FeatherFall

Thanks for that. I thought I was missing something and should have double checked my reference material.

I doubt that kind of civil war scenario. My personal allies are just that; personal. I don't trust any organization to stick its neck out because it values me. Only my family and friends would do that, and I for them. However, I have more trust for and common cause with organizations and people associated with ARI and Objectivism.

That's not true. Ask most women, and they will tell you that they are more attracted to well-dressed men. I've known men who are not especially attracted to women who primp, and I have met many women who are attracted to men who do their own "primping". After reading the beginnings of this thread, I find that it is of little value to me to continue arguing my position. I have less interest in swaying others to my position than in the other things I can be doing with my time. I will, however, present my final thoughts. My opinion of whether or not homosexuality is a choice has changed while reading this thread. My initial position was that it was completely under volitional control, and the choices that develop sexual orientation are made very early, with biology not being a factor. I now think that biology probably plays an uncertain role, but ultimately it is up to volition. Hence, sexual orientation is still open to the realm of morality. Regarding morality: Homosexual relationships can be moral, depending on each individual's value judgments (just as engaging in a relationship with a supermodel or female body builder can be moral). It seems to me that many here who believe homosexuality to be immoral (in every case) are simply projecting their own value contexts onto others. When this point is brought up, one is usually referred to a different part of the thread that does not itself address the issue. Regarding masculinity and femininity: I believe that the only proper concept of the masculine and feminine is in relation to a social context, as the description of masculine and feminine changes depending on the culture. It follows that femininity and masculinity do not imply attraction to thier opposites.

Be careful, we love our Martha... But I agree, sentencing needs to be changed.

Thanks, Lirio. Reading this thread has prompted me to peruse a chapter of The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg. I recommend the book to anyone who is looking for a rational approach to many environmental/health issues. It is written for laymen like myself, but has all manner of fancy references and charts, including a 70 page bibliography, for the more learned.

David, are you suggesting he say something like, "I doubt those are the implications of Einstein's theory, but if you show me a mathematical proof I am willing to consider it"?

As the debate on this thread shows, it isn't a very clear promotion of anarchism. There is a strong individualist element, one that shows a man doing all in his power to complete his goals, and one where countless (literally) supporting caracters gather the courage to do what is right.

This must be more common than I thought!

Several concepts, when combined with sensory-percept referents (words), create language. A given word cannot be a useful part of a language if no meaningful concept is derived from said word's definition. This is why it is counterproductive to use a word in its own definition. Unless we employ concept's definition, confusion will result when we talk of "a concept of concepts" because language requires us to repeat its sensory-percept when we discuss its broadest application -- a referent to all sets. "Concept" can be defined without reference to itself. Rand asserted that a definition, to be valid, must have a genus and a differentia. However, she never (to my knowledge) gave the genus and differentia of "concept." Because I think it would be helpful, I will define it before we continue: Concept: A mental device that refers to a set or group of sets. The genus in the above definition is a mental device, the differentia is referent to set/sets. A concept is not a set. In every instance of the mental invocation of any concept, one is simply calling to mind a set. When one invokes "all sets" one is using the device in its broadest application. But one, is of course, not invoking every device that refers to all sets. That would be impossible, because it would require one to be everyone at any time they called "concept" to mind. The assumption that a concept is a set leads to the current application of the "paradox." Concepts are not supernal entities; they are specific existents, like everything else. A set that includes itself begins an infinite regress. I assume Russel was trying to solve the problem of this regress when he came up with his paradox. However, it was arbitrary for him to assume that a set shouldn't refer to itself. He should have come up with a theory that made the infinite regress manageable instead of paradoxical. But then he didn't, Rand did.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to attribute Laissez-Faire politics to V. Having not read the comic, I am still inclined to think that V was in fact an anarchist. The symbol for V in the movie very closely resembles the anarchy symbol.

I thought there were some draconian fines in France for conducting business in a language other than French. I don't know software would qualify for the citation or not.

Ha! "Effort" is fantastic!

Perhaps this topic should have had a poll? From what I can tell, there is no convincing evidence (yet) to conclude that global warming due to human activity is a significant problem, or even that humans contribute. A potential "danger" of global warming is biome shift, or the tendency for the earth's ecosystems to shift away from the equator. A serious one would be the potential shutting down of some ocean currents. But I tend to believe that if more energy (heat) is added to a system there will probably be other warm water currents picking up somewhere else... In effect, it might get colder in some places and warmer in others. There is also a lot of talk about the polar ice caps melting. I remember reading about the study which showed caps were melting in an article. The article said that the study was done on the peninsula of Antarctica that is near South America. This peninsula is surrounded by more water, and thus would tend to melt more than the main body that isn't as exposed. Counter-intuitively, the article asserts that warm weather tends to make it snow more at the polls, thus actually increasing the ice. How about the benefits? Plants thrive on CO2, so more in the atmosphere might mean more vegetation. All in all, Liriodendron Tulipifera has the right idea. Check out some studies, and be skeptical about what what people on this forum have to say.

I watched the movie recently, and I am far happier with it than I am with most other movies that I watch. Though I do have to say, Nick Provenzo's critique wasn't too far off of the mark. I disagreed with the part of his critique where he brought up V's television appearance. V had one thing to say, and that was basically that the government shouldn't be censoring people, and that everyone watching who wasn't doing something about the government was complicit. Aside from his call to action and purple prose (which was very entertaining), V didn't have any ideas to offer the people of Britain. He had plenty of ideas to offer his enemies, and he did so face to face. I think that the best comparisson to a Rand character would be to Ragnar or Andrei.

Even if we assume that this is true, it doesn't follow that all men serve the president. Thus, a woman could entertain a romantic relationship with a business leader, an intellectual, a sports star or, perhaps scandalously, the head of another state.

In the sense that the state dispenses with a convicted individual's money and, in some cases, life, I would say that they do exercise ownership. The state just chooses to relinquish ownership after the sentence is carried out. Is there a reason why they shouldn't retain that ownership?

I want to make it clear that I see nothing morally wrong with selling the organs of some criminals after execution, regardless of their religious beliefs. My concern with the Chinese case is that they may already be descending that "slippery slope" in the organ/force market. I think this is a good point regarding the current practicality of implementing this in the US. If prisons were reformed and the risk to the recipient was explained, I would see nothing wrong with it. Also, I think the following point was already addressed, but I'll restate it. The government incentive to execute criminals due to organ sales would be lower under a free organ market, because prices would be lower across the board.

This thread should be a general discussion regarding the sale of human organs. I was prompted to start it because of this story. It is about China's organ sales of executed prisoners. Here is an excerpt: While the voluntary sale of an organ is moral and should be protected by law, I am disturbed by this story. I do not know enough about China's legal system to conclude that they are executing only those criminals who deserve death. Additionally, I have qualms with giving money to a government such that denies basic civil rights. I believe, given my level of knowledge, it would be immoral to purchase an organ from the PRC. Your thoughts?

Welcome to the forum. I see some people have answered while I was typing, but I think I still have something of value to add. You mentioned that you are 17. It is no surprise that you are working for less money than most people. This is something that will change with experience. But it isn't going to change without some effort on your part. If you aren't satisfied with what you are making, check the job adds every week until you find something. Also, consider living on a smaller budget. I don't buy cars that cost more than $2,500... At least, I won't until I have a much larger income. I used to think of myself as an Anarchist, but I never abandoned the notion of property. I came to realize that a government was a necessary instrument to protect all rights, including property rights. I don't necessarily think that Ayn Rand should have called her ideal system "Capitalism." While any proper government should be capitalistic in the sense that it protects property, and thus enforces the notion that people deserve the values that they create, her ideal government was based on the principle of individual rights derived from the survival requirements of man - a principle that implies property rights, among many other rights. I don't want to shatter your worldview (well, I do, but I don't want it to be painful), but your Anarchist society flies in the face of reality. While people would be free to work for their lives, they would also be free not to. The simple fact is that man must act if he is to survive, let alone be happy. No social system should set about trying to deny reality, because those attempts necessarily end in disaster. Objectivism advocates Laissez-Faire Capitalism. This is a system that recognizes, among other things, that men must be free to use their minds to promote their lives. It also recognizes the fact that, at any time, a volitional human being can choose to deny the requirements of man's life and violate the rights of another. This is why a policing body is necessary. While I don't have any sources that point to an Objectivist authority advocating wiretapping, I believe it is well within the proper bounds of government to listen to the communications of suspected hostile organizations. As far as food not getting to those who are starving, simply look at the governments that they live under. There is no system in place to protect the rights of those people. Have you ever entertained the notion that Statism and Anarchy as two sides of the same coin?

I was going to comment on that, and I will now that it was brought up. The writer even states in the article that Brook served in the IDF. It amazes me how little consideration reporters will give to the subject matter of their reports. In this case, so little consideration was given that an obvious contradiction (regarding the accent) was passed over... Either that, or the author is engaging in willful deception by trying to obfuscate Dr. Brook's authority on the subject matter by making him sound like he is not from the middle east.

Ayn Rand identified where competition is impossible for a properly functioning government; force, and force alone. There is nothing special about roads that makes them the one exception. No, this isn't a good example, nor is a private fire service an hypothetical. Special industries have private fire brigades due to the specialization that the jobs they do require. Do you think they would be less effective at stopping fires in more simple situations?

This makes me smile: I've heard Dr. Brook speak live and even this out of context quote helps me to recall how powerful his arguments are... I'd love to hear another "diatribe" of his in person, so long as "diatribe" is used in the sense of a forceful or bitter argument. We in the West have a lot to be bitter about when it comes to Islam.

I am going to second the Sparrowhawk suggestion. While capitalism as an economic system is alluded to, capitalism as a political system permeates the series. It isn't a short story, though.

I don't think this is the right direction to take the discussion. They have produced reasons for their conclusions. You and I may not be satisfied by them, but if we are not, we need to demonstrate why they are insufficient, as I will attempt to do once I'm done reading the entire thread. That is, of course, unless I find something new and compelling to change my mind on the way.

He was trying to console his daughter. He wasn't being a bad person, but the way he did it was terrible. I never would have told my kid something like, "put on this hair clip and you'll be invincible." That's a recipe for a dead kid. So, yeah, I think he did something wrong.