thenelli01

Crow, one could just as easily make the claim that gold was undervalued twelve years ago. So the price of a car compared to gold isn't a good reason to claim gold is overvalued. Justifying such a claim will require much more than what you've left us with - your intuition that Fox news is Satan's snake oil salesman.

In thread after thread, you bash Fox in place of giving a real argument. Do you understand what kind of a reputation you are building with this pattern of behavior?

It shouldn't. Not on principle, not when reality doesn't demand it. Reality demands that murderers be killed. Reality doesn't demand that rapists be raped. Reality demands that rapists be incarcerated.

Raping rapists would solve nothing.

As an aside, this works in both directions: just as, in some contexts, it might not make sense to execute a convicted killer (because the murder wasn't premeditated and "heinous" enough to fit an objectively defined "aggravated murder" conviction), in other contexts it might make sense to hang a horse thief (in the American West, people's lives depended on holding on to their property, and they couldn't afford the cost of incarcerating thieves - in that context, reality demands of organized society to act to defend crucial rights like the ability to hold on to one's horses, using the only means available: executing criminals).

In another context, even something that today is just cheap barbarism, like whipping or bodily mutilation, might make sense to punish some crimes. Obviously, Saudi Arabia is in a position to afford incarceration, so this doesn't apply to them (they're just mindless religious lunatics), but in another time, when those punishments were first created, the practice may have made sense.

So justice is not about either revenge (or some other emotion) or just following tradition ingrained in one's culture. It's about understanding reality, and what a society must do to protect itself from criminals, in the context (reality) it exists in.

They do not need to. (Though that's probably an "F" in school.)

Yeah I mean, as far as I can see, the only "bluster" was coming from you in your personal problem with Grames. Your debating strikes me as filled with emotional screeds against imagined superiority in the other person, bouncing from accusing the other person of heretical anti-objectivist positions and faux moral indignation victim-playing, or even speculating what you believe are the motives of that person. I don't think that's a very ethical way to debate. Neither you nor Grames ever many any attempt to be charitable, even-handed, or even to understand the other person's position. I think you both are talking past each other. I even thought we were talking about the same thing at one point, but I may be wrong.
This will be my attempt at reconciling the two positions. I interpret your position as the following: Nobody can ever have any right of way through another person's property unless that person specifically agrees to it beforehand, and agreement which can be revoked at any time, regardless of the situation. I think you interpret Grames' position (and by extension mine) as the following: Everyone inherently has a right of way to get off their own land at all times and in all contexts, regardless of the other person's wishes, or how they came about owning the property. I don't know if this is Grames' actual position or not, but it might be.

My position is more of the following: (Picturing two concentric circles) Let A stand for the encircled donut hole, B stand for the surrounder and the surrounding property. Dependent on the context of how A and B came about ownership of their respective property, A can be said to own a right of way passage as a result of 2 instances:

1. A can have a prescriptive easement (A had long-standing, continuous passage through B before the surrounding person owned B.)

2. A can have a contractual right to pass through B (B is contractually bound to furnish A passage whether he wants to or not.)

(1) is based on the homesteading principle. A has homesteaded ongoing use of B before B's owner came to the nuisance, therefore interference with this ongoing use constitutes aggression, so long as the use stays at previously established levels. (Increased usage counts as aggression on A's part.) (2) is based contractual exchange. B was purchased "as is" including A's easement, or A purchased the access when he bought A.

That either can be consistent with objectivism follows from objectivism being consistent with original appropriation (homesteading) and legitimate title transfer (contractual exchange.) All property claims that reduce to original appropriation/homesteading and contractual exchange are legitimate. Insofar as it can be demonstrated that an access right arises from the above, the claimant has an easement right.

The book is online at http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/books/familiar-exposition-constitution-united-states?library_node=71291

Very good read.

OK, you convinced me.

No, this is a bad guess. It misunderstands the motivations of a set of people who are very important to the political future of the country.

Fixed.
The opposite would be, "Gay people can practice Objectivism, but they can't be called Objectivists."

No, it's about doing what you have to do to stay out of prison or accruing fees. Someone who avoids paying taxes and gets away with it is being just as morally good as the person who pays. You are suggesting someone who runs away from a robber putting a gun to his head for his money is not doing the morally good thing.

I don't think this is a fair statement at all.