Kate87

What are you talking about? Of course only people can cause evil. No one is arguing otherwise. I'm wondering whether it's even worth typing this, because you are clearly making no attempt at looking beyond the culture in which you were raised. Or even to engage with Ayn Rand's words which you supposedly at least respect.

There is only one logic. But we are not automatons. We are raised in a culture. For example, if you are raised in the middle east in Saudi Arabia there is a strong chance you will think that logic dictates that Islam is true. If you are raised in rural United States there is a strong chance you will think logic dictates that people should be free to own semi-automatic rifles. So I am saying try to look beyond the culture into which you were born and see what reason and logic actually dictate.

On this particular topic I am here to advance the truth that this is clearly a cultural issue. I agree with Ayn Rand's sentiment that it's a complex issue, I clearly come down hard on one side of the issue based on my cultural biases and you the other. The difference between some on here and me however, is that I have the ability to sympathise and understand a viewpoint that is different than my own. People are allowed their own cultural biases but not their own facts. For this reason for me to go further debating this issue with anyone, first that person must admit that instituting fascist levels of regulation to control guns would reduce gun deaths. If you are so far removed from reality, and so far enraptured by your personal culture that you cannot admit this, then reason has truly no hold on you. I quoted Ayn Rand above. I think her view is closer to the truth than some of the ridiculous things I've heard on here, so I thought it was worth posting because Rand's views are respected on this forum. Here it is again: I can't remember, can you post the link here please? By the way truly thanks for conceding the point, its infuriating when a debate gets locked down on such basics by intransient irrationality. So very refreshing to see that we can advance from here. I am absolutely willing to accept that other forms of violence could increase as a result of gun control as long as there is evidence to show it.

Look you believe this because of cultural reasons. I get that. But anyone who predicts that gun control and proper enforcement of gun control laws would lead to an increase in gun deaths I think is letting their cultural biases delude them. A laughable source. Exactly, this is the main cultural reason for your belief. Ayn Rand's view is different: Now is the time to have a discussion on gun control. If not now when? This is a frequent tactic used to shut down debate. - https://twitter.com/...hetime&src=hash People want this discussion and it is entirely appropriate to have it on the day of the tragedy. Clearly people in public office may wait a couple days since everyone's emotions are raw, I get that and wouldn't criticise them for it. But now is the time. The graphs on that blog have no source mentioned for the data. Here is a more credible source (Harvard Injury Control Research Center) which has the opposite conclusion. I would concede that gun control laws would be less effective within an overall culture of gun ownership. For example if one US state, or one highschool has a no gun policy, then this is not going to have the desired effect since it would be an island in a sea of guns. I could even find it plausable that gun deaths could go up in such a scenario. I am bending over backwards trying to accommodate your viewpoint here, and I can see some reason and logic in it. If the USA were to outlaw gun ownership, and strictly enforce such laws. If it were to outlaw gun shops, shooting ranges, hunting rifles etc. If it were to end the war on drugs thereby reducing gun demand by criminals. If it were to have a proper border with Mexico with strict border checkpoints and reduce the border weak spots. If it were to punish severely anyone possessing a gun. If the culture was to change so that people who like guns were viewed as weirdos by society. Gun deaths would drop if all of the above were enacted. Do you agree or disagree? If you can't agree with me at this point then me bending over backwards has been in vain and you are truly rapped in your culture. You may argue that such government controls is like instituting fascism. Yet you don't have to do these things to lower gun deaths. Simply select a judicious few policies. Regulate guns like you regulate cars. Don't kill your culture - like I said I get it. In Germany there is no speed limit on many stretches of highway. You can legally drive at 100 mph on these autobahns. Culturally, Germany likes its cars and is good at making fast ones, and reasons that it is safer to have no speed limit on these stretches. Yet that doesn't stop it from enacting seat belt laws, or car safety standards. Embrace your culture and your constitution, but don't accept these regular massacres. Bring in federal stricter gun legislation that makes it as difficult to buy a gun as to adopt a child or to drive a car.

It's amazing to see how many times this is going to happen in America, and how many different reasons are given for it without addressing the elephant in the room.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20730717

Whether it will affect prosecutions is one thing, but it has affected people in other ways. From the article: What about speech that constitutes non-physical harassment? Eg following someone around for months repeating "Jesus loves you". There should surely be restrictions on this.

Update on having the right to insult people in the UK - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9734919/Lets-do-away-with-this-insult-to-free-speech.html There is a vote tomorrow in parliament to amend the Public Order Act. Will post results here.

Sorry I take that back. I guess the rational reason to be a death row executioner is a mistaken belief that you are doing good as I mentioned in this quote: Nicky do you believe that the state can rape rapists? I agree that its impractical but I find it ridiculous that in theory the state could have the right to rape rapists. I think the error which leads to that conclusion is the same which leads to the conclusion of the state's right to kill a murderer.

If someone is a convicted rapist, does that give the state the right to rape him as punishment? If not why not, and how do you square this with the state being given the right to kill a convicted killer?

Because killing him achieves nothing for the victims. The best the victims can do is to get over their losses and to ignore Hitler. Isn't locking Hitler up, throwing away the key, and then ignoring him also the best form of punishment? Why let the rat die?

Life in a max security prison would achieve the same thing.

Look at a combat soldier who has to kill people as part of his job. He can see the benefit, the fact that he is fighting for his pro-freedom country against anti-freedom enemies. Look at a doctor who administers lethal injections for people who choose to die - he sees the benefit in fulfilling the wishes of someone who is suffering. Look at the death row executioner. I guess he mistakenly believes he is deterring others from committing the crime? But that sounds weak. What other motivation could he have? I need a legitimate reason before I can change my mind on this.

Nicky, can I ask whether you personally could administer a lethal injection? People get paid to do disgusting things all the time - for example getting paid to dissect dead people. But in these cases there is a benefit to what they are doing eg medical research. In the case of executing a criminal, there is no benefit that could not be obtained by incarceration. The only person who would want to do such a job is someone with psychological problems which have been legitimised by the state. It may even attract actual psychopaths into becoming doctors so they can execute people. If you can tell me a legitimate reason why someone would want to become an executioner then I will of course change my assessment.

http://www.guardian....s-man-death-row Can anyone support state killing of criminals in the face of such miscarriages of justice?

I think we are getting somewhere with this now. From http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nietzsche,_friedrich.html I think emotionally, Objectivism has a similar feeling of the ideal man as fascism. This shows up in the similar artistic styles. Nietzsche was clearly against socialism and equality, but emotionally the socialist also feels the potential of workers as being ideal men. I think what Objectivism ultimately has in common with socialism and fascism is that it believes in an idealistic utopia full of ideal men.

You are right about my knowledge; I am no expert on art. From a complete layman's perspective however, I put it to you that all the images posted above are visually very similar. Why? I agree that I shouldn't have used the phrase "Objectivist art". But I do think the image examples I used above are correctly classified. ie the romantic realist examples are romantic realist. Whether they are good or bad works of art is a different question, as is whether Rand would have agreed with the classification.

I am focusing on all visual arts.

Interesting points, but I still don't think we have a satisfactory explanation of the visual similarities of the art. Also, I should have included Nazi art: Die Partei, Arno Breker's statue representing the spirit of the Nazi Party Why is the art of Objectivism, Nazism, and Communism visually the same in all essentials? I especially want to explore this in light of Rand's definition of art: "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments". This implies that Nazi, Communist, and Objectivist romantic realists share the same metaphysical value judgements. If this is not the case, then surely you are disagreeing with Rand's definition of art since the 3 styles are visually the same in all essentials. The examples I label romantic realism above are from http://www.cordair.com/ labelled as romantic realist. One of the images is used on the cover of Ayn Rand's books. The socialist realism ones are from Wikipedia labelled socialist realism. And the Nazi one above is from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....iki/Arno_Breker. Apparently Goebbels used the term "romantic realism" to describe the party's policy on art. But I am not interested in the propaganda aspect. All three are identical in visual artistic essentials. Why? And what does this say about Rand's definition of art?

Romantic realism: Socialist realism: Romantic realism: Socialist realism: There are huge similarities between romantic realism and socialist realism. Why do you think this is the case?

It's basic English language really. Examples from politics: republican - someone who supports government of the people by the people etc. as opposed to monarchy. Republican - proper noun. A member of the US political party which doesn't necessarily have pro-republican (small r) policies, ie it's just a name for a political party. democrat - someone who supports democracy Democrat - proper noun. A member of the US political party whose policies aren't necessarily democratic (small d) as its just a party name. libertarian - someone who supports minimal state power Libertarian - proper noun. A member of the US political party whose policies aren't necessarily libertarian (small l) as its just a party name. In the same way: objectivism - the belief that certain things, esp. moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them. Objectivism - the philosophy of Ayn Rand. In the same sense, it is semantically possible to say that Objectivist (big O) philosophy is not objective (small o).

Central banks form naturally. The old US system had one, it was called the Suffolk System. http://mises.org/daily/4902

All paper currencies have to be issued by someone. And that someone then gets to control how the currency works by controlling which banks can access the reserve system of that currency. In other words the exact same system would form under a free market, so the point is moot. You say there is an enforced monopoly on joining the Federal Reserve System, but which bank would choose not to join it? Only those who wanted to setup their own currency. Which they are disallowed from doing. So the main rights violation stems from the legal tender law.

As far as the Fed is concerned I don't see any rights violations worth mentioning. All they need to do is make it legal for people to use other paper currencies as legal tender and their rights violations become zero. Even if that happened everyone would continue to use Federal Reserve dollars anyway, so the point is moot.

I think the IRS example is good, because you ARE helping producers by making it more efficient. You are reducing the departments admin drain on the taxpayer, the savings of which politicians could use to spend on either tax cuts or on services which producers may use eg roads. Even if you improved the efficiency of tax collecting itself, for example by more rigorously enforcing the tax laws, this extra revenue would be used by government again to either cut taxes or spend on services. You are not the one who decides whether to cut taxes or spend on services, however in your job you would always advocate the cutting of taxes. To use the concentration camp example is inappropriate because murder is clearly more of a rights violation in Objectivism than taxation and clearly an Objectivist could not morally do his job under these circumstances. We had this issue in another thread Nicky where you compared the disfranchisement of women with discrimination laws. Objectivism has a hierarchy of values so mixed economy taxation levels are not as evil as totalitarian murder regimes.