Old Geezer

Presumably, if a person is allowed to own 1 Nuke, they can own 20,000 nukes. This offers an individual the unique ability to create a de facto coercive monopoly on force. In such a case the government would not be able to counter the threats of the individual to other members of society. This is not something which is allowed under the type of government envisioned under objectivism.

Dan99999 Sadly, many governments are unwilling to stop lunatics from acquiring nuclear weopans even in our present circumstances (see NK, Pakistan etc)

BigBang I guesss youll need to be more specific about why you are interested in these books... If you are interested in research that proves that objectivist principles can be applied well to people seeking psychological help, you should probably check out the works of Aaron Beck or Albert Ellis.... If you want to gain a broad understanding of the major schools of thought/research within psychology, an introductory text would help. If you are interested in self help, most any of the books above could help... etc etc etc

GC Somebody is doing it, its with the Government's money, and his name is Bill Clinton (thats one of his post presidency projects )

Carl, We already live in a society where very few people are required to provide essential goods and services. (Take food for Instance... less than 2% of the American Population actually farms... yet those three million people produce enough food to feed the world if they so desired) If you look at what has happened in industrialized nations, as machinery took over essential trends, you will see several positive effects; 1. Who has been considered "people" (and therefore possible producers) have widened... (For instance, washing clothes before a washing machine was a day long task its time saving invention probably did more for women's rights than "the feminine mystique" ever did) in any case, 2. "producers" freed from producing essential goods/services can begin to develop culture. (for instance cave drawings probably did not occur until after man was able to ensure his survival in one environment throughout the year) 3. People begin to creat more goods and services... (i.e. the internet was not something which people relied on 10 years ago, many do now) 4. The goods and services which we do have become more efficient.

Consequentialism in a nut shell There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering its a natural part of life and is often necessarry to keep people alive. If I put my hand on a hot red stove and it burns me, I suffer, but my life is enhanced because I learn not to touch hot stoves any more. It is unjust suffering that causes a problem.

Generally when one makes a Generalized statement about all the members of a group of people whose group status is not voluntary, one is inaccurate. I know palestinians that are not like that at all. Failure to acknowledge that people in a group etc have differing levels of responsibility for particular acts , differing views etcc is a mistake that terrorists make.(its not the only mistake that terrorists make but its one of them) I would not necessarilly disagree with an assertion that most palestinians hold pregidous against Jews...(It would be nice to have evidence to back that up, but not completely necessarry since I seem to recall a poll along those lines, and also because gallup has difficulty running around the area what with all the suicide attacks and such )

not very similar at all a public access easement allows people, not pipes onto a property.... if someone walked onto my property without my consent I could have them arrested for trespassing.

I havent played this game,,,, but the idea appeals to me Jennifer Government: NationStates is a nation simulation game. You create your own country, fashioned after your own political ideals, and care for its people. Either that or you deliberately torture them. It's really up to you.

chanticleer, while recognizing that modern feminism is kind of fragmented and there are many different approaches, here is a thought; A)Carol Gilligan (the one who responded to Kohlberg's work on the development of morality) critisized his model of development by pointing out that it was "justice based" instead of "relational/caring" (the way she asserted women tend to 'think') Rand's system of morality is oriented towards justice, and in the case of the famous example about the man stealing medicine for his wife, rand would not have accepted it, no matter how much the man loved his wife, he had no "right" to the medicine. As it applies to "gender equality" the importance of justice applies because injustice can not be "allowed" as a means to an end. (one should not acheive gender equality by perpetrating an injustice ) More later

that metaphor works, thank you

The argument from space saving is also at times inaccurate. Crops can not grow very well on pastures if they are too steep because of erosion problems and the difficulty of accurately pesticiding etc. One interesting argument for limiting oneself to organic meat is the increasing vulnerability to antibiotics resistant bacteria Factory farm animals are frequently given anti-biotics originally developed for man pre-emptively (i.e. as part of regularly scheduled nutrution) to help speed their growth by the time they go to market. Through evolution, the bacteria adapt to the antibiotics, and when you eat meat if you get sick, you will be less able to fight the disease with antibiotics.

as was I you will have to be more clear about the "grounds you are looking for" if you expect my answer to meet them. Nobody negotiates anything if it is not clear if the dangerous person is volitional/rational at the time . (as would be the case with an unmedicated schizo or a 'sleepwalker with a chainsaw') They must either be removed from society until such time as justice has been served AND we believe they will not initiate force again. (incarceration) or they must be killed. When the government has determined if justice has been served, (for instance, after serving the appropriate sentence for throwing fecal matter at someone ) its next decision is whether it will be able to fullfill its contract with people to protect them from force if the person is released. (essentially it becomes a tactical decision) If the amount of time for the fecal matter throwing was appropriate than the only way in which justice enters at that point is the justice of keeping a person detained forcefully. Since PS presumably experience moments of lucidity and volition, the government would be taking an awfully large risk of violating the PS rights, the Doctrine of the "least restrictive environment" presumably applies. However, if the person is still at times perceiving things that do not exist (such as auditory or visual hallucinations) at times, and is not always able to discern between hallucinations and reality, the government can not release them. By no means is the government obligated to completely "restore reason" or volition, and is free to allow charity groups, guardians , the PS , etc to do that. But it does have the option recognizing the possibility that the PS is volitional/reasonable by adhering to the Doctrine of Least Restrictive Environment. It also has the option of fiscal responsibility by choosing the most cost effective option after Justice has been served. (for instance after the 'sentence' for fecal matter has been served...it wouldnt make much sense to keep them detained for another 20 years) It also has the option of maintaining a secure state. If medication as a condition for release meets those conditions, what is lacking? I will answer your other question in a little bit.

It seems to me that people do not "support israel" unequivocably (just as a patriotic american does not necessarilly love everything about America or the American Government) Instead it seems that people are unequivocably supporting the government of israel to the extent that it implements Objectivist Principles (for instance, I would suspect that most objectivists would support Israel's commitment to self defense, but would probably reject the idea of a "jewish state")

I dont think there is something wrong with selling one's organs. But there is something funny about receiving money for not doing anything.

Is there anything about selling organs that is bad? Somehow I feel as if I am a whore or something when I sell my blood.

Just as with someone with a severe concussion can not be negotiated with as a human until volition/rationality are restored, neither can a sleepwalker. Yet the presumption that they will at some point recover a level of volition and rationality is what keeps one from say shooting them. On what "philisophical grounds?"

It is precisely because Money is "only" a "placeholder" that I am curious if there is anything else about selling organs that is a good in and of itself.

I think it should be possible to have money as the sole value...(in fact, in the case of .... The qustion Im asking is what values people might obtain aside from money... whoops what I meant is that there is no pride in getting money for selling an organ... It is the most passive of acts there is. (they physically manipulate your body to put it in the position for surgey then they physically abstract the valued object from you... even less effort than a prostitute puts forth) there is also no reason involved in the act, they simply take the object out.

What values does one gain from selling organs??? Just money??? What value does one lose from selling organs? Just the kidney/risk?

First a preface; Uncle Sam and Uncle Kofi Annan and whatever other uncles I have dont have a right to regulate Buying/Selling of organs. (They do have the right to investigate use of force in such) That being said, Is selling one's organs wrong?

suv It has been "unwholesome precedent" for 150 years; I challenge you to find one single succeessfull case of malingering by a business man or a theif or a rapist who used shizophrenia as an excuse. (other mental illnesses would be incredibly easy, but I doubt for schizophrenia) All the more reason to use the idea of the "least restrictive environment" and make their release from custody contingent upon taking medication. There is no Blood Test For Diabetes, but an MD Decides it based on the symptoms... In any case thats why we have an adversarial justice system. Sure they are, but Seroquel/Haldol are much more effective and much less expensive then either education or incarceration. Either wake them up or lock them up. You are gonna have to prove that.

suv This discussion is not about what should be done if a mans rights have beeen violated, but rather when they are highly likely to get violated. As it applies to schizophrenia, that argument is simply untrue. Schizophrenia as a diagnosis has been around since the late 1800's. I challenge you to find a case of malingering that was sucessfull in court.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Having worked with Szhizophrenics and having read about research on schizophrenics. I can tell you that sometimes they are able to perceive/ abstract and sometimes they are not. (Once medicated they are much more likely to do both much more frequently.) I have come to different conclusions than you have about whether this is possible or not. (I am curious as to how you came to believe this) I have not disagreed with this. A) Might does not equal likely to. B ) They ought to rely on Judgement. (Judgement which has not been as of yet adequately developed for PS) But are you in a state where you are likely to hurt people?

a while back it was asked whether the supreme court was looking at faith based initiatives; it is, here http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=13417&c=261