Reason_Being

Paul McKeever also has a youtube channel http://www.youtube.c...deo-mustangbase

Does he not realize he hasn't been the president for over 30 years? What's he doing communicating directly with foreign dictators? This guy needs to shut up and learn his place, even if he has no sense.

I respect him for speaking the truth but I don't support those specific laws.

simply ask the accuser to either define the word "cult" or "Objectivism" If they believe that Oism is a cult, they must not know how to define one of both those terms.

If you accept the need for objective law, and the protection of individual rights as being the only legitimate use of force, it would logically follow that you believe in an agency with a monopoly on the legal use of force (government). My reasoning is this: if there are competing agencies with access to force, it would mean that there would be a variety of different standards of what constitutes a moral application of force being played out in a sort of marketplace for private "security" agencies. If all of these agencies accepted the concept individual rights then there would be no need for them to compete. Unless they are competing to offer a better service than their competitors while sticking to the protection of individual rights... but that's precisely what a democratic government backed by a proper constitution is (or should be) to begin with. If one party fails to uphold the constitution, then the public votes in (hires) a different one to take its place. But in anarchy, these agencies would be offering different services from one another, meaning some might accept individual rights and the others not. If you are someone who believes in individual rights, you would hire and support that agency which strives to protect those rights, and you would also want them to beat out the rest of the competition and have a monopoly so that you could live in freedom. Hence, you would want them to form a government.

"OWS is not seeking more government, it is seeking less. It is seeking a separation between private enterprise and government. Objectivists should be all for this." Absolutely not. If these people had even the slightest clue, they would be protesting for a separation between government and economics. But in reality they're an eclectic group of leftists and "libertarians" who have swallowed the mainstream, anti-capitalistic explanation for the financial crisis, protesting for all sorts of different reasons, many of which have to do with the rich not paying their "fair share" of taxes, and a belief that we need MORE regulations which means more government. The mere fact that they call themselves "Occupy Wall Street" shows where they're comming from... it's not an anti-socialist/anti-fascist angle, but an anti-capitalist angle (even if the majority of them wouldn't be able to correctly define the word "capitalism" if you were to ask them). A good number of them might really be for separating government from private enterprise, but I think that the bulk of this movement is people who think that the rich aren't getting taxed enough.

The intensity had been notched up to eleven the past couple weeks. This season took a while to get going as far as plot is concerned, but damn the build up was worth it!

I never quite understood the categorization of fascism as a "right wing" ideology. I've always though of fascism as being any form of government control over the private lives of individuals, and socialism being a particular brand of fascism.

If a factory harms the health of people who live near it or damages their property, the owners of that property can make a legitimate claim that the company is violating their individual rights (although that also depends on the circumstances under which the people acquired that property. If the factory was there first, I don't know what the company's moral obligations are). Objectivism doesn't hold that people can do whatever they want to the environment if that means directly harming other people or damaging their personal property. In cases such as these, the company owners would only be obliged to pay for the value that they've destroyed, as determined by the court of law, directly to those who they have violated. No general health tax is justified. As for companies that sell unhealthy food, it's up to the consumer to decide if he wants to buy it. The only obligtation of the company is to disclose any health risks associated with the consumption of its products. After that, it's up to the consumer to weigh the risks and decide for himself if he wants to purchase the product. There is absolutely no justification for a health tax associated with selling unhealthy food. If a company fails to disclose health risks associated with their food and it ends up making someone ill, then that is a violation of the consumer's rights, and the consumer has the right to press charges against the company. But anything the company owes is to the person that it violated, not the government in the form of a tax. Also, "unhealthy" means different things to different people, and not everyone minds eating unhealthy food to begin with. Many people choose less healthy food on purpose according to their own individual needs and preferences. So even if they implemented such a tax, there would be no objective criteria for administrating it. Also, your claim that people have "no choice" but to buy these products is not supported by any evidence. On the contrary, people have 100% control over whether they buy hormone-infused meats. If you tell me that all the meat sold in supermarkets is unhealthy (which would be a ridiculous claim), then that would only be because there is no demand for your standard of healthy meat.

You are saying that citizens must be able to make rational decisions, but forcing people to pay for something that they would not otherwise pay for out of their own accord directly contradicts the citizen's ability to make rational decisions. In essense, you're saying that people are unable to make rational decisions therefore the government must force them to make decisions that the government decides are rational, so that the recipients of this forced charity can one day make rational decisions. I think that is absurd. You are denying them that right by making decisions for them. This is a contradiction. You are suggesting that the preservation of liberty requires compulsion, which is the destroyer of liberty. At the end of the day, yes it would be wonderful if everyone had a good education and were taught to think rationally. To some extent, I agree with your argument that a rational population is necessary for a free society to exist. But I don't think that everyone in a society has to be well educated in order to have liberty. What really matters is whether there is a proper constitution in place and that the constitution is not legally open to the type of contradiction we are seeing in the US today (although I would agree that a generally rational population is needed to acquire such a constitution in the first place). But at the end of the day, liberty is dependent on how much people value their freedom. If people realize that lack of education is what has led to the current lack of liberty, it would be in their best interest to privately fund the education of the poor, and you simply have to hope that they do so. However, forcing someone to pay for the education of another is an act of imposition of your values on someone else through force, which is not morally justifiable and not in accordance with the concept of liberty which you're trying to achieve through public education.

So, in an Objectivist state, if one doesn't pay a tax his contract is not legally binding? What happens if he's cheated or if there's a contract dispute? What options does he have?

The bolded part - what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that people would have to pay a tax for the government to enforce their contracts? Wouldn't that go against the principle of voluntary taxation?

Firstly, I don't know how useful it is to analyze humor while ignoring the passive role of the listener. It is first and foremost important to understand the nature of humor and laughter. So I suggest that before you begin to answer this question, you should attempt to identify what laughter is and its role in the human psyche, as well as its evolutionary roots. Humor is unique from other art forms in that it's not as analytical. For example, when you read literature or look at a painting, there's a very active analytical process which goes on in your mind before you judge it. You must consciously concretize the values being expressed through the artistic medium. While this process falls on the lap of the audience, the artist must be aware of this process during the process of creating the art. Just like a comedian must understand what makes something funny before he can make effective jokes. But with humor it’s more of a knee-jerk reaction. Either something’s funny or it’s not. The second you have to stop to determine whether a joke or story is funny, it ceases to be funny. So unlike other forms of art, the mechanism for judging humor is whether it makes one laugh. Understanding laughter is the key. The values expressed in the joke are also integral to the joke’s success, but consider this: the exact same phrasing of a particular joke can be hilarious or totally unfunny depending on the style in which the joke is delivered. Therefore it’s not the just the content of the joke that determines whether it’s good because the slightest inflection in tone on the part of the joke-teller can determine whether the listener laughs or cringes. Delivery is everything. I have little doubt that humor is an art form. But the fact that we use laughter (or at least the particular enjoyment that laughter brings us) as a standard of judgment makes it fundamentally different from other forms of art.

This part was a shame:

I don't really understand the point of getting tattoos, but I think a silhouette of the Atlas symbol on your shoulder blade would look pretty tight.

I fail to see how Objectivism rejects or is in any way incompatible with homosexuality. Whoever told you this just doesn't understand the philosophy at all. The only way one could come to such a conclusion is to claim that reproduction is required for the attainment of personal happiness, and since gay people don't reproduce that would make homosexuality immoral (assuming homosexuality is a choice, which is not entirely true). But Rand never claimed that reproduction is necessesary for personal happiness and there is no evidence or reason to assume that one has to have children to be happy. Lots of people choose not to have children and that doesn't make them immoral. I know that Rand said something along the lines of homosexuality being immoral but that is not something explicitly stated in Objectivism, nor can it be validated by Objectivist ethics. it's just one of a few unreasonable things she said at some point in her lifetime. I think she probably believed that homosexuality is a psychological disorder -- a belief that was commonly held by psychologists in her era. In fact, homosexuality was actually considered a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association up until the 1970's or 80's. So please don't let some offhand remark affect your opinion of her philosophy.

As RationalBiker has stated above, just because it's not a violation of anyone's rights doesn't mean it's necessarely moral. And I'm ignoring all the crime that goes along with the drug trade for the purposes of my question. For instance, on the drug user's part it is certainly immoral to ingest crystal meth even though they have the right to do so. On the drug dealer's part, he has the right to supply the user with drugs, but I don't believe it is moral to assist other people in killing themselves with addictive drugs.

This is one of my favorite shows of all time. Feel free to discuss anything about this show in this thread, but my main purpose in writing this is a philosophical question. I am curious to see what you guys think about the morality of the main character, Walter White. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the premise of the show is as follows: Walter White (a genius, middle-aged, underachieving chemistry highschool teacher) is diagnosed with terminal cancer. Upon finding out that he may only have months to live, he decides to apply his chemistry skills to manufacturing crystal methamphetamine in order to leave his family with enough money after he dies (because you can make a ton of money selling drugs). The drama progresses a lot and his motives change over time, but purely based on the original premise stated above, do you guys think that the character is moral or immoral? I believe that selling/manufacturing deadly addictive drugs like crystal meth or heroin is immoral (I still believe it should be legal as the individual has every right to put what he wants in his body). I don't see how it's moral to knowingly sell someone addictive poison, even if the buyer is aware of the risks (although that is an assumption). Walter White, however, gets into the illegal drug trade for the sole purpose of providing for his family (a son and wife with a baby on the way) because he could not bare the thought of leaving his family poor and in debt, viewing his family's financial security as his responsibility. So basically it comes down to a matter of values. Walter's value of his family's well-being outweighs his value of the addicts who will be buying his deadly substances. And considering he believes he only has months to live, his family would likely take over as his primary value instead his own life. Does this mean his actions are morally justifiable according to Objectivist ethics?

She definitly had a knack for completely demolishing people in debate. I get a kick out of watching those youtube videos of talk show interviews where she would just stomp on the host's or audience members' arguments without even taking one second to think up her answer. It would be hilarious to see her go up against today's college know-it-alls who can barely string together a coherent sentence but think they have the world figured out.

If there were a complete and total separation of state and economics, it would be impossible for even the largest, richest corporation to wield any political power at all. Let's look at where this idea of corporations buying political power comes from... Take the beurocratic position of "Finance Minister" for example (a position which does not exist in an Objectivist government). The finance minister has access to force to control the economy. Today, a rich company can potentially buy him off and get access to that government force. Remove the finance minister and all the rest of the ridiculous, unethical beurocrats and there is nobody left for the corporation to buy off. The connection between private business and government power is cut off.

Conscription is unethical. Also I think that Israel would benefit more from hiring professional soldiers. It would be in their best interest to ditch the whole conscription thing.

Dewey is nonsense. His "democracy in the classroom" idea (on which his entire educational philosophy is based) is not rooted in any rational principles or scientific understanding of the psyche of the young, developing brain. He basically extended the idea of democracy in its purest form to the classroom, limiting the progress of individual students to the progress of their classmates. His philosophy is also the biggest influence on the modern day American public school curriculum. As far as I'm concerend, the greatest educator was Maria Montessori. Montessori was sort of the opposite of Dewey. She believed that each individual student should be encouraged to reach his maximum potential, and she went to much greater lengths than Dewey ever did in order to foster her form of education, including inventing new materials and creating a very unique learning environment.

As Nigel said, the private sector does have interest in funding space exploration and other scientific ventures. I truly believe we will have commercial space flights in the next 10-20 years. It is a complete myth that the private sector can't or won't drive the wheels of science. There always has been an incentive to conduct scientific research. Just look at all the different private industries that employ scientists: pharmaceutical and drug companies, processed food companies that need to invent food additives or just look at the label of your shampoo bottle and you will realize all the chemistry research that went into producing the product. Also, technology companies are constantly innovating. Look at how far computer science and engineering has come in the past few decades… that was all fueled by private investment and entrepreneurial incentives. Science is a major part of the economy and to claim that government spending is required to keep science going is just pure lunacy. As far as larger scale ventures such as space travel, there is no reason to assume that it won’t be done privately. It may seem that way now because private space travel is a big leap from where we are today due to the immense cost of conducting space flights. But if the cost is too high for individual entrepreneurs then that also must mean it’s too expensive for government. As science progresses, the materials and labor involved in space flights will become cheaper just like computer technology has become much cheaper. Once it becomes affordable, I have every reason to assume that private space flights will become common. For the sake of argument let's suppose it were true that the private sector isn't interested in investing in science, and one argues that government funding via taxation is required to keep the wheels of science moving. First of all, if such a scenario were taking place it would mean that individuals are not interested in investing in the sciences for whatever reason. Whatever that reason may be it would have to have some rational explanation because people make economic choices based on their rational self interests. It would also mean that government, for the good of "society," (or the collective) is telling the individual that he must fund a given science project against his will, because "society" requires these investments to progress. However "society" is simply a collection of individuals. "Society" itself is an abstract and does not exist. It is individuals who exist and who, out of their own rational self-interest, choose to interact socially and economically. So when someone says that government is needed to fund what individuals are unwilling to invest in, for the good of society, it is a contradiction because it’s like saying “individuals can’t see the rationale in this investment, but a collection of individuals can.” It’s basically a way to create imaginary value. If individuals don’t see any value in a given investment, there’s no way that value will magically arise if you substitute the word “individuals” for “society” because they both mean the same thing. Another argument for separating state and science is the fact that every time government gives money toward a given science project means that they must take money away from another project. As a result, the way it is today is that the majority (represented by the government) decides what science projects are worth studying. Not only does this infringe on scientists’ freedom because they are forced to direct their focus on whatever projects the government happens to be funding, but it also hurts science as a whole since scientists are forced to go against their better judgment and ride the course that the government is steering for them. Rather than studying what they have a personal interest in or see value in, they must study what “society” has deemed important. If individual scientists do not value a given science project enough to study it, there is no way that the government can create value in it, for reasons stated earlier in my post.