Dániel Boros

Yes but what will it take for government to respect rights? Good government is a result not a cause. If you say that people have no right to innitiate force legally or illegally it naturally follows that members of the govt. must be chosen. Computers cannot fill the role of the government and since people can't use force they have to choose a group that will have that right. The method of chosing will determine the effectiveness of government, that is why dictatorships tend to do worse than democracy in upholding rigths. I can move from my country. I am physically capable to choose my own government, and that is a good thing. But when I say I want to choose the police service I like, that is suddenly a bad thing. If all you need is competing initiators of force not killing each other, than all the government has to do is keep the peace by force. Why must I deal with government idiocy on a personal level?

Please refute this argument for me. Make the best argument you can. Something equally rhetorical as Craig's. Something more than merely pointing out his falacies. thanks

That makes sense. Even though I might feel like not doing something that doesn't mean that action isn't good objectively and vica versa. Lets say I have a fetish for killing green people on sundays. That is something that I shouldn't do even if I would like to do it. Lets say I am genetically predisposed to love my children and so I am happy when I am taking care of them. That is certainly not a bad thing, but I can't really say that it's a good thing since its just a different "fetish". Is it simply good because it is not bad?

The problem is not with the innitation of force but with question how and who chooses governemt. Every member of society has a right to vote even if the have no right to innitiate force on their own behalf. Democratic elections supposedly give that right to everyone, but in reality they don't. Sure democracy is better than dictatorship, but Does that justify to have elections once in only 4 years? In a free market people make decisions every day, every minute and every second. Is it alright to extend seconds to years? Its majority rules. In a free market even the needs of a single person will be met if he she is willing to pay for it. I have the right to choose my lawyer, but I can't choose the policeman who will look for my stolen bike. I have no way of knowing whether police did anything at all when I reported the theft. I have almost no alternative to the police. If I could choose from a number of services they would have to compete against each other. They would develop technics for finding lost property so that competition won't drive them out of business. More effective methods would mean less crime. In reality my right to choose my government is violated by the democratic system and... "You cannot uphold a principle by violating it."

I have played Mass Effect one, but I don't remember being either renegade or paragon as having much impact on me or the story. KOTOR 1 and 2 on the other hand had a rather strong impact. I usually played the light side. I tried to play the dark side as well, but I couldn't last long on that path. Probably because I always had light side Jedi in my group all the time, and they kept complaining about victims and greed and whatnot. In The Elder Scrolls Oblivion I managed to play an evil character probably because of the lack of teammates and moral system. I have to admit it was quite fun to play a remorseless assasin from the Dark Brotherhood once I got used to it. What strikes me about the Kotor type moral point systems is that the dark side isn't all that different from the good side. One is materialistic survival of the fittest the other is altruistic self sacrifice.

Thanks Definitions of human nature in objectivist philosophy tend to be incredibly vague. They emphasise the rational part and ignore the emotional. My problem is that humans will feel certain things in certain situations and act rationally to gain the object of their love or lust, but there's nothing that ensure that what their feelings makes them wish for is good for them. For example what if all man had anorexia? If your nature would be to not eat and act to achieve that, than you would die. If that is the case a person may do the wrong thing by not eating since such an action would not be in his own rational self interest. Objectivism denies all forms of predestination, and that includes genetic predestination as well, right? So what makes human nature good? Human nature is what it is and it isn't necessarily good. Or is it ?

By human nature I mean feelings, emotions and instincts. Do hunger, lust and emotions help us in making decisions or are they an obstacle to rationality. If they help, why? Do I eat to survive or do I eat because I am hungry? Which is right and which is wrong?

Gamers should protest a law such as this. All this will achieve is that people will go from legal servers to illegal ones. As if we didn't have enough of those already. This is insane. Seriously can't believe this.

No matter which country I go to policeman are never responsible for their actions. They always cleared of all charges and never punished. How could anything be worse than that?

Sorry I don't know that much. This is an example my law professor told me during class. Should be authentic. The case happened in Hungary. I will ask for more details when I can...

Yes but where do you draw the line between private and public, between markets and government? Government can forcibly restrain any private police force. What more could you possibly need to keep them from biting each others tongue? Government doesn't produce guns and all the stuff they need to operate, so why must they be the only service possible for the enforcement of the law?

Wrong. Since the murderer could not be determined both of them were found innocent on the charges of murder. They did get some punishment for illegal use of firearms though...

Two guys use a single rifle to shoot targets in their backyard. One of the bullets flies into the neighbours yard hits an old guy on the head and kills him. The two guys don't notice anything and continue shooting until the police arrive. The two shooters can't possibly know which one shot the old guy, so who is/are responsible for the crime and why? This story actually happened and I am aware of the outcome, but tell me what you guys think the verdict should be.

The thief might be blocking the view and if he moves the one behind might get shot. Also bullets can easily rebound and hit anyone who was not targeted or even seen.

er/sie/es - he/she/? by the way in Hungarian there's only "ő" no he or she and it can refer to both man and woman.

Your definition yes. Regardless of any definition I don't see many people calling others evil simply for making bad decisions... And? Why should the criminal pay for more than what he inflicted on himself? If unselfishness is the only evil in crime than why should the criminal pay for the pain of someone else? Wouldn't that be forced charity i.e. altruism? I doubt the criminal likes the victim, so... People have an exceptional interest in upholding human rights, therefore violation of these rights is not merely wrong but evil. There may be no scale that could differentiate between evil and wrong, but they are in the end still different. A scale with 5 pounds of gold on one side and 5 pounds of silver on the other would balance out, but they wouldn't be the same.

If "both" wrongs are one and the same why punish them differently? If hurting others is wrong because it hurts the person who does it, than why punish that person?

So the robber will be charged with attempted theft or theft and the owner with manslaughter? A drunk driver chooses to drive or at least to drink so I don't think if the driver kills a person he should be charged with the same felony as the shopkeeper. Doesn't seem fair. Sure the shopkeeper choose to retaliate, but that is his right in case of an emergency. In the case of the car accident the drunk driver is the cause of the emergency. One could blame the car for it, since the driver dis not directly hit anyone, but that would make no sense.

Here we go again... It has been said that government must monopolize force and therefore cannot operate the same way the free market does, since that would lead to violence. But is it really true that privatized enforcement of the law inevitably leads to violence between the private enforcers? Even if that is so is there no way to prevent such a scenario without a absolute governmental monopoly? Is there no way to limit the government even further so that they may not abuse their current position in which they and they alone may appoint the head of the police and courts. I propose a constitutional republic in which government cannot come into contact directly with its citizens. It would look like this: Public sector Democratically elected government, that has the power to write laws State Guards, who protect state employees and buildings Military, to be deployed against foreign enemies and to protect government buildings, if the state guards aren't enough They should have more fire-power than all the private security combined. Supreme court Secret Service Private sector Private Police to enforce the law. Anyone could run a police business, but they would have to abide by govt. regulations and laws. If the private police refuses to follow the law the supreme curt may issue a purge that would allow the state to make a contract with another police to capture or eliminate the lawbreakers. If that doesn't work, the military should step in as a final solution. Private Curts, to handle dispute. They would be contracted to the police. A person may contract and pay for the police, if he needs their service. Others such as charities or insurance companies may also pay the cost if applicable. The government would put on a tax on the private courts and private police as payment for the laws and that would be the only source of funding for the government in peacetime. The government may also hire the public police and courts if the government was damaged in some way. The private police would have to deal with government and market laws which should increase the quality of the service. This article is probably incomplete in many ways, but I think it has enough detail to it to start a conversation. Is there any reason why the proposed system could not work?

I see... that makes sense. Thanks

As far as I can tell those are the things objectivists regard evil and/or wrong, and since this is an objectivist forum I don't think I need to go into a detailed explanation of why they are regarded so.

Than evil is hurting yourself by hurting others and wrong is simply hurting yourself. That actually explains why evil is wrong

If a robber threatens me with a gun and tries to steal my money in my own shop and I retaliate with my own gun but accidentally shoot one of my customers who should be blamed? Me or the thief? And if the thief is to be blamed, does that imply that voters share responsibility for the crimes the people they have voted for commit?

If indoctrinating your children was evil, than the state would have a legit reason to intervene and state founded schools would be the only "good" schools. Does the parent have the right to select what his or her children will be thought, even if that something teaches something immoral? Yes of course, who else could have that right if not the parent? I am not saying that it is not wrong to teach altruism. I am merely suggesting that it is not evil. Yes but that doesn't mean an altruist won't have rights in a free society, or that an altruist will eventually take away someone's rights. Altruism is the public face of power hungry people. The lust for power over people is the real culprit. Some people are addicted to taking away people's rights, which is by my definition evil. Indeed but it is still not a crime. Is using drugs a crime? Crime has to do something with some sort of legal system I believe. Using the word "crime" outside of any implied legal framework is wrong. Yes but the nun only hurts herself and not someone else as well. Yes of course That is why both self sacrifice and crimes are "wrong".

Hurting of course, but not all rights apply to children, therefore it is not evil, since you cannot violate a right that does not exist. The right of free choice is limited to the extent of the parent's wishes.