Mexigogue

Because the only people who can afford it are the people who have committed the sin of being successful and productive. I guess making money is a sin. Hey if it's a sin to be rich then the poor should be happy for being virtuous. But then again. . . by hogging up all the virtue for themselves, aren't they then being greedy? That tax is another terrible law by the way.

The symbolism was that a mind cannot be forced to think.

Sweeeet! Does this mean we're going to see some booby pics in National Geographic again?

Forgive me for my ignorance if this subject has been addressed in Rand's other writings, I've only read Atlas Shrugged, I'm not yet familiar with the rest of her work. But isn't it her contention that violence should only be used on those who would be violent with you? So the rationale for a pre-emptive strike against a people would be ethical if those people were likely going to attack America. But would a pre-emptive strike against a people still be ethical if they were not planning to attack the US but instead was simply opposed to US intevention in their part of the world? I'm accustomed to thinking about Objectivism as rejecting wanton ass kicking but the members seem pretty bellicose on this thread.

I was only guessing on the 20. My point was that it is a small percentage of extremists that taint the whole billion or so Muslims. Blowing up Indonesia would be unethical because it would involve killing the 99% of non-violent Muslims in order to get to the violent 1% (I made those numbers up too). Anyway it would be kind of like exterminating all militia people because of the likes of Timmy McVeigh. Thanks for the help on quoting btw.

Okay, how many people out there are actively trying to kill America? Probably 20. 21 if you count Brittney Spears. The vast majority of angry Muslims probably would be content if the US stopped actively involving itself in the Middle East.

I can't say that I've read any attempted refutations to Objectivism but somebody did bring up one issue. They said if everyone is exchanging value for value and if we are to reject charity, then what is to be done about the mentally retarded people without families? Are they to be left to fend for themselves? I suggested that we give them a spot at the zoo and have them dance for nickels but perhaps someone who is more familiar with Objectivism and Ayn Rand's writings might have a better answer to this.

Sun Tzu also said "When the enemy is strong, avoid him."

You've got it on videotape but the judge won't allow the tape into evidence.

I'm not a fan of following law for the sake of law. The law is a tool to uphold justice. When that aim fails, therein lies the inclination to vigilante justice. Another example would be the acquital of O.J. For those who think he's guilty the fact that he was judged not guilty does not make it so. If O.J. were to be murdered in secret it would certainly be illegal. There are many who would claim that it was also moral. A better example would be the question if you knew an aquaintance stole your CD but you could not prove it in court, would you snatch the CD back if you had the opportunity? With this example we avoid the quandry of whether capital punishment is ethical or not.

No. I just want to be paid in pancakes. Pancakes aren't inherently evil are they?

I'm going to have to disagree. When people are denied the right to the very basest of property rights (right to the self) I hold that the law is unjust and must be disobeyed. In this case I would be a vigilante capitalist. I would help hide runaway slaves on their way up north. But if they offered me thanks I would be like don't give me accolades, I'm not helping you out of charity. Now bring me some pancakes and Cream of Wheat!

By this rationale it was immoral for northerners to help runaway slaves because they chose to live in a country that allowed slavery. The law should reflect ethics, it does not create it. That said, if I were judge and a man came before me who was accused of killing someone who had murdered and was acquitted, I would say he was guilty but the situation is a mitigating factor. Five dollar fine!

Thank you! I'm finding that my ignorance is more extensive than I once thought. I must do some more reading.

I've had the same experience as far as having friends who have read it and it just didn't click. In fact when I first read it I was raving to my brother (who has socialist tendencies) about the book he said he was going to read it. Then his politically left friends gave him the Retards' Review of the book and after that he discounted it without reading it. It probably wouldn't have clicked with him either. I heard him once say in the middle of a diatribe about minimum wage "You either care about people or you don't!" I thought to myself "Put me down for don't." Not in a sociopath sort of way but as far as the fact that the first consideration about a system should be whether or not it works, not whether or not it addresses need. Let me stop preaching to the choir. Hey out of curiousity, being new to this site, wherein lies the split between Objectivists and Libertarians?