thenelli01

Agreed. It obviously has nothing to do with race.

The difference is a knockout blow isn't tied to any specific concrete. If the caption read: "Watchout! Obamacare is going to knock you out! #Knockoutgame", then I think you might have a case. But knockouts in general refer to many different concretes, many of which are not offensive at all. For example, a boxing knockout, knockouts by comic book heroes, wrestling, etc.

I think we are talking past each other. When I hear someone call someone rational, I think fully rational (or rational in a certain context). When I hear someone call someone irrational, I think fully irrational (or irrational in a certain context). Why? Can't humans choose to not be ignorant? Can't they choose to learn all the relevant facts and then make decisions? Are you saying that humans are inherently ignorant?

I didn't equate murder and prostitution, I was simply pointing out that just because an act is upfront, honest, and clear, doesn't make it good. It is the nature of the act itself that needs to be considered. Again, I was speaking for myself. I am not talking about the OP or anyone else besides myself and my own situation. It is bad because I know 1) I would be psychologically scarred for at least a year thinking about STDs and 2) The knowledge of knowing, for the rest of my life, that I went to a prostitute for sexual services would make me think less of myself. I don't want to be associated with those types of persons or that life style in any way. You are paying someone to use their body for sex. It's essentially like paying someone to be your friend. The intimacy and connection, which I desire, isn't real.

It's also upfront, honest, and clear to threaten to murder someone and carry out the threat. I'm not getting into the detail of the OP, but for me, I have too high of esteem for myself to go to a random stranger and pay them to use their body. The knowledge that I did something like that would cause me to think less of myself, which is not worth the short-lived pleasure.

I read that differently. I don't think that he meant the experience would be embarrassing, but the fact that he went to an escort would be embarrassing (i.e. you might regret this later). I tend to agree. Not to get too personal, but I have done things (not with an escort) that I regret, and I hate that I did it, that I know that I did it, and would hate to explain it to my future partners if they asked.

Assuming this is something you are set on doing (not evaluating the morality of it), it would be much more practical (safe, cost-effective, less pressure) to just go to strip club if there is one in your area.

Rationality (or irrationality) is a choice. Neither is "inherent" in man. Man has a rational faculty, which means that he has the ability to be rational if he chooses. Some will choose to be rational, some will choose to be irrational. A society where everyone is perfect isn't going to happen.

What does it mean to be 'fully' rational?

No. The alternative to fully rational isn't "necessarily irrational". If someone isn't fully rational, that doesn't mean they are necessarily irrational. They aren't contradictory statements in the logical sense (i.e. if A is true, B is necessarily false). Most people are part rational, part irrational and to different degrees. A rational society usually means a society guided by rational principles. Not that every individual will be rational in every moment of their life. The latter point is silly and hard to address seriously. Rationality isn't something inherent in us - it is something learned over a long period of time, and to master and apply consistently is an enormous achievement. It requires constant focus and choice. I have yet to see one man who is fully rational, let alone 300+ million of them.

'Some people' is such a vague way to present a fact. Do you have evidence that someone specifically thinks this way? Can you provide quotes? I think most people (including myself) don't agree that it is an impossibility and (I) have qualified why. That is what you do when you come up with a conclusion, you provide the reasoning behind it, otherwise your words are effectively meaningless.

I don't think Crow was calling all men irrational. Man has volition, we aren't robots. This means that man can be irrational (and often is), and can choose not to think or evade or can come up with different conclusions than other men. There will never be a fully rational society because man has volition and rationality isn't effortless nor instinctual. To suggest a Utopian Objectivist Society where all men are rational even as a possibility is to suggest a fantasy world.

1st point is a strawman (or moot) - I never claimed that there wouldn't be free loaders. Can you cite where I did? My argument was to come up with solutions to limit the number of freeloaders. Your argument seems to be: "I can't think of anything to solve this issue, therefore, no solution exists. Freeloaders violate contributors' rights (which isn't true and has been disputed. There is no coercion, no matter how much you equivocate), therefore we need to come up with a system that violates everyone's rights." And as I stated before, it is in your interest to have a society that protects everybody's rights. Take this example: Man robs a woman who does not contribute. Her rights don't deserve to be protected, according to you. Therefore, a known robber is free, which is a direct threat to everyone in society. Well, thankfully the entire country isn't a private club (it is a geographical area made up of individual property owners) and you don't have to pay anything just to exercise your right to move. --- by the way, it is interesting to see an Objectivist(?) saying that the right to move isn't a right, it is a privilege granted by the state.

Strawman. (Again.....) Refer you to an earlier post: Ninth Doctor, on 03 Nov 2013 - 12:09 PM, said: CrowEpistemologist, on 04 Nov 2013 - 03:50 AM, said: Just to be clear: I am not claiming there will ever be a society of Objectivists or that people will automatically be rational. All I am saying is that the context in which a capitalist voluntarily funded government can be created and sustained necessarily is a society in which rational egoism is the dominant philosophical trend. This does not imply that all people will be rational or that they will even understand Objectivist principles fully (or at all). I never claimed that an Objectivist Society where all people act rationally automatically like robots will exist. I never even used the term "Objectivist Society", it was a straw man created and perpetuated by the above posters. ------ Do you read people's posts at all or just talk past everyone, even after you are refuted? The point of speaking of the dominant philosophical trend (rational egoism), which is a necessary and IMPLIED context for a sustainable voluntarily funded capitalist government, was to point out the OP was context dropping and to explain why funding won't be an issue. This does have implications for the freeloaders (namely, social pressures), but was not addressing that point directly.

I think what is being disputed is the hierarchical nature of the concept "Man's Rights". Because historically the concept of rights came from observing the failure of proto-governments (which we will take as true for purpose of discussion), does it mean that (the concept of) government is necessary to form the concept of Rights? Do you need the concept of government to be able to effectively use the process of reduction to bring the concept of Rights down to the perceptual level of reality? I think not. Although, I don't exactly know what Crow Epistemology is saying because he says something and then either denies that he said it or calls it a "semantics" issue. Edit: grammar

Crow, I think you are talking past everyone's posts and rationalizing. I am going to stop posting on this subject after I make this one last point: You are essentially claiming either that Rights do not come from Man's nature or that Man's nature could not be discovered without the context of government. Furthermore, according to you, there is no rational reason to create a government (originally) because the concept of Rights couldn't exist without the context of preceding, imperfect proto-governments. This is false.

It seems to me that you are saying the concept of rights couldn't exist outside of its historical context. You start (historically) by saying that proto-governments were formed. But, they didn't have to be. Was there a rational reason to create a proto-government? If so, why? And if an irrational or improper proto-government was never created, do you mean to say that the concept of rights could not exist? Why does a social context necessarily imply a government? If we are defining the freedom of action in a social context, couldn't this be done without any government and, instead, between two rational adults discussing moral philosophy? Are you saying we wouldn't be intellectually advanced enough to be able to come up with such a concept as individual rights without looking at the failures of past governments?

Why were proto-governments formed in the first place (properly, I mean)? Could the concept of rights exist without a proto-government? If a proto-government was not formed, would there be a need for a government?

If that was the case, then what was the purpose of creating the "proper government" in the first place? What was the need that would make a government necessary? Why does society need a government at all?

Just to be clear: I am not claiming there will ever be a society of Objectivists or that people will automatically be rational. All I am saying is that the context in which a capitalist voluntarily funded government can be created and sustained necessarily is a society in which rational egoism is the dominant philosophical trend. This does not imply that all people will be rational or that they will even understand Objectivist principles fully (or at all). I never claimed that an Objectivist Society where all people act rationally automatically like robots will exist. I never even used the term "Objectivist Society", it was a straw man created and perpetuated by the above posters.

Well, if you are speaking of voluntary taxation for a (sustainable) capitalist government, then the dominant philosophy must be rational egoism because it is the only moral justification for capitalism, and the government will reflect the morality of its voters (That doesn't mean that everyone will act rational or understand rational egoist principles). So, I don't think it is limited to good intent. But, what would be necessary for a voluntary taxation system to work (without getting into the specific structure) is complete laissez faire capitalism because it is the only government that does not put any controls on man (except by retaliating against the initiation of force). So, if government attempts to use force on man or give others special privileges, they will not want to donate because the government will be acting outside of individual man's self interest and, instead, be giving out favors to some group. People not receiving the benefits will withdraw their donations. This is the issue with looking at other examples of voluntary taxation. To deny the above is to deny the role of philosophy in human behavior. It is like claiming: how would a majority Christian (truly Christian) society pay for churches if we don't tax them?! or how will a free country defend themselves from attack if we don't draft?! etc. etc.

How can rights presuppose a "government to protect those rights"? How can a concept presuppose an entity created to protect itself? A (proper) government presupposes that we have rights to be protected in the first place.

Yikes, is dat waht I sed? I said that an Objectivist government could not exist (for very long, at least) unless the dominant trend in society was rational egoism. If, for example, the morality was altruism, the government would reflect that. So, the question: is voluntary taxation for a capitalist government practical? necessarily implies a context in which the majority in society holds Objectivist principles - namely and relevant to this topic: Government is good and in man's self interest. So, the majority would be willing and want to donate, so long as the government remains objective and in line with its original purpose: protecting individual rights. Your error lies in attempting to look at historical examples which have a completely different context: (different form of government, different philosophical beliefs within society, less technologically advanced i.e. less communication, etc.)

I think the argument that you are making is that you didn't voluntarily make the decision because the nature of reality (i.e. the absence of an objective government) necessarily creates a context in which that decision is made under the threat of force. Am I correct on your use of the word force?

https://twitter.com/HBinswanger