gags
-
Posts
1755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by gags
-
-
Just checking, we're talking about Nazi Germany, right? No one building bombs had a gun to their head. The only innocent people were in concentration camps, and they weren't building any weapons.
I believe that much of the workforce in Nazi munitions plants during the latter part of the war was made up of slave labor. Many workers were moved from occupied countries and forced to work or die. These people definitely had a gun to their heads. Nevertheless, we would have been (and were) morally justified in bombing them and the factories in which they were working.
-
Thanks for the suggestions Red.
This very thread is a result of the influence of the preachers of the "open-system" view of Objectivism--a view held by the wannabe thieves of Ayn Rand's philosophy. As a matter of principle, I hope that the moderators will immediately close this thread and say "no" to the enemies of Objectivism.You've made some interesting points and I've enjoyed reading what others have said thus far in this thread. Do we really need to have it closed down immediately "as a matter of principle"?
-
Redfarmer, which (if any) works by Nietszche would you recommend reading? Are there any written by other authors which do a nice job of summarizing his philosophy?
Thanks,
Phil
-
What I was asking was, is a person(individual) who is held hostage, by a criminal or by a goverment, guilty of the things he is forced to do?
If someone has a gun pointed at your head and orders you to kill another person, the moral responsibility for the murder lies with the one giving the orders. I think we've pretty well established that.
However, what about during times of war when some soldiers who participated in war crimes or attrocities have claimed that they were just following orders and had no other option? Is this a legitimate defense of their actions?
And does the person who is the victim of those crimes have a right to defend himself?Sure he does. Why wouldn't he?
-
Obviously it would depend on context, but if any civilian or group of civilians is an asset to our enemy, they are valid targets..... The specific question of whether they should be targeted is purely strategic; morally, they are valid targets.
I agree with you. In fact, that was essentially the situation in WWII with both the Japanese and the German people. Our military made the correct strategic decision to firebomb places like Tokyo and Dresden and to then use nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did these actions result in the deaths of thousands or even tens of thousands of individuals (children for example) who bore little or no responsibility for the actions of their governments? It seems they did. However, given the context of the situation in which we were fighting as well as the nature of the enemy, our armed forces were both strategically and morally justified in taking those actions.
-
True, but if the economy is going down the tubes all the freedom in the world won't make you start a company and hire people.
True, however when labor costs cannot be reduced in response to a lack of demand, massive unemployment results, further worsening the overall economic situation.
Also, Inspector is right. You should change the title of this thread.
-
Felix: this is a pretty good thread on money. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=3811
You might find it informative.
-
I'm sorry to hear that things in Germany have deteriorated to such an extent. This sort of thing gets little or no media coverage here. In fact, the left in America hold up the socalist economies of Europe as some sort of model which we should be trying to emulate.
-
You're probably better off in Dayton rather than northern OH or southern MI. Michigan in particular is pretty much an economic wasteland at the current time. The rest of the country has been out of recession for quite a while but our dependence on the auto industry has kept us in the tank.
Oh by the way, Detroit was just named the MOST liberal city in America, so steer clear.
-
I share your worries, but it's easy to be pessimistic. The only way to make consistent progress toward a more capitalist America is to change the way people think. When it comes to these kinds of issues, the collectivists have done a tremendous job of clouding minds through the public education system.
-
Ahhhhh, thanks.
-
Nice job Weiss. Very good letter to the ed.
-
I'm not surprised.
I don't know what MUP refers to either. The discussion is interesting so far. Care to let me in on the secret?
-
One of the aspects of this torture issue which I find disturbing is the fact that the media almost never give the context in which these terrorists are being interrogated. Who are the individuals receiving this treatment? What were the circumstances of their capture? What are their backgrounds? From what I understand, these people are either hard-core terrorists or Saddam loyalists who are thought to posess information that could be useful in saving innocent lives. When that is the case, I have no problem with torture.
However, Burgess makes a good point in that it should be done openly in a manner that allows for review and oversight.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/
The right to secret searchs and seizures of weapons. The right to monitor library records and internet cookies.. more at aclu.com
The portion of the Patriot Act referred to in the CNN article seems ridiculously vague. I can understand why it was struck down.
However, I don't understand why people are so upset that the government has the power to collect personal information like library records and internet cookies. Of course, such powers should be subject to judicial review and applied only in cases where the person being investigated is legitimately suspected of criminal activity. It would seem to me that such information could be useful in prosecuting terrorists and preventing terrorist activities. If the FBI is surveilling a terrorist cell, I'd like them to be able to determine what kind of information the terrorists are finding at the library and on the internet.
-
Without looking it up, I thought Kennedy was just going to demand any ship trying to get to Cuba be searched. If the Soviets sent a ship to Cuba, if it was inspected and only carried grains then it would be sent through.
Yep, now that I think about it a little more, I bet you're right.
-
It seems that in order to find an actual "gunboat diplomacy styled embargo of a nation or an island" you'd have to go back to at least WWII. For example, the Japanese siege of the Philipines in 1941 and 1942. Kennedy actually sealed off Cuba during the missile crisis, but that stage of the embargo was pretty short lived. I can't think of a true long-term embargo in peacetime.
-
Let socialists prove they're not hypocrites.
lol, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen!
-
Americans have invested over $700 billion in China. What is "disturbing" about China spending some of the billions of dollars we send there? We can't send billions to China and expect them to keep it under the mattress indefinitely. (In other words, banning Chinese investment in America is equivalent to banning American investment in China, since it would make our dollars useless to them.)
See:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0630/p17s01-cogn.html
I think you misread the quote in the CSM article. I believe the $700 billion figure is total US investment abroad over the past 4 years, not US investment in China. I don't find anything to be disturbing about China spending some of their dollar reserves in this country. However, when there is an apparent issue of national security, I think such transactions at least deserve a closer look.
It’s wrong a government to “shelter domestic industry” for any reason. This term usually refers to direct or indirect taxation on citizens and foreign sellers to create domestic monopolies immune from competition. Even when this is supposedly done for “national security” reasons, (a common and politically effective excuse) it inevitably weakens the domestic industry that it is supposed to be protecting. For example, both steel and supercomputers have faced heavy import restrictions for many years. As a result, steel manufacturing in America has become costly and inefficient. “Anti dumping” laws that banned Japanese computers contributed to the self-destruction of Cray supercomputer, while companies like Fujitsu and NEC created supercomputers that surpassed stagnating American designs.I would agree that sheltering domestic industries from foreign competition is almost always a bad move. As you point out, it often results in exactly the same outcome as the protectionist legislation was intended to avoid.
However, there are cases where foreign powers that are clearly threatening to this country have attempted to purchase military technology and other strategic assets from US companies. Those situations must be reviewed on a case by case basis, and a determination needs to be made whether a given transaction will truly damage US national security.
I don't know enough about the Unocal situation to make such a determination, however, it certainly deserves some attention.
-
The Ontario Human Rights Commission has released its Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination for work situations.
According to Keith Norton, head of the Commission, “It is time organizations and institutions acknowledge the reality of racism and be prepared to act against subtle and sometimes subconscious prejudices and stereotypes that too often result in discrimination.”
The following CBC article gives an overview of the Commission's new Policy.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...licy050628.html
It seems to me that the Commission has successfully destroyed the definition of racism. How can anything be racist, if nearly everything is potentially racist?
If you're not friendly with someone, that could be racist; if you don't put everyone through the same training programs, that could be racist; if you monitor one person and not everyone, it's racist; if you blame someone more than another person, racist; if everyone doesn't have the same position or duties, racist.......
I wonder how one could ever successfully operate a business in Canada if you have to deal with this sort of thing?
Also, "minority group" is no longer the operative term. "Racialized Persons" are the ones who will supposedly benefit from this new policy. According to the Commission, "racialization extends to people in general but also to specific traits and attributes, which are connected in some way to racialized people and are deemed to be 'abnormal' and of less worth,'"... "Individuals may have prejudices related to various racialized characteristics."
They've taken PC madness to new heights in Canada.
-
I see nothing wrong with the Intel anti-competitive actions listed by Mr. Ruiz. It's a shame, but businessmen who are true capitalists are few and far between.
-
A definition of "the West" would help the discussion. What do you mean by that term?
What I mean by the term is this idea: A complex of cultural elements -- in fields as diverse as science, technology, law, and art -- that stand logically on a philosophy of reason, and historically have passed from the best elements of ancient Greek culture.
That's a very good definition and it is essentially the one I'm working under, even though I didn't state it or even think about it as clearly as you.
p.s., I bought your Aristotle book. Haven't read it yet, but it's next on my list.
-
We certainly have the right to defend Taiwan, but not the obligation.
The Chinese are becoming an increasingly dangerous military and economic threat. Their recent bid to purchase Unocal is disturbing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062500139.html
-
In Thursday's Wall Street Journal, there was an interesting interview with the Italian Leftist journalist Oriana Fallaci.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/t...n/?id=110006858
In the interview, Ms. Fallaci makes some valid points and quotes an essay by Pope Benedict XVI entitled "If Europe Hates Itself". In the essay, the Pope said: "The West reveals . . . a hatred of itself, which is strange and can only be considered pathological; the West . . . no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure."
When a Leftist Atheist such as Ms. Fallaci echoes the words of Pope Benedict, there is something notable afoot. I can’t help but think that America is afflicted with the same pernicious disease. It seems so many in this country have become obsessed with self-doubt that we no longer have the will to fight for our own survival. According to recent public opinion polls, some 59% of the American people now oppose the war in Iraq and 46% are in favor of an immediate withdrawal of US troops from that country. If we are unable to stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism, the future of free men is indeed very dim.
As mentioned in the WSJ article, the historian Arnold Toynbee wrote that "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder". I’m afraid that America and Europe are both drinking from the same jug of poison Kool-Aid. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but do any of you see positive signs of hope for the West?
Pollution
in Political Philosophy
Posted
The problem of pollution could be solved through property rights and a rational legal system, rather than government regulation. If a factory is spewing pollution onto your property, a tort has been committed against you and the owner of the factory should be held liable for damages.