Brule

A poor choice of words on my part, I should have said "governed" and not own, but governments do own land. Whether they should own land is another question. Cuba owns land immorally. Then again there's military bases, police stations, and courthouses which all serve legit government purposes and require land. There's also situations like the Homestead Act where government gave control of the land over to those whom worked it. I'm not that familiar with Israeli settlements which may be similar to homesteading. (I really don't know the details)

If the Jewish/Christian god exists and one believes in him, then there certainly is a case to be made for making Israel a Jewish homeland. At one time the Zionist movement even included some Muslims, but not so much anymore. Now in reality where gods don't decide who owns what, no collective group have an inherent right to a land. But the modern country of Israel certainly can claim ownership of the land it occupies. Not because of a god but because that little country is an oasis of freedom in that entire region.

It is just another example of people who equate Capitalism with Corporatocracy. A true Capitalist state with a strict view of property rights has no blind spot. In fact, it is the only system that can rationally deal with the above situation.

A person cannot be forced to act rationally so they may act either in a moral way or not. The government can and should be forced to act rationally, so discrimination by government would be wrong. If a bigot crosses the line and violates another person's rights, then they have crossed into the illegal realm. As for the dog, there is no right to a "normal life". The owner of a business does have a right to his property and may decide how they wish the property to be used. In general a business owner would be acting in his own interest to allow service dogs unless there is a specific reason to not allow them. If an owner doesn't allow service dogs, black people, or those with hazel eyes he will lose their business. He will also lose business of those whom judge him for being a bigot. It's perfectly fine to say it's not fair and to judge the owner negatively, but that is completely separated from the law.

You make a great point about drug use here that I don't think is as widely understood as it should be. When one has used a substance many times there is a certain familiarity to it. I drink quite often and my experience with 4-8 drinks would be very different than my good friend who has never even tasted alcoholic drinks in his lifetime. Yet I would be extremely nervous using MDMA compared to someone who has raved for 10 years.

Instead of "fundamentalist atheism" how about just stick with calling us "radicals for capitalism"?

I think I understand better what you are saying. It seems to be headed toward a deterministic slippery slope. If someone's value system is initially impaired, then they cannot properly value having a better value system, which pretty much means they're doomed. If they cannot perceive reality properly while on a drug, they still chose to use the drug. I don't believe chronic drug use itself really takes away free will, though it certainly can be more difficult for an addicted person to make the right choices. The one case where it would not be a choice would be mental illness that exists even when sober. There is a clear line between mental illness and temporary impairment due to drug use. A meth head can be mentally normal when sober, but can act insane on a meth binge. Since they chose to go as far as a binge they are accountable for their actions.

First of all, nobody "made" the person addicted. It was their choice to use whatever drug they use. They continue to make that choice every time they use that drug again. It could certainly be hard to break an addiction, but many cigarette smokers break their powerful physical and mental addiction every day. Your statement seems to have the flavor of the 1980's "drug pusher" you might see on the Cosby Show. Dealers don't go around pointing guns at heads saying take this or you'll die, nor do people take one drink or one line of coke and immediately become hopelessly addicted with their fate sealed. Drug dealers have plenty of business in the people that find them. Drug dealers profit from drug users and their addictions, of course they do. But to act like dealers have some sort of magical ability to addict people is reminiscent of illogical "Reefer Madness" campaigns of 50 years ago.

Red wine has more flavonoids and antioxidants than most other alcoholic drinks, but if you don't want to start drinking wine tea has similar benefits. Moderate amounts of alcohol has been shown to have a very solid positive effect on heart issues, the most abundant being an increase in HDL (good) cholesterol. There seems to be many other minor good effects, but again only at moderate levels. Beers with active brewer's yeast can provide B family vitamins and an amazing assortment of amino acids. While I still wouldn't push a non drinker to drink just for these effects, moderate drinking will usually provide more positives than negatives. I should mention I'm a wine and beer lover and will be making a batch of homebrew later tonight.

I actually believe drug use can be very moral. It's really a matter of value judgment and what the objective is in using any drug, from coffee to heroin. If the goal is to evade reality there is a problem. Even MDMA was being used as an aid in therapy before being made illegal. A prostitute trying to earn her next hit of crack and a Colombian laborer chewing on coca leaves (like we may drink coffee) are taking in the same chemical, though for completely different reasons and with completely different results. In general it's a good idea to be suspicious about drug use. In Rand's time drug use was closely tied to hippies, collectivism, and subjectivity and for many, many people this still holds true. But under the right situations, drug use CAN promote one's life.

Interesting to see other WoW players here. For the Horde! Chars: Fristele 70 Tauren Druid Frestile 70 undead lock Friestele soon-to-be 70 undead mage I too have a Danneskjold as one of my many twinks Guild: EverLong (My brother and I are GMs, one of largest and longest running guilds on server) Server: Gul'dan (AKA Gul'down, low population) We are a hybrid guild of social, casual raiding, and PvP. Our guild has existed a long time across several games. We still have a large presence in Knight Online, though I don't play there much anymore. If anyone was looking to start an Oist guild and has any questions concerning running a guild, I'd be more than happy to help anyway I could. If requirements were casual and if allowed I'd likely start a toon and join. (hopefully horde hehe) If not I invite anyone to start a horde character on Gul'dan. It's a low pop which can be bad for raiding but has its advantages in other areas. I'd be extremely happy to help out anyone from this forum get started there. If you're thinking of trying out WoW there is a referral program with many bonuses to both parties, so if you feel like "spreading the wealth" ask one of us current WoW players to send you a trial. Fristele http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.x...&n=Fristele

From what I understand there are practical issues even if the breast milk was made disease free and enough could be obtained. Human milk has very different qualities. I once read a discussion of making cheese from breast milk but it was considered too watery and sweet. Also the diet of a cow is pretty simple compared to an adult human female, whose diet may introduce many unwanted flavors into the milk. (various meats, spices, among many others)

"The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" is the first book that came to mind. I'd also love to see a good Dune remake though I was impressed by the Sci-Fi channel's version made not long ago. (the original movie had too many problems)

House There's a scene where he's speaking with students and they insist they made a good guess as to the answer. House responds with an assertion that a solution exists, whether they thought of it or not. There are 100+ other moments like that but in general I love the fact that reason and truth trumps everything when it comes to medical life or death. Futurama (better than The Simpsons... /ducks) South Park The Office (US and UK versions both are good) Angel (and to a lesser degree Buffy and Firefly) National Geo/Discovery/History Channel shows that don't deal with aliens or our certain death due to global warming Twilight Zone (B&W version) Night Court M*A*S*H (early ones, used to love show more before realization of leftest BS) Seinfeld Scrubs NYPD Blue (earlier the better)

You could be the greatest widget businessman on the planet and still fail miserably due to massive widget subsidies you refuse to accept. There are some businesses that cannot exist in a free society and if you reword your reply to target those business types alone it would be correct. An example that would address both this distinction and the OP's original question would be the small farm in the modern US. While I may oversimplify a few situations, it's a great example because of heavy government subsidies in a business where hard work once paid off. Farmer A didn't learn chemistry or soils in college but he did learn business law and how to apply for the most subsidies. He gets a low interest loan (from guess who?) and buys land that won't produce. Maybe he buys it knowing a future protected beetle lives on that land and he'll receive a fat check to not disturb the habitat. He has no intention of creating anything and sits back collecting his government welfare check. His entire business model would have no place in a capitalist society and his education would help him land a fast food job. This person is living immorally in an immoral society. Farmer B is quite different. He learned how to make a legit living farming both through formal education and work experience before going out on his own. Maybe he has the family farm passed down to him and makes a living for several years. Suddenly, his costs are skyrocketing as the government raises property taxes to pay for a new school his children will never use. Of course it won't be a simple functional design, but elaborate and costly to show that their community cares about the children. Fuel costs are going up due to unreasonable new environmental laws and his crops are not worth what they once were due to shifts in tariffs. Farmer B is offered a check from the government along with 10,000 other farmers who all will be accepting. There will be no reduction in produced goods so prices won't adjust. In this case, he's certainly not immoral in taking the check. He shouldn't let himself be destroyed just so Farmer A can take his spot. What if Farmer B is given an option on how big that government check should be? He could take the smaller amount and with his superior ability and work ethic his family's physical existence would be assured for the time being. Or he could take the bigger check and buy a hot tub. While a similar situation has been debated before on this forum with differing opinion, I contend he should enjoy his hot tub. More than that, he should enjoy his new jet ski if the government offers more. Justice and fairness has been destroyed and not by him. Farmer B should be protesting with one hand and accepting tax money in the other. Trying to calculate what is stolen and accepting only that amount back is impossible. Even if possible, it's not his obligation. If anything sucking more money out of the system will show how impractical, unstable, and unfair it is.

I just watched this film today and certainly would suggest it to friends. I highly doubt a perfect movie will be created anytime soon so I watch for even a fleeting heroic figure. I saw something in V in his conviction for a noble cause. The irony may lie in the contrast between his conviction and that of the left-wing nutjobs who will flock to this movie and claim it as their own. The decisiveness he exibits shows a clarity of purpose that is not common in many movies today and certainly not common among the prevailing opposites to the facist right in the US. At the very least it is an example of a third option, one opposed to facism without being a relativist tree-hugger, which throws a monkey wrench into the false dichotomy presented by our modern political situation. It certainly had its share of problems and fell into the same murky area that the Matrix ended up in, yet I would much rather see movies like this than the usual pointless productions with no real statment on anything. I was greatly disturbed by the link posted earlier concerning the conservative review and commentary on the movie. I find their lack of concern and dismissive attitude just as repulsive as a leftist sanction of Islamic terrorism.

They're pretty good and really shift around in tone. If a top-notch talent band like Tool would redo "The New Ethic" (actually sounds like a softer early Tool song) it would be as close to perfection as you can get. Thanks for the link Styles2112.

This really goes to the heart of the question when dealing with an unknown person: why not be polite? There would be minimal effort with the possibility of a big reward. (future friendship, business dealings, family issues, etc) Don't mistake Peter Keating's actions for kindness. His relations with others is not one of mutual respect but of butcher and lamb. He may want the company of others but not for the proper role of admiration or celebration of one's values, Keating desires the company of others in an attempt to inflate his own self-worth. Welcome to the forums tnunamak. (I like the name but don't know what it means )

SCO is trying the "extortion" business model and failing at it. They may cause a few headaches and start a few lawsuits but they're messing with the big boys (IBM, Novell) who won't give in easily in court. SCO went after some larger end users precisely because they didn't have the resources to fight back. My concern with Linux and open-source software in general is the GPL and wackos like Stallman who want all software to be open. Morally and legally there is no reason to not use Linux or FreeBSD. I would guess that more stolen code (what constitutes stolen code is open to some debate) has found its way into closed operating systems where the code cannot be inspected publicly.

I government must own (or lease) land to perform it's proper role but this does not grant the government a right to steal property. Eminent Domain is a crazy power that is starting to compete with interstate commerce in its overuse and absurdity. They have the authority but I doubt how "just" it is.

This thread has taken quite the turn. I came in to post on American Beauty but can't help myself. The use of the word "narcotic" is very loaded and in my opinion not accurate. Narcotic should refer to opioids/opiates or related analgesics having a similar action. Its use in relation to other drugs is political, not scientific. Cannabis can relax muscle tension with less side effects than any muscle relaxant on the market. Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug for a variety of reasons. That said I personally don't find cannabis interesting in any way. I do enjoy beer and to a lesser extent harder drinks from time to time. I'm currently working on an argument for rational drug use, but it is in an early stage. If there's interest I'll gladly post a condensed version on these forums. Now back to the movie which I really enjoyed. The acting was excellent which is not uncommon for Kevin Spacey. His desire to start living again was great although his direction was certainly skewed. The plastic wife reminded me of too many people I've met in my life and she is shown the harsh consequences of her actions. (self-destruction) It had several things going for it: an appreciation of beauty, a love of life, a critique of the "ideal" family. It also had many failings: nihilistic/zen mood, horrible twist, a dancing bag(?). It would have been average except for the look inside a "perfect" family which really hit home. That actually caught me off guard the first time I watched the film as I know a woman who acts exactly like Annette Bening's character.

I don't see how need can be a condition, at least in the way you put it in (1). Those who have had the most stolen from them would likely not need a handout for survival. There's also a case which could be made for a company to accept government money. The most successful companies are often the ones most leeched off of. (unless their success is the result of coercion) If a government steals a company's property (Brazil and health care for example) and income (through taxation) should that company refuse a tax break for building a new factory in a certain area? One more question concerning the idea of taking back what's rightfully yours. What about future earnings and future government theft? If a 19 year old accepts government funds for school they will not have lost as much as a similar 45 year old. (taxed for years) Yet isn't it likely that they will be looted in the future and they may not have another chance to retrieve their funds? There are exceptions of course, but what about a person living morally with no reason to think that will change?

Nope, we're having a very interesting debate on the subject. Here is a quote from another post you made today. This thread is based on Objectivist ideas. If you are ignorant of those ideas please refrain from calling the debate "BS" based on your unknown (undefined?) philosophy. Based on what system of morality? If you mean they did it selfishly then it was extremely moral. Profit does not equal evil or bad. Profit is a great thing. If their motivation was not profit or selfishness there would be problems. Those putting forward posts in defense of North American Natives may disagree with your statement. (we're all natives of Asia so I tend to use Indian for ease of discussion) Land cannot own people. There's a first time for everything.

Their claim to ownership of land would conflict with their socialist beliefs and any socialist who claims another's property (by definition of socialism) while also claiming ownership of their property should be exposed for the blatant contradiction. If that parasite lives under law that respects property rights their property is protected as well. I'll assume this is a contract in a free (as free as now exists at least) country. The Communist could write essays or stand on the street corner shouting about the evils of the free market, but he has contractually agreed to perform a service for money. By this very action he has gone against the ideas of socialism to susstain life as he must. The concept of property is correct no matter his attempts to deny reality. You must fulfill your side of the contract and pay the $500. If he truly is a socialist the $500 in his wallet will be handed over in sacrifice soon enough. Are you referring to the citizens of Russia or Germany or those countries they pillaged? When Stalin murdered millions of Russian citizens it was horrible but a failure of government internally is a bad analogy to actions between nations or a nation and a group of tribes. Before going on I will try to refocus on three points which I hold to be true. 1. Killing of a neutral population is not acceptable. Purposely sending pox-filled blankets or marching a neutral population to death is disgusting. 2. Property which is not owned can be claimed and put to use just as any resource. Note that the property must not be owned but could previously had men make temporary use or pass over it. (DavidOdden had a well worded post above on this) 3. When a population turns from neutral to hostile then men must take actions to protect their property including life. People who support those who initiate force are acting in concert with those criminals. In Soviet Russia property was stolen from its rightful owners by the Bolshevik criminals, who continued to exploit producers. In North America there was no property to steal beyond whatever was within arms reach of the Natives. I'm not sure how to explain this any better as by eyes are starting to bleed. I'll finish with a final question assuming a stronger position for the Indian tribes. Assume that tribes somehow formed a socialist nation. Would the United States have been just taking over the government of that nation? Remember the harsh and often lawless nature of Indian life where ideas of rationality, liberty, and property rights of other countries were not respected. This in no way implies that America was perfect but would be comparable to Israel's existence to its barbaric neighbors.

In reading the other replies (DavidOdden's in particular) many of your questions were answered. I will try to reply without being too redundent. One cannot own land without having a concept of property rights. If a Lakota tribe occupies an area which is then also occupied by the Pawnee, what recourse can they claim without the concept of property rights? Language is very helpful in understanding history but the concept of property rights is what's important for this issue. In absence of a logical philosophy, no Indian could make a claim that their property was stolen as the concept of property was not known. Of course to survive the Natives in North America were required to have some general sense of property even if they did not know what it was. This was entirely arbitrary based on mystical revelation or tradition. From a western view looking in the raids between native tribes were very violent. When those raids started involving settlers on vacant land the long standing practice of tribal driven force was exposed. To use the phrase "grabbed land" relies on the very conclusions we are debating so I can't argue your questions directly. The nations of Europe were not perfect by far but they had a set of laws which recognized property (and other) rights. To equal the western nations with a developed philosophy heavily influenced by Aristotle to the primitive tribes of North America is a major error. It would be just as major of an error to base one's judgement of Western-Indian conflict on Western-Western conflicts.