Easy Truth

The question comes up regarding "amorality". When does morality not apply? The answer seems to be: when you stop wanting to exist. But is there a right and wrong way to commit suicide? The moment you choose to die, morality seems to disappear. Meanwhile, living is not necessarily done by choice. Your heart beats and your organs work assuming you are fed. Does that mean you are choosing to live? Is this an unconscious choice or is that a contradiction? As far as the consequentialist angle goes, morality, i.e. right and wrong are demonstrably goal-determined and as you eloquently explained, if you want to live you ought to do this or that. However, I have seen claims that Objectivism also has a virtue ethics aspect. I'm not sure about that.

Obviously, yes. Both in a personal sense and in a legal sense. She certainly attacked the repressive religious morality surrounding sexuality. She also advocated for the decriminalization of prostitution. She considered promiscuity immoral but I suppose it has to be defined to be clear. But as far as pedophilia goes, it all depends on what an objective age of consent is. It would be different based on tradition and democratic institutions, meaning it would be cultural. But assuming there is an objective moment when one becomes an adult, then the question would be: should it be legal to entice a person who can't know any better to engage in sexual behavior? That would also include the question: should you be able to contract with someone incapable of making those kinds of agreements? Someone who cannot rationally determine what is to their benefit in that context.

Then in theory they would understand that avoidance of violent competition is a win-win situation, everyone wins. They understand the violence issue. What they won't accept and reasonably so is the glorious promise that there won't be winners and losers in a Capitalist society. That is what we come across as saying. The fact is, the less productive people will be the losers in economic competition. As the loafers and lazy people may win in an altruistic society. What they won't accept is that this is "just", it is "justified" "proper" or "moral". In such a society, the ones with the better products would be the winners and so would the consumers because they get the best possible product. They will bring up the "poor" and the "infirm" and your duty to your fellow man. They will have no principle that justifies such an obligation, although Rawls cleverly does. With his veil idea, he argues that it is to your benefit because you could become weak and infirm and you'd be protected. It's the promise of a MANDATED riskless environment, a sort of win-win proposition in itself. We'll force you to hedge your bets because it's demonstrably good for you.

The leftist conclusion is that the loser of the competition should be compensated by the winner. At its core is the idea that "the universe" i.e. "or an intelligent God" is unjust and that we as a "civilized" society must redress it i.e. redistribute wealth. With that logic, wealth in this "intelligently caused" universe has been unjustly distributed. That the universe is not making everyone have the same talents and opportunities. So they are fighting for justice. The notion that cause and effect is what defines justice and that you are not responsible for what you did not cause is not relevant to them. Where they go with it is that the system is corrupt, what "is" is corrupt, that "nature" is corrupt, and that they should compensate the ones who have been injured by the corruption. That is why the idea of "natural law" is not significant to them. The zero-sum game is part of a competition. There are winners and losers in voting or business. To claim that Capitalism has no zero-sum game is a losing argument. Capitalism eliminates/attempts to eliminate a different kind of competition which is violence. If Rand had specified violent conflict when saying there would be no conflict, there would have not been such disagreement about the statement. The zero-sum game can never be eliminated in its context. You have games that are fun or life-enhancing and you have games that are the opposite. Like a chess game vs. a war. There are winners and losers in both. At the core of their argument is that it can be eliminated which should be shown to be absurd and impossible. It is the environment around it that is what turns the game into a win-win game.

Why call it a Jewish state if every religion is treated the same??? (and you talk about self-evident) What substantiation do you need to ascertain that a state belonging to a religion or ethnic group eventually will not respect individual rights? It may support adequate rights but when there is no separation of church and state, there will be favoritism. Below is from the Jerusalem Post unless that is also not credible. The fundamental fight is over the issue of settlements and land ownership and Israel's position is made clear. If people were treated the same, it would not be mentioned that the nation is unique to the Jewish people (not clear if it is religious or ethnic). Keep in mind, that this is not an argument to justify Hama's actions but to show that it did not happen for no reason at all. Also, the previous argument was not that some states don't fulfill what they say, it was against the notion that the actions of a nation are okay because it is the most civilized in the region. Read the full Jewish Nation-State Law https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Read-the-full-Jewish-Nation-State-Law-562923

In what sense? Injustice is going to be relevant. I will grant you that it is NOT conclusive. (I did not watch the video, I'm just responding the the current statements) It depends if you recognize the "so-called" Palestine as a national entity. But is it based on ranking in civilization? We are the most civilized country on earth and we got half a million people killed in Iraq and then said "Oops" we thought you had weapons of mass destruction. One of the most civilized countries in 1945 killed 6 million Jews. The civilization argument is absurd in that it will justify any horrific thing based on ranking in civilization. Immoral action by a nation is immoral irrespective of ranking in civilization. There are plenty of examples of highly-ranked civilized countries that commit uncivilized/immoral acts even in the present day. By definition, a state that is religious or ethnic states is going to be discriminating in its laws. An Islamic state is also discriminatory ... simply by definition. You don't have to look at their law books. It's inevitable. This will hold for a Jewish or Mormon state too. Producing a specific law that proves the point is unnecessary. What is the point of having a Jewish state if you can't discriminate in favor of Jews? Another complexity in this situation is that the "so-called Palestine" is now recognized by the OSLO accords go-between (Norway) as of the 28th of May even after all these horrific acts. We can't say Norway Sweden or Ireland or Spain are uncivilized nations (plus the other 140 nations that recognized so-called Palestine). So I'm wondering when it will not be referred to as "so-called". Is it a nation now? Or is this successful propaganda?

Yes, but discrimination is also about the application of the law equally. Even Yaron Brook has admitted that there is a difference in how people can bid on land, which he objected to. But it all depends on who you want to believe. For instance, is the following credible? "Amnesty International has reported that in the West Bank, Israeli settlers and soldiers who engage in abuses against Palestinians, including unlawful killings, enjoy "impunity" from punishment and are rarely prosecuted, but Palestinians detained by Israeli security forces may be imprisoned for prolonged periods of time ..."

That is an excellent point, demonstrating that ownership always exists one way or the other, in some form. Therefore it's how it comes about which is the disagreement between left and right. In other words, the argument is not ownership vs. no ownership. It can't be.

A brief video briefly bringing up the issue

For one thing "Judeo Christian" tradition. Altruism at its core. It feels right to them. Even in the case of joint ownership, if joint owners want to use the product, they have to take turns, and that in itself is a form of ownership. One cannot escape the necessity for individual ownership. But that is descriptive, the problematic argument is for prescriptive joint ownership. If you have seen debates online about that, there is a coop in Spain that is brought up repeatedly as the ideal. My fundamental argument is that individual ownership will exist even if it is "not the policy". Otherwise, there is chaos ultimately leading to violence.

Maybe. I'm trying to justify the concept of individual ownership. As opposed to common ownership or in some circles "no ownership at all". No ownership at all is easily refuted and most people understand that. No ownership at all is simply impossible. But many even conservatives see common ownership as virtuous. Some will even argue that it is because of ownership that conflicts exist in the first place. But right now, I'm trying to use the simplest argument for individual ownership. The idea that you reap what you sow is usually acceptable. It is similar to the cause-and-effect aspect of ownership. The pushback I get is that you can respect cause and effect with a council determining ownership. I suspect that it's because Objectivism is lumped in with Anarchism.

Beyond ordinary abundance, yes I could see that fitting the meaning. The original statement does not fully justify "ownership" only ownership of "extraordinary abundance". What about "adequate"? My point is, that the source of property rights can't be solely justified by extraordinary abundance. Or does Rand define property as very valuable things? I can see the justification of cause and effect. You planted the seed, the tree is yours, or should be. And if someone else used or disposed of the tree, they stole it. My fundamental problem is that I was debating the issue of ownership with someone and an Objectivist made this claim and he was shot down because of these other examples. Otherwise, the statement only ends up meaning "All forms of valuable things created by the mind are valuable things created by the mind". And of course, the right to own such things would flow from the creator's actions. But as Boydstun points out ownership is not all caused by the person and there are exceptions. There is the issue of supply and demand in determining value, the value of something is based on a subjective need too, in a drought cheap water becomes very valuable, in a famine, the apple could be traded for a house, etc. That's why the statements focus on extraordinary abundance is weak.

Agreed, it must mean something like that. But the use of the word "property" is the problem. An apple can be your property, to be traded for an orange. How does one determine who the tree belongs to? as in whose property it is? There is a discussion of the nature of the property below. At the core of the question is how does one deserve something. Yes, the law of causality is proper. You caused it, you deserve it. The leftist argument is that goods exist and you distribute them, as the collective or state does it. That there is no cause and effect. But some goods, like a beautiful ocean view is not created by man. https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/introductiontophilosophy/chapter/the-nature-of-property/

I have trouble with the idea that people go onto an island and there are fruit trees there. They are a form of wealth already there for the taking. How does that fit in with the quote below? Also a stream with fresh water. Granted one must reach out and pick the fruit or pick it off the ground, but the wealth does not have to be created. So what is the definition of wealth here? "The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent."

I agree that "choosing" by the populace should be the core principle, but it is not practiced, as it may not be practical. Objectively speaking, and prescriptively speaking, should Chenyia belong to Chechnians or Russians? Some will argue it should be Russian based on tradition or some form of "deserving". I think you would agree (although there is no indication) that it ought to be based on some principle of ownership. It ought to belong to Russia or Chechnia because they deserve it because of "Y". Chechnia did not choose to be Russian voluntarily but rather like a person choosing to hand over his wallet to a mugger with a gun. Any religion or tradition can't be a basis for ownership ... but then it does. Zionism can't be the foundation of Objective laws unless ... there is a principle where a piece of land belongs to a religious group. Does the Catholic church inherently own the Vatican? I would argue that Mecca can only belong to a moslem state not only because "they choose it" but beyond that, they will likely fight if it was not that way. The most murky case is the Malvinas. Why do the islands Objectively belong to Argentina? It is not about religion, no massive migration, no major settlements. From a practical standpoint, Argentina will fight for it and they are closer to it than the UK. China will be powerful enough that at some point, it will invade Taiwan. The US is not as close as China is. In the same way, Israel will maintain its ownership because of its might. Does that mean it owns the land because of its might? It is the current state of affairs. Violence or the threat of are usually at the core of national jurisdictions. After the American Revolution, this land did not belong to the UK. Ownership and jurisdiction were attained through violence or the threat of violence. So there seems to be a principle that It belongs to x entity (or they have some claim to it) because it is believed that they will likely fight for it. That is the common theme I see in all cases. I am not arguing that jurisdiction is the same thing as ownership. But jurisdiction is something to be owned. Something that is owned. The US "has" jurisdiction means jurisdiction is owned/had/possessed by the US.