IAmMetaphysical

You can't hold contradictions in the mind, not in way you mean it. Can you imagine a square circle?

I was responding to a specific post that at least implied that etiquette laws are okay because you won't run into problems outlawing obviously irrational behavior in a fully rational society.

No one has the right to impose morality on the irrational, that is, it is not okay to violate someone's rights because you are making them act more rationally. So it would not be okay to impose ettiquette laws in an Objectivist haven because no one would misuse the laws, the laws would still be immoral.

Is sex dangerous?

All very good points, I will get something different out of it the next time I read it. Thanks guys.

Great post Ifat, great analysis.

Its pointless to go on with you.

Galt doesn't do it as punishment to Rearden or because of the rule, he does it for selfish reasons: he doesn't want to risk being found out by the looters. His comment to Fransisco was to show Fransisco that he was overly concerned with someone else's feeling at the expense of his safety. And least that what I got from my reading of it.

Bring it back to force, and disallowing somone the right to use their mind and body. Grabbing someone's hand in a restrictive manner is a violation of their rights because it restricts their application of their right to live. Tapping someone's arm to get their attention is engaging their mind in the task of living(in perceiving you and judging you.) Think of it in terms of theft and trade. If I forceably take your property, I have negated your mind, I have taken it out of the equation. If I offer you a dollar bill instead, I have engaged your mind and appealed to your reason, the same as tapping you on the shoulder and allowing you to either listen to me or disregard me. If you disregard me and tell me that you don't want to give me your attention and I insist on tapping you on the shoulder then I have negated your mind from the relationship and its a violation. This is total psychological ad hominem and irrelevant.

I am not saying that it would "be" "there" outside of the universe, at least not in the sense you are implying you think I mean. Do you not understand what I mean by "space is a potential" and it is that potential that is "around the total sum of entities?" If you want to continue having discussions with me, THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING: Stop making insulting comments like this one.

Its a thought experiment. What I mean is that if you can collect all the amount of stuff in the universe in one frame of consciousness and be able to say that all of it is "here" then surrounding that would be empty space strecthing off into infinity, that there would be no place where space ends. Space is potential because it doesn't actually have existence without the entities that spatially relate, that probably why my hypothetical is a little confusing, because in order for the space around the universe to make sense we have to have a reference point of some other entity to relate to the rest of the universe. But the point is that the potential for the existence of the relation between existents is infinite in number. Think of it terms of feet-between in stead of "amount" of space. This is how I am not reifying space. Space is an existent, not an entity, I am no more reifying space when I say it has existence then when I say that a jump has existence, and it would make as much sense (disregarding gravity) to say that a jump is potentially infinite in height.

When what is?

You're still reifying the zero and sayng that "empty" space is an entity which has quantity. There are a finite number of entities in the universe and they exist "in" space. So lets say you got far enough away from the universe to be able to see all the entities that exist in one frame of consciousness. There would be an infinite amount of space surrounding it because space is a potentiality, not an actuality in the sense of being an entity. SO you could potentially split up half the entities in the universe and separate them ad infinitum in space so that if you separated them by a billion light years you could awlays separate them just a little bit more. Now this does not mean that there is always an infinite amount of space between two entities, only that the quantity of space is depandant on the existence and relationship between two entities and does not have any existence outside that context. Just as things like "jumping," "throwing," "vomiting" have no existence outside the things that jump, throw, and vomit, "spatial relationships" has no existence outside the things that relate spatially.

Ifat, you hit the nail on the head with that one. Its not about harm at all, but the initiation of physical force which forces one to act against his own judgment (that's where consent comes into play.) BlackDaimond: That is what is meant by "protecting the mind protects the body" because there is no other way to interact with the mind than through the body so protections of the mind must also protect the medium of the mind's application to life. That's why instances of physical coercion are violations of rights, because the body is the property of the mind and the way a mind applies itself to metaphysical reality.

And it still stands that first: you must show how this is a violation, simply asserting it will not do and second: you must show how my principle is at odds with the fact that touching someone without their permission is a violation of their right to their instrument of enacting their mind to their life. Man is a being of body and mind, to say that rights exist to protect the mind means that the body must also be protected. You are separating the two, not I, my argument stands. Just because I did not hold your hand and walk you through the entire deduction and application doesn't mean its not there. You have no idea what anarchy means.

Yeah, I totally agree. As well this ''anything goes in terms of the 'free' market as long as no one initiates force'' is also anarchy. Laissez-Faire?? Forget it! Oh wait, is that a strawman????

So then someone who wants to sunbathe nude in his backyard can not possibly know beforehand whether or not his action is illegal?

The first step in my recovery is admitting that I am helpless and must rely on a higher power, so NO!!

They are existents, that is they exist, but they are not entities, but attributes (more specifically relationships among) entities.

Hi Eric. Are you an acoholic?

No, he loves them because they allow him to paint.

Exactly man, exactly.

If his dog is his property, he has the right to treat his property any way he wants to.

My point is not that it is ok to be "mediocre" only to point out that there is a base to living qua man and then there are a lot of optional values to be had from there. You are trying to say that if a man doesn't gain a certain value, then he isn't being a man, but a man is one who gains the three more general values which stem directly from his life. We can't separate value from life, and life here does mean physical survival, as it means existence and man can not exist without his body. The reason qua man is added and that it doesn't mean "survival at any price" is because man has a set nature determining how he is able to survive physically, which is by the use of his mind. You live qua man by using your mind to produce the values your body needs. Your mind also needs value or nourishment so in order to use it properly it does have certain psychological needs, such as self esteem. You gain self esteem by attainign values as such, by recognizing your ability to attain values, not by viewing another person and having sex with them.

Because a rational man's purpose is his productive work, or sustaining his life. And yes, I meant consumes no more than he produces. Of course there are a whole slew of virtues that are required for achieving these three main values, but it is a different matter to then say that one is not being reasonable by being non-monogamous, or that one is not being purposeful, or that one has no self esteem because one doesn't have a mirror.