tadmjones

So rightfully possessing and consuming a particular apple is analogous to the vulcanization of rubber?

I do not mean to be rude , but how would you define epistemology?

I am not avoiding the book or discussing your reasoning. Electricity has identity , as does every entity. Understanding electricity is more of a scientific pursuit, than a philosophic one.

You have quite the grasp of american idioms with a stated less than able 'handle' on the language. But regardless, understanding electricity has nothing to do with understanding epistemology.

From what I know of Islam, an Islamic theocracy is a double affirmative.

DA in #31 When you create a pencil sharpener (even if the very first pencil sharpener), I would argue that the "product" you have created is: one pencil sharpener. And yes, you do "thereby acquire all imaginable rights to that product by the fact of creating it." And thus there are absolutely "rights associated with the creation of a product." You create a pencil sharpener? You own a pencil sharpener, and the rights thereto. But you do not therefore own "pencil sharpeners," as such. You own the specific material wealth that you have created, but you can not lay claim to owning the ideas behind it. You cannot own an idea. And if somebody else creates a pencil sharpener thereafter, you continue to own only what you yourself have created, the one pencil sharpener, and no more or less than that. This example seems to me to suggest that your line of reasoning sees no distinction between subsistent level crop production and technological applications in a division of labor society. While both(crops as food and applications of technology as property) can be moral applications of the principle of property rights, I do not see them as analogous, do you ?

If objective law is to be the final arbiter of rights violations and civil disputes, doesn't that make it(law) a monopoly power? I doubt anyone would agrue that civilised society could exist without objective law and institutions that are designed to preserve it. Market anarchy or quasi-autonomous polylegal systems or arguements for them seem to come from the idea that a profit can be derived from their adminstration of 'justice'. But isn't the protections provided for by such agencies necessarily all cost , pure consumption ? How could any agency or institution perform any of the required actions on a profit motive? Is there profit in crime?

Similar scenario , yes no? I go into the kitchen, pull a nanner from the rack and hear a tiny voice that says "Don't peel me", remember I'm hungry so what do I do ?

Is it incorrect to state that any defense of the ASD must rest on a primacy of consciousness pov? And further I think logic should be seen as an explicit recognition of the law of identity. When 'using' logic one means that they are consistently aware that any and all propositions or statements are formed by only including 'proved' facts.

I think you would have to determine if disemination of information of any particular kind is in fact the use of force. As to the practical aspect of banning, how do you(? government?) stop or prohibit internet posting control all individuals with access or owners of sites/servers?

Circassians in Israel are an interesting example of Muslims that do not pose a threat to infidels. Just watched a PBS show on their culture, I do not think they are well received in the Umma.

Laws in a rational society are not for prevention of crime. They are for justified punishment. Period.

I think Rand's and other prochoice arguments stem from a response to the legality, and not necessarily the morality of abortion. Her argument was from the perspective that you can(should) not say it is illegal and/or equatible to murder because rights apply to individuals and a fetus is not an entity that exists separately from the pregnant female. There is a distinction between morality and legality , it seems discussions about abortion very often blur and/or obliterate this distinction on both sides of the argument.

Is it a violation of rights to not provide a man with food?

The OP makes the initial mistake in positing that in a rational society laws are instituted to prevent crime. If that were true only lawless societies would have crime.

not all tads are free

No, self esteem has to be based on facts, and a person's ability to see objective facts about themselves. I think in her original quote I put undue weight on the 'more important to future generations..' than was warranted.

Rand identified five branches of philosophy ethics/morality is one of them. Her system is a closed philosophic system all branches are interdependent, so to fully understand any particular branch one needs to understand the others as well in this case some understanding of metaphysics and epistemology are necessary to answer the question as to how to derive ethical principles from fact.

Probably just junk psychology, since i know very little of the subject, but anyways.. You talk of an emotional response to what sounds like your estimation of mortality. Well the 'hard' aanswer is that it is a fact. I guess the question is what do we do with the recognition of this fact. Should we make it the guiding principle? It may be a simplistic analogy but do you plan an action, any action, based on the knowledge that once completed it will have ended so why bother to act? The fact of a journey's end does not mean the journey is not worth the effort, especially if the fruit of the journry is the journey itself. Shit maybe I am a buddist. It sounds too simple , but if you can integrate that the fact of your existence is what makes all values possible may change your attitude about valuing, you can only do it when you can so to speak, knowing you can't when you can't, shouldn't stop you from trying to do it to the best of your ability while you can.

BUT- if you were to ask me, who is smarter, more important to future generations, etc.. me or Elon Musk? Do you mean to imply that a person's estimation of themselves needs to be judged or justified by others?

read the comment section, obama may be able to pull off a bloomberg

The article uses the example of a business owner refusing service and treats the refusal as wrong on the face of it. I would support his right to operate his business, even if he refused myself or people like me. The refusal of services is not a rights violation. Equality before the law should be a fundamental principle in a civilised society. When the article speaks to equality I wholeheartedly agree, but service refusal is being smuggled in as a rights violation, those who argue on principles of recognising and protecting individual rights have my full support and agreement but this article blurs that distinction. I doubt the author sees the distinction but blurs in nonetheless. I didn't read it but on the top of the page the link directs you to is an article about a florist being sued for a similar sounding action.

I guess the shortest answer would be an epistemology based on metaphysics which holds existence as primary.

Is the question how does one derive ethical principles out of 'these' facts(a particular set of facts), or is the question how does one derive ethical principles from fact(s)?

How can you call yourself a pastafarian ?? Blasphemer from a jar?