plaintext

A lawmaker from Alaska is proposing that cable networks should not be exempt from the "decency" rules of the FCC. Meanwhile, the FCC has raised the fine for "offenses" like the super-bowl breast-exposure, to $500,000 per offence, per station. That's a huge amount of money! People who support these rules often claim to be protecting the children from exposure to offensive material. They view these rules as being no different from the rules that restrict the sale of pornographic material. I would like to leave children out of the discussion for now and ask this: in the context of fully-grown adults, may the government morally ban material because it is "offensive"? For instance, a shop owner in Michigan recently painted a mural of (I think) Eve on his shop, with her naked breast painted too. The court has asked him to remove the painting. Can this be justified only because it was in a public enough place that children might see it. Or, like loud noise, is there an aspect of public disturbance to the case? Can the offense this might cause to most adult passers-by also be a legitimate cause for governmental action?

Given that Miss Rand wrote little or nothing about the right to bear arms, I must conclude that she thought it was not a very important issue.

I too am interested in discussing the right to bear arms, but do not want to dilute this thread. Have created a new topic to discuss the issue.

Is the right to bear arms a part of Objectivism? Objectivism propounds that the government should be the sole agent of retaliatory force. Obviously, Objectivism is comptible with the idea of hunting and with the idea of self-defence. However, I think it is completely compatible with Objectivism for the government to restrcit the types of weapons that private citizens are allowed to own. Did Ayn Rand comment on this issue?

To some extent, slow moves toward democracy pre-date the Iraq war. The recent Iraqi elections have surely got more people in the middle-east thinking about democracy. The serendipitous death of Arafat has opened a key window of hope. At some point, things will reach "the tipping point". Are we there yet? I have no idea. It will be odd if Bush ends up bumbling intop history as the person who created one of the key catalysts.

The mayor of Philadelphia wants to cover the city with government-funded WiFi access. The idea is that access to the internet is becoming a necessity of life -- much like water or electricity. Some counties (e.g. Oakland County, Michigan) have announced similar plans. On the opposite tack, a legislator in Texas wants government to stay out of WiFi.. Now -- before attitudes and laws are formulated -- is the time for activism on this issue. So, get out your pen and write your favorite newspaper today.

The illustration you provide seems to indicate that the type of moral relativist you have in mind is pretty "run of the mill". If you're arguing with a intellectual who is espousing moral relativism, then you can explain the paradoxical nature of their philosophy. However, if you're dealing with the "street" version, then such a reply would probably be seen as a "trick reply". For the "plain Jane" moral relativist, I'd suggest a different approach. I know that while such people espouse the explicit theory that the intellectuals are spouting, they do not follow it. So, I would approach it by asking if she thinks its morally okay to --say -- kill a child because you did not like the color of the shirt he was wearing! If "plain Jane" says she cannot judge the morality of such an act, then she is less plain than you think. Either stop right there, or switch to the paradox argument Otherwise, come down a notch and see at what point she starts to waffle. She probably has quite a few things that she considers absolutely moral and absolutely immoral. It is the hazy middle-ground where she's confused.

Even though you said "local", I will mention: Dr. Kenner - www.drkenner.com Dr. Hurd - www.drhurd.com

People who call themselves Objectivists are not a particularly sad or happy bunch. I could say the real Objectivists among them are happy, but I doubt I could defend myself in argument.

It is commonly believed that the poor are victims of their circumstances. "What would you be like today", ask the altruists, "if you had been born to their lives?" One asked me once: "Imagine you were broke and homeless, could you lift yourself up by your bootstraps without accepting charity?" There are many things wrong with this question. Firstly, it drops the context of how one gets to that starting point. Secondly, it ignores that all the help doesn't seem to result in any bootstrapping. Nevertheless, leaving that aside just for this thread (please), what would you do? If you were to find yourself broke and homeless could you get your life together without help from friends, family or others? I think it is a useful exercise to undertake, because it might help you understand exactly what is possible and where the deterrents to success really lie. When I consider the question, I work backward rather than forward. I do not start from "suppose I was broke". Instead, I start from "what is the step just preceding where I am now". For me, the answer is extremely simple. I consider how I got my current job and figure out what it would take to get back into this job. It would not take much -- all I need to do is look respectable for an interview. In my job, that does not even mean a suit --- $100 would get me all the clothes I need. Other than that, I simply have to survive until I get the right break. I think I could do a couple of low-paying jobs, while sharing a tiny apartment with a few other people and manage to get by. Ofcourse, this assumes I have the skills and education that I do. What if I didn't? What if the example were to be made tougher and I had to wind back that clock too? Hmmm. That requires a little more thought. How would you proceed? How tough a start do you think you could handle? I'd love to hear some ideas.

I like it. The only anomaly is the "premium forum" section. I wish there were a way to get money for this site without splitting the threads between premium and non-premium...thus creating potential duplication.

What was her history? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm really curious? And, what wer her successes -- not that she was a senior manager -- I don't count that -- but what did she acheive "out there in the world" in terms of products, companies and the like?

I'm curious why Carly Fiorina has been a business hero of yours. When she took over HP, I read a bit about her and how she came from Lucent which was struggling. I've always assumed she jumped from Lucent before she could be blamed for its failures. However, this has just been a personal opnion based on limited reading, so I'd be curious as to the reasons you think she's one of the "good guys".

Time: I spend all my working day and much of my non-working time at a computer. So, I keep checking some recreational sites. This is one of them.

Had I married Marylin Monroe, I wouldn't consider myself a failure!

As you mentioned, many sweepstakes are fraudulent and this one might be too. They are usualy framed as something free, but end up asking you to pay once you have "invested" some time in the process and once they have sold you on some "product". However, if it is legitimate and private, it is moral. Let's say I walk into a store and the clerk walks up and hands me a store gift card with money on it saying: "We're giving this to you because you're the million'th customer to walk through our doors. There is no reason to decline it. Enjoy it.

"Is environmentalism the new religion".

I prefer "Mr. Text". (just kidding).

Assaulting a police officer (qua police officer) is like two crimes in one: assaulting a person and undermining (for lack of a better word) law enforcement.

Since Ragnar was in open defiance, I suppose his actions could come under the category of disobedience. A more appropriate example would be Rearden giving metal to people he regarded as capable, even though the law prohibited it. At what point did the world in Atlas Shrugged reach the point where is was okay to disobey laws? Not necessarily. An example of civil disobedience in this context would be refusal to follow an immoral law. An example would be a doctor providing an abortion to a patient in a country like Ireland (are they still banned there).

Oakes's point was that breaking the law was okay if it was in the form of civil-disobedience. WHat he objects to is breaking it "on the quiet" and hoping to get away with it.

Have you seen Chocolat? It has a similar theme.

When I think of it in an abstract way, I tend to come down on the side of "rule of law" too. Yet, when I think of concretes, I tend to support deciding for myself. As an student of Objectivism, I understand that I should not have such a conflict -- between theory and practice. That is why I begun this thread. There are even finer points that I have pondered but did not raise yet. For instance this: suppose I decide to follow all laws myself, what about others. Do I turn a blind eye to other people who are violating immoral laws? On the one hand I cannot see myself doing so ("practice"). On the other, would that not be condoning that they are doing ("theory")? I find it pretty easy to follow all laws. Yet, I wonder if that is partly because I take them for granted. Of the unjust laws the I follow, the income tax might be the one with the most personal impact. Are there any laws in your profession (other than tax laws) that have an extremely egregious impact on your ability to "pursue happiness"?

Oakes, Thanks for the reply. Are you saying that stealthily breaking the law (in the context of a civilized society with ample opportunity to speak up and to protest) amounts to an act of force?

Thank you all for the links... just what I wanted.