Brule

Tylenol is extremely toxic to the liver but it can treat many ailments so a cost-benefit analysis must be made. (not to mention very dangerous drugs like lithium) Most drugs (usually less toxic) require the same risk vs reward thinking. There are things like inhalants which basically just kill brain cells, but most are not that clear cut. Alcohol is toxic as well but if used properly one can manage the risk... and avoid any nasty hangovers. Mind-altering is not mind-stealing and as such, I would contend that many thoughts in an altered state are one's own thoughts. Someone suffering in pain may be more rational and clear headed after taking opiates. I'm not sure why this entire subject seems to hit such a nerve. It can and should be approached with the same sort of objectivity as any other subject. Many cultured, fermented, or strong flavors can be acquired tastes. Since many alcoholic drinks have those qualities, I'd say they qualify. I used to hate things like Scotch but as I trained my palate I came to enjoy it. A good cabernet sauvignon is pure bliss to me. I wouldn't be in a hurry, you'll have plenty of time after 21 to try things out if you so choose.

I'd suggest that sex isn't just about physical pleasure. There are deep emotional connections and a sort of "gift giving" involved in romantic sex. Otherwise masturbation would be as fulfilling which it is not. But it is a good comparison when it comes to abuse. A sex addict and a drug addict are both using those actions as a replacement for happiness and joy they don't have in other parts of their life. If sex or drugs can be used as a gift and not as a crutch, they can put the cherry on top and not be the dish. Weed can certainly be psychologically addictive and psychedelics (which I'm likely a rare proponent of on this board) can be used to escape reality so I'm not sure a solid addictiveness -> immortality connection can always be made. The context really matters with drug use and one really must look at how and why a drug is used before you can call that use moral or immoral.

There are very few, if any, professions in which being selfish is as important as being a head of state. If one sets policy that allows progression you may impact many people who make life better.

(underlining is mine) With the exception of proper nouns, every word is representing a concept. So let's look at a few words and how they are defined. Justice can be defined as lawfulness or fairness. But some people define justice to include "social justice" which would include a redistribution of wealth. Should we not use the term justice since it carries a meaning we do not agree with? Liberty should be freedom from force, but communists love to use liberty to mean freedom from "having to work" or "having an equal standard of living". Murder is deliberately causing the death of a human being. The pro-life people would say murder is the killing of a human being, either born or unborn. I recently saw a poll where 51% of the US population called themselves pro-life. Since that's a majority, should we no longer just use "murder" and switch to "murder of a born human" or "post pregnancy caused death"? Changing definitions of words is a tool liberals (or progressives now) have used for a long time to chip away and confuse concepts. The conservatives certainly get in the act as well. Surrendering these definitions unchallenged is giving up. I could list 100 words that have been twisted to serve some purpose. Definitions do matter and are extremely important.

You're right, none of those situations are rational. Also none of them appear to be truly selfish. (underlining is mine) I used to think definitions didn't really matter. I argued at length with my (excellent) professor that Voltaire's Candide was infinitely more influential than Diderot's Encyclopédie. I mean, how could great satire lose to dry definitions? I was wrong. I know what "selfish" means to the common guy on the street. As you said above, it carries more baggage than a 747. That is precisely the reason to use it. When Joe Blow hears the word selfish he immediately has plenty of examples in his head and likely most (or all) he considers bad. He thinks of the wealthy businessmen and of the common thief. This concept must be changed in the minds of people before they will ever be willing to accept or even really understand Objectivism. A vast majority of uninformed, passing critiques of Objectivism I've come across rely on the false understanding of selfishness. So wild, laughable comments are made such as "making slaves out of the poor" or "giving special privileges to big business." One advantage of fighting for "selfish" is that it can be done at a layperson level and not only by philosophers. By clarifying and showing why selfish should mean rational self interest, a plumber/dentist/farmer/CPA can relate without having to go through years of philosophical training. Personally, calling myself selfish and then explaining how I mean it has lead to far greater understanding with friends and family than any high level rant could do. I am selfish. Switching to something else not only isn't needed, it is actually counterproductive. There's a reason Ayn Rand named her creation "The Virtue of Selfishness" and not "The Virtue of Rational Egoism".

Definitions are important. This isn't about running around yelling "I'm selfish, I'm selfish!" at the top of your lungs, thinking that everyone else should have the same definition as you do. If I had to describe myself with one phrase I'd use rational self interest. The reason to continue to use selfish is to attack the package deal of selfishness that is currently accepted. It's to put a divide between selfishness being acting in one's own self interest and the idea of selfishness being exploitative or narcissistic.

Many of the examples of "irrational selfishness" are not selfish. Someone who robs a bank is not selfish as they are not making the best long term decision for themselves. Someone who violates others' rights is mocking his own. Not very selfish of him. I can't seem to find my copy of VoS at the moment, but I think that has the introduction where Ayn Rand addresses exactly the subject of why should we use the exact word selfish, even with it's baggage. In real conversation I say something along the lines of "I believe in being selfish, and by that I mean rational self interest." So in one sentence I equate the two and then go on to defend them as one. It seems to work well.

Somewhere in there you switched Google for government. No fair switching teams halfway through the game! It's a bit off on a tangent to the original question, but a case could be made against government using things like infrared. That is my personal opinion though and not objectively the best situation, but a practical step similar to school vouchers as a better alternative to straight public schooling. (though still not the best solution of private education) For example, since police use infrared cameras to catch pot growers (an activity that should be legal) I would vote against them using that technology for that use. I could never make a logical argument in this case except to cite a bad law. This is a good example of the problem with the Libertarian party. The problem is not a violation of some sort of privacy right. The problem is those bad laws that privacy may shield prosecution of. (see http://www.lp.org/issues/privacy and their "right to privacy") When you take that pragmatic approach to government and extend it to private entities such as Google, you have violated that entity's rights.

A fence will provide a certain amount of privacy. No fence may cover you 0% of the time when in your lawn raking leaves. A fence might cover 50% and a taller fence may provide 90%. They have a practical use for that purpose. Please reread those situations I posted and tell me what the difference is between those actions and that of Google. Criminal voyeurism is a type of crime posted earlier, not an ethical judgment between men. (though you could certainly judge someone who does it to be creepy) The fact that something may be illegal does not mean it should be illegal or that it is always immoral. Back to the problem with public property, but I highly doubt cities allow structures to obstruct public walking paths. To make it more simple, as it makes no difference in the argument, just consider it on private property the person has a right to be on. You ask why the cops should not be able to stop this. The only proper purpose of police is to use retaliatory force. What act of force or coercion are they retaliating against? That's the key point that has to be answered or we're just talking about feelings. That's pretty much what private investigators do every day. The same holds true for police and reporters.

It could be a six foot pole on a van. It could be a plane, helicopter, Goodyear blimp, or glider. It could be line workers working on power lines. It could be a garbage truck, straight truck, or semi. It could be painters on ladders painting the house across the street. It could be the person next door in the 2nd story window or the person fixing that roof. So what is the claim against Google? Is it because it's not one house but many? If it was a school project for a small village would it be okay, but since it is a big company it is not? Is it because that company is spreading that information and not keeping it private and if it were kept private (to that company) would it be fine? Would the issue be the same if a six foot tall man stood on the top of a van and his wife drove, him keeping the picture(s) for his own use? Where is the actual violation of rights here? What is the factor that makes this criminal (or immoral) and the other examples above okay?

Then they should have built a taller fence. If I trespass and look through your blinds, then I've committed a crime. If you like to prance around naked with curtains open and I happen to drive by, what force have I initiated? It's a normal case of property rights.

Go for it! If you graduate and get a nice job you'll be paying far, far more in taxes than any subsidy you benefit from. You can't sit and try to balance it out and make sure you take out only what you put it. Taxation is far too complex and insidious to have any clue. Down the road you can use the money or power from the education to make a bigger impact in a positive direction. Of course it would still be proper to vote against any funding of the school with government cash and, if able, to speak out against it. There's no reason us moral people should handicap ourselves and let those who would want to mooch receive any sort of competitive advantage against us.

I've been in trucks there easily looked over fences similar to that picture. I'm also a tall person and while it has its advantages, short stalls in restrooms is not one of them. I just don't see anything too egregious on Google's part but I see your point.

Kind of a strange question to be honest and quite unanswerable with any real certainty. Miss Rand was not a big fan of homosexuality but for the most part I think that issue was a non-factor. It'd be like asking if John Galt was black or if Dagny should have had red hair. I do wish Ragnar Danneskjöld had a wooden leg though.

I'm not the original poster but I'll give it a shot. The act does not violate anyone's rights. Yes, for the most part. Property could be owned by the government for police or military use, but it would be for that exclusive use and not public. If they are on private land that rule would be up to the land owner, or someone acting with those rights such as a renter. Not if there is no effort to hide that property. If you're at someone's house and they ask you not to take photos, then it would be a violation to do so. Again, the likely answer is no. The physical license plate would be property that shouldn't be stolen. The information of an address or license plate is not. There are a few areas where things get fuzzy. Since there is "public" property (such as roads) there have to be rules for that land. Since people generally have the right to go onto that land and take their cameras there, anything in plain view would be fair game. However, there is the case of using exceptional means to look beyond what is usually in the open. There are x-ray cameras at swimming pools and infrared wielding police helicopters which go way beyond the scope of what is in plain sight. In this case google uses none of these (that I know of) so I don't think they apply here.

Yep, sorry for the mistype, I did mean Barnes & Noble. (Amazon's is very good too) B&N does have that habit of not packing things as tight, but I've yet to have anything arrive damaged.

Mine also arrived fine. I've never had a problem with Amazon's packing. Sorry to hear about your issue though, bad packing is way too common still in online transactions.

I don't have it handy, but that seems correct. The article was from the 1960s/70s and I took "get stoned" to mean getting intoxicated to avoid normal reality. Another reason why definitions are important! (if there's disagreement on what "stoned" means) I never did understand the entire "expand your mind" thing, but then again I'm a reasonable, rational person. Goalless experimentation certainly is irrational and possibly mentally harmful. We do know more about a drug's actions now then back then. But if a substance could be used to help achieve a mental goal, shouldn't we take a second look at it? Damn hippies destroyed many things. I'd say *recreational* drug use has a place, but not habitual or evasion-based drug use... which are too often referred to as "recreational". If it's nice enough outside tomorrow, I plan on using several recreational drugs while fishing in the form of ethanol (beer) and nicotine (stogie).

Intent determines everything when it comes to drug use. A 1969 hippie taking LSD multiple times a week (or day) for the purpose of evading reality is acting immorally. A couple using MDMA in a clinical setting in the 1980's under the care and instruction of a psychologist to work on some mental issues would certainly be acting morally. The middle ground gets a little more complicated yet still depends on intent and psychology. I know of people who have used psychedelic drugs once every few years with the intent of self therapy and introspection. Whether or not that works is a matter of science, science which cannot be advanced because of insane drug laws, but I don't see anything immoral about that sort of use. Really though, purely psychedelic drugs are poor choices for recreational use.

I'm glad someone else also got something out of this. I'll be playing the role of Johnny Appleseed (Atlaseed?) this year. At four bucks a pop all those people who constantly borrow one of my copies will now get their own... and leave mine alone. Sale still active and in stock FYI...

Some of these could be folded into police, courts, or national defense. A CDC type organization (through the military) would exist as a matter of national defense, either from man made threats or natural ones. If a giant lizard rose out of the Pacific ocean, our military would respond. Should the disabled have a right to the money of the able bodied? As someone with some knowledge of this situation, I can assure you government does much, much more harm to the disabled than it helps. Without being forced to pay people could develop empathy and real charity could occur. When forced to pay for the disabled all that exists is loathing, distrust, and cynicism. The word "evolve" here sounds a lot like "compromise". We don't naturally increase our understanding of medicine or science and yet people seem to think we naturally, magically advance ethics. Advancing ethics takes work just like advancing anything takes work. I'm not sure how our understanding of medicine or how the brain works can change philosophy. Knowledge trickles down from philosophy, not the other way around. What are "community interests"? Who owns them? Individuals own property, what they wish to do with it is their concern, not a community's. (unless they initiate force of course) If someone is wreaking havoc and breaking the law, they should be arrested, just as they are now. Maybe that means jail or maybe they go to a mental ward. As far as "consuming resources from your community", again, whose resources? Are they stealing from an individual, company, or nonprofit group? Those who are unable to care for themselves would rely on charity. There is no compassion in stealing money from one person and giving it to another. Only when rights are respected can charity and compassion really exist. There is still charity on the personal level as well as many legit, well managed charities out there. Without insane taxation, uncle Johnny could afford to help his sick nephew Jimmy out. Right now uncle Johnny instead is having his money stolen and given to labor unions via GM. The heart of the matter is initiation of force or coercion by government. I want children and the disabled to have a good life as much as anyone, but they cannot make a claim on another person's property at gunpoint.

I really enjoyed the movie. Movies can be good without being Atlas Shrugged. That said I kept finding myself relating characters from the movie to Atlas Shrugged among other book's characters. (I always divide characters into archetypes when watching/reading stories) The Dr. M's similarity to Dr. Robert Stadler was one: the scientist without philosophy. Rorshach reminds me of a perverted version of Ragnar. Actually, many of the Watchmen could be linked to a philosopher or philosophy which was an enjoyable aspect of the movie for me. Moore is a crazy person but there is still some value in his work here.

Law enforcement can be lacking in many conditions besides pure anarchy. If government does nothing to, or worse protects, those who violate rights then justice can only be attained by not going through that government. The Watchmen or V for Vendetta are good fictional examples of this. There are plenty of real life situations where it would also apply, such as under any of many dictatorships.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Atlas-Shr.../9780641976537/ Not sure if this is right place to put this, but wanted to share deal. Paperback edition of Atlas Shrugged for $4 from B&N website. It's the "top seller" in their bargain books area. Can buy for less if you have a discovercard through discover's website. If not can get another 4% off through fatwallet. ( http://www.fatwallet.com/cash-back-coupons/Barnes-Noble ) I'm not with amazon or anything, just wanted to pass on the deal.

Would you say Israel has no more right to the land in its borders than Iran does to the land in its borders? Israel exists surrounded by countries that have little respect for individual rights. If it was in their self-interest Israel would be entirely moral to expand by taking over a country like Syria if they brought individual rights with them. That wouldn't be a great decision on their part for obvious reasons. I don't see where Israel's only right to exist is because they happen to be the ones who control the land at this moment. (or even the last 50 years)