thenelli01

Do you honestly believe that saying "there are hundreds of oil spills" is an intelligent way to quantify the cost of oil pipelines to surrounding property and human health?

Same with Bangladesh, btw. "tragedy after tragedy" is not a very useful attempt to measure something. It is an attempt to measure it, just a very poor one (the repetition of a word was a primitive attempt to illustrate quantity, back before numbers were invented - that's what you were doing there, attempting to quantify without bothering with numbers).
 
Now that we have numbers, you could do better, if you were interested in doing a good job. You could measure the risk industrial accidents pose to property or life (both in Bangladesh and the US). You could compare those risks to other risks, as well as to the cost of thwarting industrial activity in an attempt to prevent them.

Why don't you? Why settle for vague and ineffective attempts to measure things you're concerned about enough to make long posts about them?

Wonderful series of YouTube videos visualizing Galt's speech (by subject) with video clips and music.  Really quite a wonderful piece of work.  Currently unfinished but it is worth a watch. 
 
 
"John Galt Speaking" Series two on YouTube by Richard Gleaves
 
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL67D866897588DB8B
 
 
 
I'm curious to know what you think!

Grames implies the required social context in his post ("the ones having to do with how to treat other people"). 
 
 
 
 
Rights are a discovered principle of human existence giving rise to the need for a government.  It makes no sense to say that the concept doesn't exist outside of that context.  Otherwise people are creating governments for no reason and then after they are created they suddenly discover their rights (??)  "oh wow, check it out man!   cool!   Now that we have this neat government that we just decided to make for no reason we have rights!"

A similar example: some economists will say that the free-market "rations" production one way, while a socialist state rations it a different way, but that national product has to be rationed out one way or the other.

This actually isn't true. Rand repeatedly said that compulsory taxation is wrong, and Objectivism is opposed to it. How are you going to protect rights with an agency that is violating rights as a means of its existence?

Move very far away then get psychological therapy.
Learning Objectivism is not your most pressing need now.

Kate87 wins... not only did the GOP shut down the government, they shut down our web site as well!
 
Apologies for the forum being down for some hours. This incident was similar to a recent one where the site went down because it crossed a host-imposed resource limit. The good news is that rather than just clear up some usage, David figured out what was causing the large usage and has addressed that. 
 
 

Once again, you can't use the idea of an illusion in your argument without losing your entire argument.

Let's define terms. In this post I'll cover mind, volition, and causality.


Mind is the human faculty of conceptual consciousness, and consciousness is the faculty of awareness. Many animals but no plants are conscious. Only mankind has a mind. Consciousness is identified by Rand as one of the axiomatic concepts so it is not defined but demonstrated, or as she puts it defined ostensively. The steps of forming a concept are: directing one's attention to find differences and similarities, forming particulars into an integrated unity regarded as a class, selecting a word for that class. Not one of these steps are automatic, each one is an act of will, a will free to not act or to contemplate something else. In Objectivism volition is primarily mental.

The freedom in free will does not and can not mean freedom from causality or identity, or that some magic spark within us can transcend the bounds of time and space. That is simply an invalid criterion because it demands the impossible. What is possible and exists is the fact of choice, a mind can cause itself to contemplate one thing or another. The "free" in free will distinguishes between internal causation and external compulsion, and between conditional and automatic forms of awareness. You won't find exactly that formulation in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, but there is "volition is an instance of causality" (paraphrasing page 69).

Volition is axiomatic. Quoting fromPeikoff in OPAR



To elaborate a bit, a validation of ideas is necessary and possible only because man's consciousness is fallible, and it is fallible because it is volitional: it can choose poorly.


Causality at the Lexicon. Here is thread for discussing causality further. The summary is: disembodied actions do not exist. Cause and effect should not be understood as actions causing actions, but as entities acting in accordance with their natures. It is the nature of the human conceptual consciousness that it is volitional.

Harris' rationalistic insistence that there is no volition based on his theory of causality is an instance of putting the pet theory before the facts in importance.


What distinction are you relying on between pretending to disregard a proof and actually disregarding it? Disregarding would refer to some act consistent with a presumed falsehood or arbitrariness of some proposition, and if you did that act then you did it. Suppose some aspect of your job required you to know the relation between the sides of a right triangle, and you relied on a lookup table for any two sides to figure the third. If you then learned the proof of the Pythagorean Theorem, but then carried on with your lookup table because "that's the way I've always done it", then that is disregarding a proof. Claiming this would be "pretending to disregard" does not have any meaning; both pretending to disregard and actually disregarding are the same actions.

Also, understanding a proof takes volitional effort. You are cheating if you only start counting up effort after you have learned a proof.

I'm picturing someone rolling up a volume of Atlas Shrugged into a roundish object ...
 
Rape is rape. A rapist should be removed from a rational populance to keep them safe from further instantiaons of the rapist's actions, bearing in mind that with each tax payment, the victim is being re-victimized, if you will.

Happy shutdown everybody. Get all your murdering in while it's legal. And look out for all the convicted felons roaming the streets. I wouldn't be surprised if the aliens take advantage and invade.
 
        .

The purpose of moral principles is to aid people in furthering their lives. So no, a criminal's supposed right against cruel punishment shouldn't be respected at the expense of innocent people's lives. Whenever the two conflict (and there are instances where they do conflict), one should act to defend the innocents' rights, not the criminals'.
As far as some rights being unalienable, while others not, that suggestion just stems from a confusion of what rights are: they are moral principles. Saying that "you can't take someone's rights away" doesn't mean you can't violate them. It means that no matter how you try to justify violating them, you'll still be wrong.

That is true for all rights. When you punish a criminal in proportion to his crimes, you are not violating any of his rights. He forfeited them, by committing those crimes. (Diana explains why in more detail)

A murderer is someone who violated the most fundamental of rights, and has therefor forfeited all his rights. A murderer's rights are in no way different from a rabid dog's.
I'm against the practice of deep frying chicken wings. Does that mean I implicitly agree we don't have a right to do it? No, it doesn't, I could very well have another reason for opposing the practice.
Similarly, I'm against the practice of torturing jailed murderers as punishment. Does that mean I implicitly agree we don't have a right do to it? No, it doesn't. I have another reason for opposing it, which has nothing to do with rights (that reason is that cruelty is an unhealthy way to satisfy one's desire for justice).

You mentioned it a bit earlier, but your list of only two things in the second part of your post leaves out justice from reasons for punishment. Justice is an issue of the law of identity, of treating people for who and what they are, be it good or bad. It is another thing not directly dependent upon protection and deterence of future acts.

My first rule would be to always Skype (or video chat) with someone you talk to online to verify that they are being honest with you. (Just for future advice)
 
You are the best one to judge the situation. If you think she deceived you, I wouldn't allow her to live with me. Who knows what else she is dishonest about. I would recommend having a Skype conversation with her - face to face - so you can get a better view of what she looks like (lighting and camera angles can be deceiving) and you can see how the conversation flows. She will be less able to make up a personality she thinks you will find compatible on the spot, compared to sending messages back and forth, which allows her time to come up with a response. If you value her as a person, she deserves the opportunity to explain herself. And don't feel bad, you are under no obligation to bring her into your home ever, even if she can't get her money back for the plane trip. If she deceived you, the terms and conditions under which you said she can buy the ticket are null and void. She obtained that value fraudulently.

A useless doctorate doesn't make someone a "Porsche". It's more like taking a hammer and some paint spray to a broken down Corolla, to make it look like a Porsche.

2046 has valid points.  When I started to hunt around for websites to check out I bumped into Objectivist sites that were pretty brutal in tone and judgment.  You'd think that Libertarians, and some Objectivists in fact, were worse than Obama or Bush if measured by the tone (not to mention the real-estate spent denouncing them).  

Yes, I think it is definitely right to stop some countries from getting dangerous weapons, particularly when they can use them at a distance or if there is a real danger that they will pass them on to people who do. I don't know if Israel admitted it officially, but it is generally accepted that they bombed an Iraqi nuclear-related site in 1981 and  Syrian nuclear-related site in 2007. The Israeli approach has been quite different from the the U.S. approach to Iran. The Israelis essentially did what needed to be done, but with zero bluster, and they even allowed the enemy dictator to keep things quiet within his own country so that he did not feel pressure to react. For all the U.S. bluster about Iran, I think the U.S. lacks credibility when it comes to such threats. It would be great if we see Obama on T.V. in a couple of weeks, saying: "A few hours ago, American cruise missiles hit three targets in Syria and our air-force hit five targets in iran, dealing a severe blow to their nuclear capabilities." 

Right, so you want to bomb Syria to weaken Iran? You know what will actually do that and more? Targeting Iran and taking out its nuclear facilities, military institutions, and dismantling their regime. There is no need to fight a proxy war. Stand up for what is right, make the principles clear behind the attack, and use the full effective force of the United States military. The Syrian regime falls when Iran falls - they would have already fallen without Iranian support... The Iranian regime doesn't fall when Syria falls. But, no keep living in this fantasy world where bombing Syria will accomplish anything meaningful in removing the Iranian threat. 

Observe the consequentialist test in respect of "good economic consequences", as connected to morality, is only in respect of or from the perspective of the proper beneficiary, the individual.  Insofar as the individual IS moral and takes voluntary action consonant with reality the economic consequences in capitalism are maximised.
 
We here know that taking morality, consciousness and other concepts applicable to individuals and trying to apply them to aggregates, communes, collectives... is generally not effective, proper, or perhaps not even rational.  If "goodness or  "goodness for" and equally "consciousness in" is defined for an individual does it make sense to even try to think of a collective having "more goodness"  or "more consciousness" simply because there are more individuals? 
 
The proper moral evaluation is on an individual basis.. on an individual level,,, as a noneconomist I ask is this the level of economical analysis?

Wha..?

In post #76 I said:
 
 
When others failed to keep context, I further elaborated in #79:
 
 
Others further dropped context by claiming I was stealing, reifying, or mystifying the concept "right", and proceeded to demand I break down all of their related errors of knowledge concerning Oism. (for me, a quote from someone who I thought held one idea directly contradicting that idea, is enough stimulus to go do my own homework...)  I explained further in  #81:
 
 
 
Since I am in a forum, the context of which is Objectivism, it is proper and reasonable to post in a way that is consistent with that context and expect others to realize that context is the standard. In other words here it is necessary to state if your view is not in agreement with Oism, because it is a forum dedicated to it. If I were in a forum dedicated to Kantianism I would have to post in a manner that respected the purpose of that forum and identify my self as a non-Kantian, because it is not the pretext for that forum. The only way to demonstrate that my points are consistent with Objectivism and others points aren't, is to quote the only author of Oism. (The issue of my own validation of those ideas is separate from this ! (fans of psychologism take note!... )
 
1. I maintain that Objectivism holds that all rights are individual rights, derived from the right to life, and that this is the condition for any other right, as well as the precondition for any society and government. Just as rights presuppose life and value, government presupposes the individual possessing that right and is the reason governments are formed to "secure" them.
 
   Ayn Rand said:
 
 
 
 Ms. Rand illustrated the fact that the individual right to life is not granted to one by society in Anthem by having Equality 7-2521 derive the concept of the individual introspectively within a social context that did not possess a concept for it.
 
Edit: Equality 7-2521 does not feel guilt because of there own introspective sense that the socially dictated "sins" were anti-life.  

 
 
The Island dweller can not escape the requirements of his own existence. He must discover the values required to live as man. His values must be in accordance with the full context of his life. This extends beyond mere metabolic requirements, man is an integration of mind and body.
 
Ayn Rand said:
 
 
The island dweller needs only know his own conditions for life as man, to grasp that he should not value murdering the unconscious man, and that the man has a right to his own life. The consequences for murder are not exclusively or primarily the destruction of others value and rights!
 
The importance of conscience in Objectivism is tremendously overlooked by many of its proponents. Psychological harmony/integration is essential to mans life and therefore plays an important role in Oist literature. The harmony of Galt's actions and premises with his own life/identity derived values, showed in his body/face. Rearden's path to inner integration required him to realize the he "placed pity above [his] own conscience" etc.
 
The selfish value of a man who lives with integrity, is because of what violating what one knows to be "right" does TO HIMSELF,  to his own conscience.
 
When a rationally selfish man doesn't cheat on his wife when no one would find out, it is primarily because HE would know!
 
EDIT: Fixed sentence below
 
The unconscious mans right to life is not predicated on his value to the island dweller as such. The island dweller doesn't violate this right because of the island dwellers value of himself! As a secondary he will rationally derive the respect for life in general from this knowledge.
 
 
As to the question of the hypothetical being a social context, the idea that it isn't is so obtuse I refuse to debate it further.

:-), :-( *
 
 
* Funny (because it makes my point), but sad (because it makes my point)...

What do you mean by moral authority?  Is this a moral "right" of the parents to ownership of gifts given to their children or "income from a job" their kid had earned?
 
On what Objectivist principle does a parent have moral "right" to such ownership?  Does it derive from the nature of Man "as parent" to actually own (rather than act as steward for) their children's earnings??  Is this actual ownership a blank check (it must be if it is actual ownership by the parents) for the parent to do anything whatever with those earnings?
 
 
Child actors, celebrities or musicians who have had millions of dollars bilked and stolen from them by their parents (examples of which abound) are not victims of any crime?
This in the name of some moral authority??
 
I would need a solid rationale to identify such ugly vice as proper and moral. 

I would say the proper objectivist society should adopt the following re. rights as between children and parents in respect of property.
 
1. Parents have no obligation to transfer ownership to the child of any real or personal property.
2. Equally children have no claim to any property of the parents.
3. A child comes to own property like any other individual in a free society, he can receive it as a gift or as a trade from someone who rightfully owns and thus can give or trade the property. 
4. Parents cannot destroy the property, give it away or otherwise divest the child from ownership of it.
5. Given a parent's responsibility (as between the child and parent) to act in the best interests of the child (a separate matter) until the child is a full adult individual, the parent can prevent the child from ACTING in a manner, in connection with the property which is not in the best interests of the child... or perhaps more rationally the best interests of the adult person the child may become.  This means the parent may need to prevent destruction, prevent imprudent sale, prevent gifting... IF the child does not know what he/she is doing and would likely regret doing it etc. i.e.  not in the best interests of child.
6. If to protect the interests of the child the parent must take possession (NOT ownership) of the property, lock it up, or otherwise take control of it, the parent will do so in a manner which protects the value of the property and the rights of the child to that property until such time as the child may regain possession, or until the child becomes a full adult individual at which time the parents shall be obligated to deliver up the property back to their child if so requested by the child.
7.  At all times, until and unless, the child has voluntarily disposed, destroyed, sold, given away etc the property (subject to the parents responsibility to intervene in the child's best interest or in the best interests of the person he/she will become) the property will properly be owned by the child.
8.  If the parents divest the child of ownership, rather than simply dispossess the child of the property, either by destruction, unwanted sale, or gift etc. the child will have, upon becoming a full adult individual the right to restitution from the parents for the unjust theft, destruction etc. of that property by the parents.  The damages shall be at least the value of the property wrongfully destroyed, divested, plus interest, and may include damages connected to the parents unjust benefit from the property (if for example they sold it and kept the money or used it themselves), and possibly damages for any pain and suffering. 
 
Oh yes,  In an objectivist society children should have the right to sue parents for damages once they reach adulthood, based of course on rational standards.
 
so my answer is, morally children HAVE property rights... the mere fact there are parents is an aside and a complicating factor with respect to the way the child can ACT in respect of that property but OWNERSHIP itself, as a right, is unaffected. 
 

Yes, dogs have possessions, and children have possessions. And adults also have possessions. For instance, if you get a job, the tools of your job are in your possession. You usually have a computer to work on, if you're a cab driver you are in possession of an entire car. Similarly, if a child goes to school, he gets everything he needs to study, from his parents. He also gets a bench nad a locker at school. Etc., etc. All these people/animals possess all these things, but it is not their property.
 
That said, all this is incidental to the thread. The OPs question is about property, not possessions. If a child is GIVEN something as a birthday gift, by someone other than his parents, for instance, that is likely intended as a transfer of property, not possession. If a child works, his pay (be it a few bucks or millions in the case of some children) is also his property, not possession. 
 
It is his property, just like it would be yours or mine. The only difference is that he is not an adult, so, when the property in question is worth millions of dollars, he cannot take possession of that property until he is 18. This state of affairs, if we want to express it in terms of property/possession, is very similar to certain arrangements made between adults: for instance, an employer/employee relationship, or an owners/administrators relationship in a business venture. A property belongs to one person (a child) and is being administered by another (a legal guardian). The owner is temporarily not in possession of his property, but that does not mean the guardian can just treat it as his own property: the guardian is limited in his actions by the nature of his legal role in the arrangement. In the case of an employee or corporate executive, that arrangement is prescribed by contracts and legal frameworks. 
 
In the case of a parent, he must act in the best interest of a child. He is not guided by laws or contracts, of course (which is why you can't automatically answer the OPs question as "No, the parents may not give away that gift"). But, the government does have the right to step in - and the government is guided by laws on when they must step in: when they can objectively prove that a child's interests are being harmed (in the OPs example, the case for an intervention is not strong enough).
 
Finally, to understand the nature of this dynamic between parents and their children's property, it is crucial to first establish that children do indeed have the same rights as adults, including the right to own property.

Seems that "part" is meant to be a portion of the substance of something, like a protrusion, or an extension or a sub-portion.  This type of thing is quite different from a quality or attribute correct?  I would think the thing and its parts equally could have attributes and/or qualities.
 
So did we arrive at a conclusion re. what Rand meant by attribute and what she meant by quality in the quote given at the start of the thread?