JMeganSnow

Well, in an Objectivist society, there will be a lack of political variety in that it won't be legal for elected officials to violate rights, but there will still be huge variety in how given politicians go about protecting/establishing rights in given situations. It's like saying that if everyone spontaneously decides to get fit and healthy, there will probably be as many different ways of accomplishing this goal as there are people. Would you ask whether Objectivism will lead to a lack of career variety because everyone will want to be productive? I don't think so.

There's no evidence that Rawls Was Right has the capacity to be rational, so whatever.

And all Japanese people like Anime? He has an anime picture as his avatar, it's appropriate to assume he enjoys it at least a little. Well, either that or manga.

The faculty of reason doesn't "perceive" reality. It integrates and applies the information provided by your perceptions. Perception is automatic. Reason is not. And many people who believe in god have little or no *faith*, they simply do it out of lethargy and a compartmentalized approach to life. I suggest, before you start making broad claims about whether or not many people who have religion do this or that, you go out and actually meet some religious people and determine for yourself whether they act on faith or on such reason as they have and whether they perceive reality or not.

Not everyone who believes in god has rejected reason--quite a number of the ones I have met are merely philosophically naive and uncritical. In general, this is the assumption you should make until you learn for a fact that the person rejects reason or thinks that faith is "above" reason.

Um, David, why shouldn't ANYONE have the right to establish a confidential relationship with someone? I think the question here is less "why should priests be allowed to do it?" and "why is there a limitation on who is entitled to keep their mouth shut if they feel like it?" I can understand (sort of) the mandatory reporter thing if you have some sort of connection with the state apparatus (but I don't think people like news reporters ought to be licensed by the state). I don't think it should be illegal not to report a crime or potential crime or to refuse to testify, and I'm wondering why it should be.

If you met some guy on the street who seemed nice but had socialistic tendencies, how would you evaluate HIM? Why should philosophers be treated any differently? If anything, intellectuals who espouse bad ideas should be evaluated MORE harshly than the man-on-the-street, because they are spreading those ideas as part of their career. Not only are they just trumpeting some nonsense, but they are actively proselytizing it to laymen. That's bad even if the philosopher seems pleasant enough and intelligent. You might have enjoyed hanging out with them as a person, but you personal relationship with them is likely to be a lot more along the lines of someone who has to combat and deal with the bad things that they've produced. To make an analogy, suppose you play an online role-playing game. There may be people you would hang out with in real life that you don't want to game with seriously because their lack of interest will keep resulting in you getting killed. There may be people you will hang out with in game (because they are serious, responsible players) who you'd want nothing to do with in real life. Always remember that the primary purpose of evaluating someone else morally is to evaluate their impact on YOUR life so you know whether it's in YOUR interests to keep them around or not. If YOU enjoy Russell's works and aren't much affected by the bad parts, by all means, read and enjoy. But don't say that other Objectivists are "moralizing" because 100% of their dealings with Russell have been a result of his bad ideas.

Thanks, I was wondering. Most of my legal knowledge comes from watching courtroom/police dramas. Actually, I think ALL of it may come from that. Ugh.

Hello, Colton. While non-Objectivists are welcome, this forum isn't really a good place to *learn* about Objectivism. That needs to be done by reading Ayn Rand's writings yourself and thinking about them yourself. In general, the members on the forum will assume that you have a basic familiarity with the philosophy and you may not gain much from the discussions because you won't know the underlying rationale or terminology. If you do desire to post and ask questions, try to keep your questions as focused as possible and keep an eye out for underlying assumptions that may be different from the ones you have.

Is it actually against the law not to report a potential future crime? I understand that you can be charged as an accessory if you help cover up a crime by, say, lying about it, but don't we have the "right to remain silent"? I know it's legal to subpoena for testimony, and perjury is illegal, but can't the person so subpoena'd "take the fifth" and refuse to actually say anything? Can they be held in contempt of court for this? They showed up and gave their testimony: "I'm saying nothing", they abided by the terms of the subpoena, yes?

I don't love my parents in the sense of "feeling" that I love them (although I do try to like them and be fair to them), but it's not unconditional. There's no such thing as unconditional love, because love is a response to values. If you don't value someone, you can't love them no matter how much you may protest that you do. Many (I'd say most, but I really don't know) people love their parents because their parents have taken good care of them, been there for them when they were in trouble, and in general shared large portions of their lives with them. This is not a connection that you can simply dispense of or leave behind you. Even if you have a rough relationship with your parents, some affection will likely remain (as in my case) because you shared more good times than bad. People often have similar relationships with their siblings because you can't live in the same house with someone for 18 years and not share SOMETHING with them. This is strictly in regards to romantic relationships. You can love someone who you are not in a romantic relationship with (although if they're the type of person you'd seek a romantic relationship with, you'll probably also *desire* them and wish you COULD have a romantic relationship--that's healthy, in fact). Peikoff would probably have referred to these kinds of deep relationships of a non-romantic nature as friendships in order to draw the distinction at that time. It's a word choice, he's not saying that friendly relationships don't exist. This one depends on the particular person and circumstances, so I won't try to answer it. Just remember that Peikoff was using "love" to mean "romantic love" in that context, not "friendly love".

Oh, good grief, not this one again. I'm closing this thread because this has already been discussed to death numerous times. If you still have questions, I advise you to utilize the Search function. Here, I help you: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...660&hl=drug http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...;hl=steal++wife http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...;hl=steal++wife

Yeah, but that was a different time. If we have to go with a younger actress for Dagny, I'm voting for Anna Torv. And Hugh Jackman would make a TERRIBLE Galt. He's so BULKY. (Handsome, yes, but he's still a big guy.) Personally, I'd like to see Christian Bale as Galt. No, really. No, seriously. Or possibly Francisco. Then you can have Robert Downey Jr. for Rearden, because he's just about 10 years older than Bale. Although he might be a bit too disheveled-looking for that. He looks pretty good there, though.

This is tantamount to saying that objectivity is impossible--which means that Objectivism, the PHILOSOPHY OF OBJECTIVITY, doesn't exist. So why the heck are you here? It is quite possible to formulate a demonstrably objective definition of property, just as it is possible to formulate demonstrably objective definition of ANY proper concept. This isn't the proper thread to create an exhaustive definition, but one of the absolute requirements for anything to qualify as property is that it must not have any individual rights of its own. Children have individual rights, ergo, they cannot be property. QED.

She's only a little too old (Early 40's instead of late 30's) and I'd rather have the characters in an AS movie be actual mature people, personally.

Hello, all. I just want to inform everyone that we've decided to make some changes to the Debate Forum. Starting now, posts will not appear in the Debate Forum until they've been approved by a moderator, no matter who posts them. The reason for this is that we want to introduce some sort of structure and purpose to the debates instead of simply being a free-for-all. So, if you want to initiate a debate, keep in mind that you must have a definite position that you wish to debate. Responses to a debate will also be moderated, and must also stay within the topic and structure of a debate. Posts that make no new point or contain personal comments will be deleted.

We're not "miffed", it's just that this situation has brought to our attention the fact that the debate forum isn't really being used for anything any more. We're re-evaluating its existence. If you feel pressured to try and cram as much as possible into a post because you only have internet access a few times a week, maybe the forum isn't the right place for you to be chewing your ideas at the moment. Doing more reading and maybe some face-to-face discussion might work for you a lot better. There's no reason to be so anxious over this. Give yourself time to get a grip on the material and try to integrate it before you start worrying about the technical arguments. And definitely STOP trying to convert your friends. By all means, DISCUSS with your friends, but if they stump you take this as an opportunity--they've pointed out where YOU need to do more thinking for YOURSELF. But trying to get them *interested* before you've even got your own grip is essentially pointless.

Sorry, I meant that there are not "core basic requirements" in the sense of it must have X type of government which is non-violent, democratically elected, etc. etc. etc. because all that sweetness and light stuff that Marx preached about the inevitable decay of the state won't happen. In order for his share-and-share-alike worker's paradise to exist, someone is going to have to first acquire and then distribute the goods by force. The Soviet government violence is, in fact, the necessary result of an attempt to institute Marx's ideas no matter what Marx would have actually thought of that practice. I do agree that the map is basically B.S.--there aren't any countries without a good dose of collectivism in there any more, not even the "anarchist's Paradise" Somalia (anarchy is ultimately just another form of collectivism--gang warfare, really, hence the Somali pirates). And I understand that people do use communism to mean general collectivism more often than is necessarily warranted. But saying that a nation is not governed by a body that espouses communist ideals because it doesn't look like an Israeli kibbutz is B.S.

There are no "core basic requirements" to have a communist society because no such society has ever existed or can exist. There are only the inescapable real-world effects of any ATTEMPT to produce such a society. On a small scale, there are communes. On a large scale, you have Soviet Russia. But Soviet Russia is not a result of a "perversion" of communism nor is it "not communism" as a result. It is *precisely* the result of the attempt to work the unworkable and do the impossible. Do some reading on the nature of the moral/practical dichotomy.

Good grief, this entire thread is nothing but a living, breathing example of the mind/body split and the moral/practical dichotomy. I should copy it and send it to Dr. Peikoff so he can use it in lectures. You might as well say that Christians aren't ACTUALLY Christians because no one can ACTUALLY follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (how's that lilies of the field thing working out for ya'll?) so anyone who has done ANYTHING to attempt to practice those ideas has self-excluded from being called a Christian. Communist nations are called communist (or socialist, or semi-communist) not because they have ACHIEVED the impossible Marxist fantasy but because of their declared intention to implement that or a very similar goal "somehow". Christians are Christians for the same reason, not because any of them have actually managed to get to heaven. Sheesh.

Yes, absolutely. Just remember that choosing rationally doesn't mean total subjectivity and you *should* have rational values like "freedom" in your hierarchy--it's just that keeping your family alive may be more important to you than, say, saving a family of relative strangers, even though you would save both if you could.

How is risking your life part of the definition of being a hero? A hero is someone who achieves deeds of great value and great difficulty, not someone who risks their life. And "biological life" is a redundancy. There is no other type of life. Living as a free rational man is necessary in the long term, so it is what we all must strive for if we want to continue to live. However, throughout history people have been trapped in situations they could not escape under their own power where ALL of their options were bad. Choosing one bad option instead of another comes down to personal preference and optional values. Slavery may be less onerous to some than to others, although *ultimately* it has bad results for EVERYONE. It depends on how difficult it is to escape, whether you, personally, have the kind of skills/health/abilities that would enable an escape (a woman crippled in one leg would not be in nearly as effective a position as a healthy young man), what you can expect if you escape, etc. Objectivism doesn't present you with commandments along the lines of "thou shalt escape from slavery". What it tells you is provide you with general principles. Applying those principles to your particular situation will ALWAYS require you to think on YOUR life and YOUR values and YOUR circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all in this realm. You must learn to distinguish between the principle and the application.

You don't "owe it" to some abstract principle to escape slavery if the risks are great. Objectivism does not tell you that you must make yourself a martyr. It does, however, inform you that you ARE risking your life/happiness in the long term whether you like it or not when you choose to remain a slave. The enforced mental passivity of slavery is a deadly risk. What happens if you contract a disease and need a doctor, but your slave-master deems that it's easier to let you die? What happens if you fall in love with a woman but are not allowed to be with her? Your state as a slave is an enemy to all of your present and future values. This is why you should do what you can to escape that state even if the work itself doesn't bother you much. But if you really can't do very much (the attempt to escape will be an even bigger threat to all your present and future values), all you can do is endure.

They take the money they get from contract registration and use it to pay for military expenditures. Duh?

When discussing whether children are property, it is necessary to determine whether they fulfill ALL the requirements of property, not just SOME of them. Yes, parents and/or guardians MUST make SOME decisions on behalf of children, but there are some decisions they cannot properly make (they cannot decide, say, that the child would look better without a left arm and peremptorily cut it off--but they COULD do this with a statue). The reason why they cannot make these decisions is because children properly have rights, even if they are not capable of exercising those rights on their own behalf until a later stage of development. An item that truly is property has no rights--not even the right of self-preservation should the owner of that property decide to dispose of it, dispose as in "get rid of" or "destroy" as opposed to "arrange" which is an alternate meaning according to Merriam-Webster. "Ownership" of children is not like ownership of property--it is contingent upon the "owner" of those children taking responsibility for the child's care, well-being, and development. The fact that parents/guardians are entitled to choose the methods by which they provide for that care, well-being, and development is a result of the fact that because children will grow up to become volitional creatures capable of making changes to their own lives to make up many "deficiencies" that may have been fobbed off on them by their parents. Instructing a child in religion does not turn that child into a religious automaton incapable of exercising judgment, while chaining that same child up like a dog will have effects that no amount of later action on that child's part may resolve. There may be some limits on defining exactly what may and may not cause permanent irreparable harm and is thus not properly open to the parent/guardian's choice, but from what I personally have seen if a child has plenty of food, shelter, warm clothing, and even fairly limited liberty to explore and learn, that child will be functional enough. So, in short, no, children are not property even though they share SOME characteristics with property, just as chimpanzees are not humans even though we share many characteristics with chimpanzees.