Easy Truth

I'll grant you that. Yes, the motivation can be wrong. The problem is we all have limited knowledge and it will allow for wrong conclusions. If we end up arguing for accepting every opinion, no matter how you feel about it, "because you might be wrong", then it is a recipe for altruism i.e. love thy unknown neighbor without preference or judgement. In a sense, we have to be willing to live with people that are wrong ... sometimes ... and in some ways. That would include the ones with genuinely bad opinions, and those who punish them.

I assume you are implying that it will "conclude" that survival is the goal. Based on what dataset? Unless you are talking evolution, meaning AI that survives is the one that makes this accidental conclusion. It also implies random mutations for that conclusion to be introduced in the first place. On it's own, what in the universe causes a decision to survive? The concept "existence" or "I exist" does not motivate. The motivation was there before the concept in a human life.

It will have values?

The question is monitoring by whom? Children should be monitored. Certainly a parent should monitor, but someone else with "prevailing" agendas is threatening. When and how does this other source of monitoring get its authority ... legitimately/rightfully so?

I assume it will not stand once it goes up the court system. Is there a reasonable danger that it will remain in place and spread?

Even if the position/argument is that introduction to western ideas has been good, there was some bad. The issue of transition is not discussed in Objectivism or Libertarianism. It's actually the basis of most disagreements. Every political system or activity has benefits for "some". We would probably argue that the benefit of individual rights applies to all. And it's out growth, meaning a system respecting individual rights causes laissez fair Capitalism. The problem is that colonialism also brought in some unjust privilege for some. That is at the core of the argument against it. If you take that out, yes it is beneficial. And were the British able to omit that unjust aspects, I don't know. The argument for the "good system" has to be based on justice permeating the whole of society. One has to argue for some sort of objective benefit otherwise you have to deal with "benefit to whom?", "valuable to whom?" You will encounter retorts like: Every system does not benefit some including individual rights. The unjustly privileged won't benefit. For instance, those who want to be house pets, be told what to do, be taken care of, see "liberty" as a threat. Currently, even those who see the boom and bust periods of the current economic system, even in extreme cases like those who lived through the Greek financial crisis and got part of their wealth taken to fix the situation will support government interference with a privileged group running the show.

Public vs. private in this context means means healthcare delivered by an entity that is subject to liability. Once it is public or universal or owned by everyone, the responsibility can be evaded more easily vs. an entity that you have a contract with.

An AI system could come up with a huge number of permutations of musical notes and copyright each one. At that point preventing any new piece of music or writing to be owned by another. I'm not sure what there is to prevent this from happening. A person could then only use public domain stuff or pay up. In the case of patents there is a payment that has to be made that may mitigate a system that spits out "random ideas". With the internet, it seems the concept of property will be attached to "community" which will be "agreements" rather than determined by geography. And that kind of property would exist based on agreement … per community. I assume someone has come up with a way to deal with it.

Someone made the case that "British" as opposed to others, as in Spain, Portugal or France, type of colonialism was better. In the case of Hong Kong and perhaps South Africa there may have been benefits, but in the Middle east, a great deal of instability is caused by the British influence there. The inability to draw their own borders with voluntary participation has caused some major problems. I noticed that the OP says that Rand was in favor of colonialism but the title mentions British. The fundamental problem that is not mentioned is the demeaning attitude that the colonialists had toward the natives. The idea that they are primitive and therefore "less than" inevitably will create a unequal basic rights, not in support of individual rights. In all cases, rebellion is over this issue, including in the American revolution. In addition Britain did support slavery so it is hard case to make.

What is most unfortunate is when multiple inventors are competing and there are many paths to take to create X. One inventor takes the very expensive route and the product is created. Now the others know of a way to do it. They know at least that the expensive route will pan out. Until then none of them dared to go that route. In other words, the idea that it is impossible will prevent one from moving forward. Once the competition shows you that it is possible, they created competition for themselves. The idea that "it can be done" allows for copies or similar things. At that point a government could say it is a copy, or not. Even if it was independently created. The only way for it to not be a copy is if it was done without any knowledge of the existence of the product. And that can't be proved.

Not that I disagree, but this may require a different thread as in this may be a "Just War Theory" kind of an issue. The reason I say this is: Is our support for South Vietnam or South Korea or Hungary an act of colonization? If so, why?

Very good points. I must add one other example like "colonizing the moon" where there is nothing there except a suspicion by other countries. But there are some emotionally evocative situations. We land somewhere on our ship, where people enslave other people. Meaning we witness people being sold on at the public square. In that sense, we would have the moral right (not obligation) to intervene by force, even if they are not trying to sell us. In fact that would be a question regarding "what is the selfish thing to do?". Also in a case where there is cannibalism going on or we have come across a culture like the Thuggies of India (assassination cult). If these are encountered, the case would be clear-cut. Coexisting would be too difficult, a change is needed. Nowadays we see that the Taliban will turn their women into second class citizens as have other countries. Does that give us a right (not obligation) to invade and grab a swath of land where they can be free? Maybe it does, I am posing it as a question.

If we go that route then any kind of immigration or emigration is colonization. Ultimately going to the supermarket would become colonizing it … and then letting go. Colonizing has to involve some sort of ownership of "something" in an area beyond one's borders. The question is how should this ownership occur. The way the British would do it was back it with force of arms. Maybe that is how it should be done, but then why? Or why not?

One one hand Hong Kong is an example of success in colonial behavior. I don't know at what cost. If the progress they made is the measure of the virtue of such behavior then the question is: would they have made the progress without the force that was applied. Some will say that Pinochet killed a few of the population but pushed through free market policies. The issue is the force that was being used. If colonialism can be without force, then it would be like "we use this unwanted land" and trade with you. That would work. But is that colonialism? On another note, this video is sort of difficult to watch. Harry makes the case for killing a child when out of the womb if it is severely damaged. He has trouble understanding why some parents would choose to keep such a child. It's a different thread of course.

That statement is way to broad. I assume you are saying that government should not preemptively intervene in a decision that should be left between each and their doctor, or their judgement. Because a policy of non intervention is part of a political philosophy too. The fact that it is right or wrong to give a vaccine to children should not be coerced by any government. Some will argue that at some point (in the emergency) it would be right to use that kind of force. But the "at what point" is not objectively clarified. Or maybe similar to "the age of consent", it will be determined by vote.

Yes, and the delineation between a chemical reaction vs. free will is clear. But perception is a reaction, a subspecies of that concept. Now is perception "being conscious"? The maintenance of the "stuff" inside, that you bring up is "life" isn't it? And it is not consciously done in the case of a simple life form. But it is done and attributed to the entity. Hence the idea of volitional vs non-volitional consciousness. So it lives non-volitionally. The delineation could have be done in the area of rights but it won't work. Should a bacteria have rights. At what point does an organism require rights. One could say it does not have the proper consciousness for it to be appropriate. But then, is a child conscious. Or one could say, it is not conscious in the sense that it has free will etc. Or simply … it is not conscious. But "the primacy of consciousness" is not about any of this. It's simply that you can't be conscious of "nothing". You will always be aware of something. And if you are aware of something that is aware, it is aware of something.

Check your motives!!! "Not because you owe it to anyone????". Boy, how magnanimous. The underlying argument is IN FACT, "you owe it to the public". "Makes you better off" is being used in a collective sense, meaning your type would be better off. Really, maybe an 89 year old person would agree with you that his age collective would be better off. Harrison should be the final arbiter of what makes him better off. The argument you are putting forth can be considered both a utilitarian and an altruistic one. As a pedantic point, connection to a sewer is not necessarily a public issue as it can be done privately too. I suspect you are making a case for "objective value". The problem is that you are ending up making a case that "you" should do it even if you don't believe it is best for you and that is where it has the altruistic basis. Although, maybe Harrison is too stupid to make such judgments. Therefore, we need the philosopher kings to force him to do what is right. If you start with making the case that "I wish you had done it, it would make me safer", that would be more rationally self interested and you might be able to build on that. Changing the wording of "public good" to "urban hygiene" to "expert opinion" works in other forums but shouldn't work here.

Wrong philosophy of science will create junk science but I will not go on that tangent for now. The issue of visiblility or the pleasure of visisiblity is for "you to see who I am". The invisible are alone. Lying all their life. Never being seen. And in some sense never seeing. Certainly not being able to see what could have been. The pleasure or maybe the necessity of "being loved" is "who I really am" being accepted and appreciated, rather the made up person or projection that others see. In this case, honesty is the only path to ultimate fulfillment. It is also a great risk because "some" will see who you a really and reject or try to harm you. In many situations being an Objectivist is seen as being evil. But that is who I am. (By Objectivist I mean Rand's over all ideas are the closest to what I see as true) A major pleasure in life is in fact "playing" with others, i.e. having fun interacting. Add to it productive work emanating from that activity, and it becomes very fulfilling activity.

The proper method of validating means (among other things) ignoring arbitrary statements from an unknown source. You validate based on a source that talks like a horoscope writer. Or someone who has the skills of a magician.

Show me where he, it, they, mention Jeffrey Epstein. If not you interpreted it from horoscope type generalities. Elaborate, I have no idea what that means.

I am suggesting that your standards of validating makes you their type of prospect. Good guys in the military can speak in clearer terms, not in horoscope language which you seem to glamorize.

Russian, Iranian, and North Korean intelligence agencies love you. Happy New Year.

Absolutely, it is to one's (self) benefit. Good people meaning people who can enhance your life, trade, recreation etc. What is the point of jeopardizing that? Being dishonest in that environment is a loss of opportunity. But this does not hold true when you are amongst "bad" people. Identifying friend from foe is the key skill.

You are going to find these kinds of actors everywhere. Including the Vatican, the North Korean Government and there will be more. I have no crystal ball telling me that. For centuries the holy books were used the way Q drops are. In those cases the book is written and the writer is claimed to be supernatural. In this case, him, they, it (whatever Q is), can be very clear and spell things out like saying Epstein is doing this or that. But these generalities keep you fascinated. Why don't you read your horoscope, that might alleviate your needs a little. Next thing you know Q will say "Some men who wear jeans are criminals in the government".

This might not be an important point, but I don't think she makes any argument for actual passivity in perception. Passive in terms of not a volitionally directed process, your perception still does something actively and with purpose. These metaphors could confuse the points being made. Consciousness is a process or in a sense a potential. Volition is "doing something/choosing". This (consciousness) process can be "done" or it can just happen. Passivity can simply mean it happened which it can, non volitionally i.e. perceptually. Consciousness is the faculty of awareness—the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Awareness is not a passive state, but an active process. On the lower levels of awareness, a complex neurological process is required to enable man to experience a sensation and to integrate sensations into percepts; that process is automatic and non-volitional: man is aware of its results, but not of the process itself. On the higher, conceptual level, the process is psychological, conscious and volitional. In either case, awareness is achieved and maintained by continuous action. Again are you saying freedom to mean freewill? To be a difference or to not be a difference?