aleph_1

Could you be a little more specific about the question?

Units are not concepts.

Your hypothetical assumes that I will not have a thriving existence without theft of the given device. This assumes that I do not have brain enough to produce the values that I need to have a thriving existence; that I have to forcibly take the product of someone else's mind and effort in order to have a thriving existence. I assert to you that thriving does not come through theft. The thriving life is the result of one's virtues. The consequence of virtuous living is self-respect. No self-respecting person lives through theft. You have dropped the context that I have more capacity to produce than I typically exhibit. This capacity is a consequence of the Law of Surplus Capactiy: Every creature must be capable of producing more than it needs to survive. If this law is not true for some living creature, then that creature would die out at the first famine. Given that the Law of Surplus Capacity is true, I deny the premise of your hypothetical. Concerning government (and other) takings, the initiation of force is evil whether the perpetrator gets away with it or not. The victims have the right to respond with equal force--a right that comes from their very existence. Since the unique power of government is the lawful weilding of weapons against the populace, the power of government should be carefully limited. Government may quickly become an agent of evil. You say that a government's actions are moral if there are no consequences, the implication being that "might makes right". This is context dropping in that it assumes acquiescence is the same as being moral. The people reserve the right to overthrow their governmental oppressors as George III learned in America. If this is a rare instance, it is because we are a primitive and unevolved species, slow in understanding objective morality, frame-bound by our primitive conceptions of morailty. The Law of Surplus Capacity implies that no creature need steal in order to provide for its daily sustenance and thriving. Since theft is an initiation of force, it is evil in most circumstances. The more governments steal from their citizens, the more they should be afraid of an internal revolt. (Vitae et ratiocinari.)

Yes, and yes.

For whom does morality exist? Morality is of no use to you if it acts against you. A proper morality cannot be imposed arbitrarily upon and against you. Just as it is not possible for a panel of experts to decide what ice cream I should eat, so no panel of experts can determine my values and consequently my virtues. My values are a matter of choice. The virtues I choose to employ to attain those values are also mine to determine. Just as each person has an individual physiology, so each person must have an individual value system. This allows each person to express their individual virtues. That's the sort of world I want to live in.

If you read the example that I gave above, you would know that stealing may be good in some contexts. You should interpret CT2000's statement within the context of how stealing is normally experienced. This means that CT2000 may have been thinking of stealing within a particular context. To overgeneralize as you have done is not fair to CT2000's point.

CriticalThinker2000 may have been responding to your question within a particular context. (Remember, we must not drop context.) I cannot answer for another person. Morality pertains not only to the continuation of existence but also to a thriving existence according to one's nature. Choices outside of this context are morally irrelevant. For example, whether I eat a vegeburger tonight or have spaghetti are morally irrelevant. However, it is important that I eat, and it is also important that I enjoy what I eat. My actions that acquire food that I enjoy are morally virtuous. However, one cannot morally pursue existence at arbitrary costs to oneself and others. To sustain myself by eating my neighbors pets would not, in the long run, serve my interests. To steal a nuclear detonator from a terrorist, given the opportunity, would.

Actually, the Germans bombed first: London, 8/24/1940. It was in retaliation for this that the British bombed Berlin on 8/25/1940. Hitler retaliated with the London Blitz starting on 9/7/1940. It could not be known by the British that the bombing on the 24th was a mistake. What is more, the Blitz was not Hitler's first use of bombing for terror against civilian populations. Bombing of Polish civilians started on 9/1/1940. The Jewish quarter in Warsaw was targeted and set ablaze that month. On 5/14/1940, the Germans started the Rotterdam Blitz, devastating the city. The first "terror raid" by the British against the Germans didn't occur until 12/16/1940. Despite that you are factually wrong on every point, I would like for you to observe that I have not stated a position concerning the present discussion. I am just pointing out that sadly, your hatred is unfounded.

I suggest that the production of hypotheticals concerning moral imperatives is not what is important. ( I can easily conjure up a half dozen such.) What is important is the recognition that morality is contextually related to one's dedication to existence, along with its requirements. Why don't you construct the ecample as a homework assignment, and then report your example along with your conclusions as a report?

It may be morally imperative to steal in some circumstances. Asking the question in the manner that you have is "context dropping". That is the trouble with answering your not-so-well-formed question. In a general sense, using the common understanding of what you might mean by "stealing", to steal is to take another's value without consent. In this way, you have taken the product of the other person's productive efforts and hence have appropriated their values without implementing the productive cause for the existence of those values, compensating the victim, or appealing to the mind of the victim. To steal is an attempt to cheat the Law of Causality. It takes a portion of another person's life without anything given in return. It treats the victim as less than human by by-passing any attempt at persuasion or trade. It is an act that if extrapolated to all men at all times would lead to the destruction of the entire human race in the course of a few days. As such, it is an act based on the principle of death and not of life. However, all of this must be interpreted within a context to be valid. Contextual exceptions will exist. One cannot say that as an absolute rule, "stealing is wrong". One can only state, as a general principle, that stealing is wrong in the most commonly observed circumstances.

There are a number of howlers here. First, the British suffered bombing at the hands of the Germans prior to any bombings by the Brits against Germany. What is more, initial British bombings were in daylight over industrial targets. Due to the high losses and inaccuracy, they opted for night area bombing. You are way off base with your false moralizing bumper stickers. Concerning the American bombing of Japan, if the US were bent on genocide, then why not drop a few dozen nukes and be done with it? The fact is that the US treated the Japanese with dignity after the war. Stick to facts and stop the false moralizing.

A sense of community, and a ready set of associates, talented musical performances; these are non-religious reasons for attending church. At some point, it seems dishonest. Do you make offerings? It seems fair to pay the price of admission for the entertainment. Those offerings support the aspects of religion you support. What about the portion of your offerings that support the teaching of intrinsicist values? Lack of critical thinking? Emotionalism? There may be a sense of loss for abandoning church. It is too bad that there are few well-developed societies advocating reason. It seems hopeless. Just consider the people you know. How many are interestingly intelligent? We are a primitive and unevolved species.

Couldn't you say more: That some aspects of religion and religious texts are "concretely real". Some historical aspect of religious texts are true accounts (though not all, to be sure). Some parables are valid and useful, based on the wisdom of life experiences. The problem is the philosophical basis for religious morality--not religious teachings, per se.

Phrased like a true collectivist. What part of the evolution of men was beneficial to the majority of apes? (In the first several millennia, there were far more apes than men.) Your phrase is so convoluted as to have no meaning. What do you mean by "prove"? How about "beneficial". Can't inferiors drive out their superiors? For those who have studied evolutionary ecologies, it is well-known that outcomes may be determined by initial conditions, and not anything "beneficial". (This was true of Beta vs. VHS. I'm not sure you even meant to say, "evolutionary". Perhaps you are trying to use middle brow Amerikan lingo.

I think that one can overplay one's hand here. One can and does quickly arrive at floating abstractions within mathematics. I believe that this discussion should be limited to a discussion of natural numbers. Primitive societies, such as existed in Europe during the dark ages, can lose sight of what "two means". As a result, you end up with differing words for this concept, such as a yoke of oxen, brace of geese, pair of threes in poker, a couple, duo, dyad, etc. Through a process of unit reduction, we can identify each of these concepts as representing and instance of "two". Such an identification might have seemed remarkable to a primitive consciousness. This does not mean that there is an isomorphism between Randian concepts and those within mathematics.

LOL! Indeed. "Use value" is in the eye of the beholder. By making an appeal to a floating abstraction, you are ruining the objective nature of your definition. At least your assertion that "money on the planet is Energy" can be comprehended, even if it can be shown to be false. Marx had to keep adding to his explanation of what "use value" is in order to confuse his readers into believing that they understood what he was saying.

It takes a great amount of energy to produce millions of buggy whips. Think of all the energy it takes to produce useless monuments! I propose the National Silicon Dioxide program. We would employ millions of people taking silicon dioxide (sand) from one locale, expend enormous amounts of energy turning it into large solid blocks (glass). Then we could ship these solids to random points, expend great quantities of energy to reduce the blocks to powdered form (sand), and think of all the energy expended and jobs produced. The answer is obvious. The Joule Economy is a chimera.

Morallity exists as principles that, if followed, support the continuance and enjoyment of your life. If you exercise, do you feel better? If so, then exercise is the moral thing to do. If you overdo it, then your body will tell you. If you drink that bottle of vodka each week, how does that affect you? Is that moral? The moral facts are written on our bodies and in our minds, for their health is the purpose of morality.

Disability insurance is just that--insurance. If you pay in for one month and receive a lifetime of benefits, you are getting what you deserve. Yes, the current system is not set up like private insurance and hence introduces moral hazard into the equation. However, this example may not serve your purpose well. Medicare is not really insurance but a defined benefit plan. That is a better example. Concerning restitution, the fraudulent way programs are constructed will someday, if we comply fully, undo themselves. Rand was consistent in complying fully to the fraudulent system of her day, as she recommended we do.

Wrong. Webster says, epic: a long narrative poem in elevated style recounting the deeds of a legendary or historical hero. B: a work of art (as a novel or drama) that resembles or suggests an epic. In the true sense of the word, Atlas Shrugged is an epic novel. Distorting the language does not advance your argument.

Ilya said, "If you do not want affordable healthcare, you can choose a private insurance." Don't you understand, collectivism turns productive people into louses? Like it or not, I'm what you get when you force me into Medicare when I turn 65. Every sneeze and ache has now become your responsibility. I'll comply with the system explicitly, but I'll take advantage of it to the limit. As retirement looms large in my future, watch out baby! The sky is falling. We don't have enough Uranium! Poppycock. You've been had.

What are those things? There are precious few things we cannot do on our own. If those things are maintaining courts to adjudicate disputes, a defensive military, and police who pick up the pieces after violent crime, then I agree with you. Otherwise, I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you. To live for the state is to sacrifice for others. This is the basis of all those failed value systems that litter history. They divide value from virtue and hence lead to bastard moralities that leave disappointment, frustration and horror in their wakes. The industrial innovations in the last decade alone show that we don't need NASA, the post office, etc. I want to pay for all services that I receive so that no dishonest strings remain attached. To the extent that I am forced into government health care, you can be sure that government doctors will have to treat every boil on my *ss. I demand the best and most abundant treatment your dollars can buy.

Ah, a racist National Socialist eventually outs himself.

Dream Weaver said: The irony is, my description applies to communists too. Communism, being based on whim worship, is force fused with a strain of irrationality. Consciousness is identification. The Law of Surplus Capacity (that creatures must be capable of producing more than they need for survival) enters this topic in that it makes irrationality possible. People (and all animals) may be very destructive as long as they produce as much as they need. If a group of people are productive, then someone may design to take that surplus. Is it rational to design to take the surplus of others? You may treat others as productive cattle as long as you do not kill the herd. However rational, this is evil.

Leaders, in order to place themselves in positions where they reap enormous benefits, weave myths. These narratives take many forms, but the purpose is the same--to make the masses compliant while these leaders exercise power. "Power" here is taken in the social sense: The ability to get other people to do what they would not do otherwise. Since myth is essential in maintaining these positions, it is equally essential that the general population not learn to distinguish between myth and reality. Perhaps this is why "reduction" is not standard procedure. Are you a compassionate conservative? What the H*ll does that mean? Do you have Hope and want Change? What?! These are just embarrassing in retrospect, but they hornswoggled a lot of people. Was Greenspan really indispensable through the 1990's? Was Timothy Geithner really the only man to run the Treasury Dept. in 2009? We weave myths about people to deflect opposition. Was an investment bank bailout really necessary in 2008 in order to prevent the collapse of the American economy? Has myth-making had an evolutionary advantage? Myths have permitted people to kill their neighbors and take their land without conscience. The Bible contains the story of Jericho, and whether this was a myth or somehow partially true, the story goes that the people were instructed, by God, to kill every man, woman, child and beast in the city. Muhammad instructed his followers to kill those who would not be converted. The 20th century saw many atheist leaders conduct their followers into mass murders. When your neighbors are dead, you certainly have the evolutionary advantage. Irrationality is not inevitable, but the rational are mostly peaceful. The irrational can only maintain themselves through force. Force can make an evolutionary advantage, reaping the surplus capacity of the rational and productive. The irrational tend to overreach and this leads to their downfall, and so the cycle begins again.