Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

theestevearnold

Regulars
  • Posts

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by theestevearnold

  1. Amen, Brother. If a man selling meat gives his property (animals) "free range", &/or slaughters his property in the least painful way possible, the men in the market use their dollars to "vote" on the issue.
  2. There's a possibility that YB could prove to a few fence sitters that NC is evil and/or Objectivism is good. But the values NC would gain from the event might amount to an injustice.
  3. If a man asserts that animals have rights, the burden of proof is on him. There has never been an argument worthy of response.
  4. The Jackman musical was greatness. Five stars.
  5. It was done by the History Channel. And I know this was mentioned in another thread but, in case you haven't seen it, I can't stress enough the greatness of This Is John Galt Speaking (on YouTube).
  6. Among other things, esthetics display abstractions as concretes, which is a way to present their applications to reality.
  7. Amen, brother. AR proved why I should treat "God exists" as if nothing was said, and refrain from debate. This thread is still good for discussing nuances of belief and the evil of blind belief. #4 option is an example of an appropriate (temporary) willful suspension of disbelief I can use to enjoy certain movies. It does not introduce logical fallicies into my epistemology because I know it's not reality.
  8. We're discussing a woman of amazing character who's not here to tell her side of the story.
  9. Apparently sex wasn't obtained by Branden's lies, so it weakens my defense. He still got what he deserved.
  10. Read Government Financing in a Free Society by Ayn Rand, also in VOS.
  11. What I meant when I said you think taxation is okay, is that you've accepted an incorrect definition of government.
  12. If you don't believe in government, do you think a man should take matters into his own hands if he thinks his property was stolen?
  13. Wrong. A moral government should not initiate force against its citizens. You've accepted that it's okay, but it's not. The US had no income tax for a long time. There are ways government can earn revenue without force.
  14. The only possible breach in AR's moral integrity, is if she deceived Frank O'Connor about the affair. She deserves the benefit of the doubt.
  15. If the state doesn't protect a citizen against such force, the citizen retains the right to retaliate.
  16. Lying to obtain a value is (indirect) force. Nathaniel Branden initiated force against Miss Rand.
  17. There are laws against libel, filing a false police report, & purgery. All of which are not fraud (have no gain of a material value). So non-fraud types of deception, lies, false pretenses, misleading info, or whatever you wanna call it, is protected against by the US justice system. So it's not outside government's current (proper) role. Lying to a person to gain a value is wrong. Sex is a value (whether it's material or not is up for debate). Should there be no legal avenue of justice for a woman who was deceived into having sex? If so, would a woman be justified in at least slapping her victimizer?
  18. Material values include goods and services. Not just goods. Sex can qualify as a service, but in this context it might not, so I will not use "fraud" anymore when referring to obtaining the value (sex) by deceipt. The courts place a monetary value on emotional distress, but I'm not saying that someone who caused another mental "harm" initiated force.
×
×
  • Create New...