right now. Iran is a threat that must be dealt with. I simply cannot accept your claim that Iran is no threat to the United States when they openly speak about wiping the US and Israel off the earth. And to say that it is "evil" to aid Israel in war against Iran is, and I mean this most sincerely, completely outrageous. Evil would be to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Evil would be for the US president to be friendly and publicly embrace the Iranian State, which Ron Paul would do if he were elected.

Stephen Hawking says we should avoid alien contact because the aliens may destroy us.

I believe it's also illegal in France to utter the words "facebook" and "twitter" on tv/radio because they consider that to be a form of advertising and therefore "unfair" to the smaller social networking sites.

This song has a nice individualistic message. I think their hearts are in the right place but some of the lyrics are questionable. The first four lines don't make much sense because your mind is not something to be owned. And I'm not sure if he means that you can only own your own mind and no one else's, or if he means that the only thing you can own is your mind, and that material possessions are not important (the context of those four lines having to do with the selfish "buying" themselves time). There are some pretty nice lines in this song as well. What do you guys think of this song, lyrics wise? Lyrics and video are posted below. The selfish, they're all standing in line Faithing and hoping to buy themselves time Me, I figure as each breath goes by I only own my mind The North is to South what the clock is to time There's east and there's west and there's everywhere life I know I was born and I know that I'll die The in between is mine I am mine And the feeling, it gets left behind All the innocence lost at one time Significant, behind the eyes There's no need to hide We're safe tonight The ocean is full 'cause everyone's crying The full moon is looking for friends at hightide The sorrow grows bigger when the sorrow's denied I only know my mind I am mine And the meaning, it gets left behind All the innocents lost at one time Significant, behind the eyes There's no need to hide We're safe tonight And the feelings that get left behind All the innocents broken with lies Significance, between the lines (We may need to hide) And the meanings that get left behind All the innocents lost at one time We're all different behind the eyes There's no need to hide

To deny the accuracy of the senses is to deny the law of causality and subsequently to deny all natural laws. Our senses simply cannot sense something which is not there. Skeptics also tend to ignore the role of the mind in arriving at knowledge. Sensory information on it's own is meaningless before our minds make something of it. For example, the image reflected onto the retina is upside down. The mind turns it right side up.

In the case of the internet, the only thing the government did was create an artificial demand for a specific communication network, and then used taxes to fund the development of this network. Private organizations also played a role in funding these projects, so it was not only government. The state didn't teach early computer scientists how to apply their knowledge to the advent of the internet. The only thing the government did was fund it. This was a case where the demand of the government led to the development of a product which also ended up being demanded by the free market. But this does not in any way mean that government is necessary for sparking technological movements. To say this would be to say that only the State knows which technologies can be useful to people, and only by theft (taxation) can the development of new technologies exist. It's also simply not true that "all basics of technology" are the product of government intervention. The lunacy of that claim is self-evident because it rejects the role of consumer demand in any type of market, as well as the desire of all people to increase their values. Technology has been advancing since the dawn of civilization. Were the first stone tools, flints and farming equipment commissioned by governments? No, because technology is developed as a response to the needs of individuals based on their values. Furthermore, the rapid advancement of the internet and computer technology in the past 30 years had nothing to do with government funding. It was the result of entrepreneurs selling the product of their minds in the marketplace. Also, if you do some research you will come across plenty of examples of government funded projects that went absolutely nowhere. The taxed money used to pay for these projects was taken away from other projects in the private market which would have been developed otherwise. Who knows how many potentially great technologies were not able to be pursued because the money needed to develop them was used for failed government projects instead. Imagine if the money that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs required to produce their original products had been taxed in order to develop some other technology that the government deemed necessary. Now think about how many potential Steve Jobs were unable to pursue their dreams because of governments taking away their capital to spend it elsewhere.

Well, welfare hurts the recipient for the simple fact that it requires him to be dependant on others. If one is dependant on others, he has no control over his own life. He is sacrificing his freedom.

By this logic, shouldn't one not be allowed to receive gifts of any kind? After all, one didn't "word hard" for the gift in the same way that the recipient of inheritance didn't "work hard" for his inheritance.

Hello and welcome. I think these are not so much questions about the philosophy of Objectivism as they are about specific applications of Objectivist politics and ethics. I'll try to answer these the best I can, but be aware that these are my own opinions and might not necessarily reflect the opinions of other Objectivists. 1. I'de say you have the moral right to ingest any substance you choose, regardless of the level of harm it causes your own body. I think that the sale of addictive drugs is immoral, as is their consumption, but those facts don't logically lead to the conclusion that the State has the right to prevent the sale of drugs or to prevent one from consuming the materials. If that conclusion could be drawn, the State should be able to control every action you make depending on the level of harm the action causes you, since knowingly causing harm to one's self is immoral. Also, I don't believe that drug dealers are violating the rights of their customers unless they misrepresent what they're selling. Drugs should be treated like any other product on the market, the same way that cigarettes and alcohol are. Dealers should be made to disclose exactly what they're selling, which is a responsibility of all vendors regardless of the industry. Also, one could synthesize his own drug and not deal with a vendor at all, a fact that is often overlooked by people trying to justify anti-drug laws based on the actions of dealers. Many of the dangers associated with the drug trade are due to anti-drug laws that force the industry underground, away from the rule of law. If all drugs were legalized, vendors who misrepresent their products would be answerable to the State. But as far as the drugs' addictive nature goes, that's a risk that the consumer has the right to take. 2. I agree with you that it is immoral. Circumcision can be performed later in life just as easily. Allow the child to grow up and make the decision for himself. 3. It depends on a person's reason for being a vegan. Some people do it for health reasons or they don't like the taste of meat. This can be perfectly consistent with Objectivism. Others do it because they believe in animal rights. A claim which, I think all Objectivists would agree, is baseless. I would agree that one should not cause unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. However I think one must weigh the value of the animal's suffering versus the value of what he would be giving up to avoid eating the meat. For example, let's say I had a choice between purchasing two different meats, one which was killed fast and painlessly and the other which experienced a lot of pain and suffering, and both meats were the same price and had the same flavor and nutritional value. I would certainly choose buy the meat that was killed humanely. Even if the animal that was killed humanely were more expensive and less nutritious, I might still choose to buy it instead of the one that suffered, because I may value the animal's treatment more than the money and nutrition that I'm losing (up to a certain point, of course). So to answer your question, which I shall rephrase: no, the vegan lifestyle, when practiced solely for the reason of protecting "animal rights," does not reflect the Objectivist morality of rational selfishness. Vegans who give up the consumption of meat solely for their belief in animal rights are acting altruistically, giving up potential monetary value, nutrients and pleasure, for the benefit of animals who do not actually possess rights. If a Vegan has alternate reasons for not eating meat or does not value the consumption of meat at all, then he would not be acting altruistically, in which case he would be acting selfishly but his reasoning might still be irrational or rational depending on the person. 4. Why limit it to companies? If one’s mind could be controlled by others so easily, there’s an unlimited number of ways in which people could be targeted, and there’s nothing a government would be able to do about it. I don’t know enough about this subject to comment on the strength of subliminal messages, but from what I do know, they’re not all that powerful. Also, in the case of hypnosis, which might not be exactly what you’re referring to but I’ll use it as an example anyway, the subject must allow himself to be hypnotized. 5. Dr. Peikoff is right. People have the right to discriminate, even if they’re discrimination is irrational. The state does not have a moral right to control who a person hires for the same reason they don’t have the right to control who a person allows in his house or on his property. Even if the government had such a right, it would be impossible to go inside an employer’s head and know his reasoning for hiring a person. Besides, in a free market scenario, a company that bases its hiring policy on a superficial trait such as skin color would not last long. 6. For the same reason that private charities exist today. Many people get a selfish pleasure out of helping others, and there are many ways people can benefit from helping others. I am willing to give money to cancer research, for example, because I have a selfish desire to see a cure discovered. I could have a selfish reason to help my neighbor when he’s in need because one day I might be in a position where I would need his help. 7. The government’s duty is to protect people from other people. It is not their job to protect the “environment.” If someone’s impact on the environment can be directly linked to the damage of another person’s health or property, and if the value of the damage is at least somewhat quantifiable, then the government has the right to penalize the aggressor and award judgment to the victim based on the evidence presented in the court of law. This is as far as the governments responsibility over the environment goes. As far as broader issues such as the pollution of large bodies of water and large scale air pollution, the government’s job is harder but the principle remains the same: it’s the government’s job to protect people from people, and if manipulation of nature is used as a mean to destroy another’s property or health, the government has a right to intervene. I accept the fact that when a large company pollutes on a very large scale, it can be hard to pinpoint exactly how it has harmed each individual victim, and how responsible the company is for the health issues that they may have contributed to, since there are usually other factors that contribute to a person's health. I for one think that companies that cause these problems should be held accountable. But I don’t agree with regulating their business based on a million different environmental theories and opinions as is done today. When the damage is done, the state can intervene. 8. There is disagreement among Objectivists (at least those that I’ve talked with) in regards to the Iraq war. There is a large variety of opinions about whether the war should have happened and how it was handled, whether the war was morally justified or just poor strategy. My personal opinion is that the war with Iraq was morally justified, but it was the wrong strategic move. The US should have invaded Iran, which was a more serious threat, and remains the number one threat to this day. I also think that Bush handled the invasion poorly and cost America a lot more lives than it would have in what could have been a short and swift operation with far fewer American deaths. Some Objectivists may argue that the US had no moral right to go to war at all. If you’re looking for a unified Objectivist position on the Iraq war (and war in general) you won’t find it here.

The pursuit of pleasure alone is not a coherent ethical theory. You cannot feel pleasure without having values to begin with. Any system of ethics that begins and ends with pleasure ( aka hedonism) makes no sense. The pleasure you feel reflects the values you have chosen. Hedonism doesn't address values, only the end result of achieving them. One doesn't have to live a moral or productive life to merely achieve pleasure, if his values allow that to happen. For instance, one could acquire pleasure from cutting himself or torturing small animals because that's what he values in life. Sure, it gives him pleasure, but according to Hedonism this is a perfectly fine way to live.

If everyone could inherit billions of dollars and live a life of leisure without working, that would be all good and well. But only a select few can inherit so much wealth. The purpose of philosophy is to teach man how to live. Whether or not there is a tiny handful of people who don't need to be productive to earn money doesn't say anything about the value of Objectivism or any other philosophy for that matter.

Thank you. I like a lot of your choices but I would not put Ayn Rand on the list. While her works are very valuable, I think there are plenty of people who have had a larger influence. Some names that come to mind are: Einstein, Newton, Victoria, Churchhill and Da Vinci. Rand could very well go down as one of the most influential figures at some point in the future, but currently she's largely overshadowed in mainstream politics by the Keynesians, socialists, and the religious, and has not yet been properly received by academia. All this must change before I would consider her as one of the most influential people of all time.

If your goal is to help employees, you should support the removal of minimum wage laws, because it is these very laws that keep people unemployed.

No, eminent domain laws are not justifiable.

Challenge: compile a top 10 list of the most positively influential people in history, and a top 10 most negatively influential people in history. By "most influential people" I mean those whose ideas and/or actions have inspired the most significant cultural/intellectual movements on the largest scale. The value of his ideas and actions (which can be either positive or negative, determining which list the person belongs to), the number of people on which they had an effect, and the significance of the application of the his ideas are the main criteria in determining someone to be the "most influential." I don't yet know how my lists would look, but I have decided on who I would pick for #1 on both lists. Most positively influential: Aristotle Most negatively influenial: Jesus Christ Agree/disagree? Show me your lists.