Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Captain Nate

Regulars
  • Posts

    273
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain Nate

  1. However the system to appoint judges is set up by the Constitution. I see nothing wrong, from an Objectivist standpoint, from the way our federal courts are established.
  2. I selected "I have an amateur's interest in knowing more than I really "need", but probably fall between that and the choice which follows it. Objectivism mostly appeals to me as a result of my politics. I have a strong sense in the moral rightness of capitalism, limited government aind individual rights and Objectivism was a philosophy which could make moral arguments for such a system. My area of study is Political Science.
  3. Then perhaps you did not really understand Ayn Rand's writings as you claimed. What are you saying here? That without a lawful society, very little (except your own use of retaliatory force) stops someone from violating your rights? This is true, but it does not nullify your rights. Rights don't come into existence as a result of laws, laws should come into existance as a result of our rights -- to protect our rights, not to create them.
  4. Our defining characteristic as human beings is our faculty of reason, and we must be permitted to use it freely in order for us to survive, which means that other human beings cannot initiate force against us to prevent us from doing so. It doesn't matter because morality depends on human choice and action, not on the behavior of nature (including animal behavior). A tiger makes no moral choice when it tries to eat us, we cannot charge it with violating our rights. We don't have rights because they're beneficial, we have them because they're part of our nature as human beings. (P.S. if any of you more articulate Objectivist posters out there can explain this better than I can, feel free to do so, but I think I got the gist of it right)
  5. What you're saying here is nonsense. Tigers don't have RIGHTS. Individual Rights are derived from human ability to reason. Animals eating other animals is natural, there is nothing immoral about it. If your example was humans eating humans, it would be immoral -- but Rand would never propose it be done. You, on the other hand, are trying to justify such behavior with this line of argument.
  6. Car insurance is mandatory in the United States if you want to operate your motor vehicle.
  7. What do you mean "without consent"? If you mean without your consent, then that's the nature of taxes. They're ALWAYS spent without your personal consent, but at the discretion of elected officials. Do you mean in some way you weren't represented by this decision?
  8. We have a Chocolate Lab named "Bruce" -- no philosophical meaning to the name. Mainly he's named after the Hulk character. Geeky, I know. Bruce as a puppy Bruce slightly older eating one of my comic books. I still love him. Bruce looking very loooong, imo.
  9. Usually these links time-out, but here is the Resolution: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:sr273: If that doesn't work, just go here and find the link to the resolution: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr109-273
  10. You could always call his Ari for short.
  11. Yes on Prop 73 WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY. Yes on Prop 74 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL. Yes on Prop 75 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. Yes on Prop 76 STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. Yes on Prop 77 REDISTRICTING. If the Liberals are against it, it HAS to be a good idea. No on Prop 78 DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. No on Prop 79 PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. No on Prop 80 ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS. REGULATION.
  12. No, they don't. You cannot impose restrictions on the free actions of individuals and claim it is by right. Once information is out there -- it's out there. If someone violates a confidentiality contract, you can sue them. But I can't force someone to keep a secret just because I don't want someone else to know. You do, however, have the right to be shielded from government intrusions in your private business. At least I think so.
  13. If you don't recieve the proper values that you want in a relationship, which forces you to seek it elsewhere in others, then perhaps it's not a relationship worth having.
  14. http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,69...html?tw=rss.TOP If this isn't evidence that the environmentalist movement is purely anti-life, I don't know what is.
  15. Gee, thanks. I assure you, I can both vote for Bush and drive my car, and make a rational argument in favor of individual liberty. So all is not lost.
  16. Doing some things similarly. I managed to get a $893.43 billion deficit, increasing it $492.43 billion Oops. Part of it is because I kept Social Security retirement plans and the space program. However, it's important to note that I increased everything by 100% that the government should be doing, such as defense and including the Afghanistan and Iraq spending, which wouldn't always need to be done. And some things I notice aren't completely eliminated, even when I tell it to be (such as non-defense energy programs). Otherwise, I'd have a very trim budget. I think it's important to note that this thing seems to be from a left-leaning blog, so I don't know how much faith to put in its projections.
  17. Heh, funny. But to be fair, some of those are just bad pictures. Estrich doesn't REALLY look like that. She's usually smiling and looking pretty good, that's just a poor freeze-frame.
  18. I'm very disappointed in this pick. She's against abortion. Great. Is this her only qualification? It seems, after arguing Robert's religion was not an issue, Bush's team is now saying Mier's religion makes her a good candidate. This is ridiculous. What is the White House doing?
  19. I think this is the surest way to find yourself labeled a troll and waste your time being ignored.
  20. I know Ms. Rand mocked NASA for attempting telepathic experiments during the Apollo program, but since my favorite film is Ghostbusters, I have always been fascinated by the paranormal. While as a youth, I often believed in it, since growing up I have since become quite the skeptic. However, I was wondering if you think there could be a rational way of studying the paranormal? Is it possible to use the scientific method to investigate, for example, ghost sightings, out-of-body experiences, mental telepathy etc., or is it just a waste of time?
  21. David Duke (all though he switched back and forth between the parties) was pretty much told to NOT run as a Republican, but I don't think the party was able to do anything legally to stop him if he had the signatures and primary votes.
  22. I know (personally) several pro-choice, active Republicans.
  23. If this speech is being submitted to us to be critiqued in an Objectivist manner, it fails in some respects: You plan on doing this in what manner, further government intervention in the medical field? How would you do this? More government run colleges, taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who did not? So is it "punishment" or "rehibilitation" you are proposing?
×
×
  • Create New...