Atlas-

I don't know what you're saying yes to nor what the 'best enemy of the better' means. But I'm not saying vote for the greater evil, I'm saying don't vote for evil at all. By your own admission both are very far from your views. Why give to support to someone who you believe is the antithesis of America. Yet again I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'the best the ally worst' but I presume your talking about abstaining letting the other person win. But that's not always true. I'm sure there are people similar to you who voted for Obama instead. My point is that there are people who share very similar beliefs that have gone both ways. If all those people had instead abstained or voted for someone more closely linked to there ideals they would have a greater impact. But your choices aren't Greater evil or slightly lesser evil. It's greater evil, slightly lesser evil or no evil. I am referring to your 'true Americans' I presume your not saying that Americans seek permission to do morally wrong acts so I don't know what you're talking about. Abstaining didn't win Obama the election, people voting for Obama did. This is based on flawed logic. You are saying that everyone gets the Government they deserve. This isn't true in the slightest. for a start at least 49% of Americans didn't get the Government they wanted. Government works off the majority, and the candidates. Just because some candidates I don't agree with got voted in by a lot of people I don't agree with doesn't mean it's a government I agree with or deserve.

I feel the need to step in here and remind people about something Rand said "Ones side is right, one side is wrong but the middle is always evil" She strongly opposed the idea of compromise and that's exactly what you're doing. You have joined an organisation that does not represent your views and voted for a candidate who does not hold your ideals. Rather than voting to keep the "evil" Obama out of office by electing by your own admission the slightly less evil Romney. Why not find a candidate who actually represents your views. If you can't then abstain. Settling for the lesser evil gets no where. You merely encourage the evil. 'True Americans' as you put it would vote for neither as both are the antithesis of the American ideals whether it's freedom of the markets or freedom of your own body. The only way to send the candidates and the party's a message is to stop voting for them. They don't see your vote as someone who only half agrees with them. They see it as your fully fledged support. It is only by voting for those third party candidates against the odds that change ever happens.

Yes but that's before people started to take the government and company's to court so they could just stick a road through their field. These days if you try to build a road you could buy up 50 of the 52 houses in the way before the last 2 houses decide they think the house is worth 3,4,5 times it's actual value. What choice does the company have but to pay these extortionate amounts or not finish the road. and if the amounts are truly extortionate they won't be able to pay. Tell me one place in the UK where you can build a road without going through someone property?

I understand what you're saying but if their wasn't seizure of property would wouldn't be able to build any roads at all. One guy in the corridor could demand an extortionate amount and the company would have to pay or abandon the whole project. I understand property rights are inviolate but then we would haven't roads.

Does the Government have the right to take the property of it's people? For lines of communication such as roads and railways it is possible for the government to take the property off people to make way. They are paid for it but the point is they may not want to sell.

Can someone explain humour for me from an objectivist's point of view, what is rationally funny?

Sorry but this is completely wrong, you obviously no nothing about evolution. Evolution is a selfish process carried out by genes. It is the function of the gene to try and replicate itself, think about how cells work they divide themselves and expand. It is the same with genes. When they started out genes where merely a bunch of chemicals. The most successful ones where those that managed to reproduce at the fastest rate and with the least variation. To much variation and they will no longer be the same, too slow and there wont be enough. It was only when the genes started to form machines to work for them that celled and multi celled organisms where born. By working in it's own interest the gene is able to succeed and reproduce. I have only explained it briefly here for more info read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

I was asking about the moral problem not the specifics. If you really want to know, the conduits are humans who posses a certain gene. This allows them to absorb ray field energy and give them powers. The powers themselves very from person to person. This gene also makes them invulnerable to the plauge, which is also caused by ray field radiation. the gene is present in 1/1000 humans.

Playing Infamous 2 recently and the end choice made me think. *SPOILERS* You are given the choice to: !1.save the human polulation from a plague that you started but kill all conduits at the same time (1/1000) 2.save the conduits (1/1000 humans posses the conduit gene) at the costs of the rest of the human race I know it's a video game and that the conduits have powers and all that but the situation is apllicable to real life, just in a different context. So what would you choose?

In answer to the first question it's because they are told that it is the right thing to do, all through life we are told that the only reason to succed is to be a slave to those who's can't, and so when they have so much money they think back on what they where told and try to appear moral infront of the moochers. In answer to the second question, Money is the door to happieness, If a ferrari would make you happy then buy a ferrari, that is what men work towards, lots can make men happy and I don'tthink anyone has enough to purchase it all.

I realise what you are all saying but the fact still remains when you make a choice, whether it's what you want to eat for breakfest, set out to world domination or to focus, what made you make that choice? It is the infomation you have aquired and deduced. This info has come to light and is true because of the actions of someone or something. If not for this infomation than consciously or subconsciously you're descion would be changed. When you come into the world there is aloready a host of info out there. I have chosen to think rationaly yes, but if I had not experienced that which I did then I might no have. Then again I had to experience those things because of the colliding of two atoms billions of years ago. Think of it this way, if you rewind a tape then it still plays the same thing no matter how many times you do it. Life is the same people where always going to make those choices based on the choices made by others. I don't want to belive this and thats why I'm asking but I can't deny reality.

PSN Who-s_John_Galt, mostly play bioshock

I totally agree with you here. Having listened to Eminem my life has changed dramatically. When I feel down or depressed I just sit back and turn him on. Lose yourself is my personal favour.

Alturism requres self sacrifice. If you could ave people buy moving your finger then there would be no sacrifice on your part so it would be foolish not to. As for the first scenario. If you pay for there food you are saying that they are free to waste there money till they have nothing left, while you are forced to work for them because of their incompetence. The wealth of the person does not matter the same principle applies. "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - John Galt

My bad on the previous threads. I still don't see how what we are is not just the culmination of previous events and as such the nature of man as a heroic is being is moot.

But the descions you make are based of you're experinces which were inturn based off causes of actions and so on. Yes the mind can think but only by using the infomation that it has obtained from effects of causes.

In answer to the question on abortion. Potential for human life does not entail a right to it. Every sperm in your body has the potential to become a baby but that does not mean you are a muderer when you don't have sex. It is the prescence of a rational mind that entails men to human rights. If you got a collection of chemicals that make up a man and put them in a jar it would not be entitled to rights. IT is the same with zygotes and fetuses, they are not consiecse, they could become consiece but so could the jar if it went through an infinte amount of time (being ingested and turned into DNA and such.)

@Dante Is that the banker who made all of his workers read Atlas Shrugged?

If somone is a socialist then it is very unlikely that you will be able to swing them away from it with an argument based on logic. Seeing as there aren't any other types of argument it can be difficult. I would have to agree with reccomending Rand though, it's what convinced me.

I have read them and have responded with my views on the matter. Just because I did not put quotes in didn't mean I wasn't replying.

Iff all actions have causes and all those causes have actions, and we make our descions based on things we have seen/hear/felt and so on then where does free will come from? are we all not just a line of dominos being knocked down by those before us like those before them?

If I 'Government' violates the rights of it's citizens it is not a government as the role of the government is to protect the rights of it's citizens. Instead it is a group of thugs retaining power through the barrel of a gun. The citizens have no more forfeited their rights than those who live in a neighborhood ruled by the mafia. Nothing can ever justify the killing civilians. If they are involved in the war effort whether it's making the guns or firing them then they are no longer they are enemy military personal. The only moral justification for attacking another country is that they are initiators of force whether against you or there own citizens. By attacking civilians you become the initiator of force and as such lose the moral high ground.

Because the water would have to be dived into privet property it would be the discretion of the owners on what the regulations are, it would of course be in their best interest to have some to stop their land from becoming useless.

The money from the sales should go to pay off all the ridiculous debts governments have accumulated first and then go into it's proper function like all income, that being the enforcement of law.

You can't have public property it's a contradiction in terms for it to be property it must have an owner and as the 'public' has no control over what happens on public land.