Daedalus

This is terribly confused. Money is a medium of exchange. Sound money represents something, such as units of gold or silver. "One man's money is another man's debt"? On the contrary, money represents not debt, but assets. The reason for interest is that present money is valued more highly than future money. Jones cannot wait until he has saved $100,000 to buy a house. So he borrows the money from Smith. To get the money now instead of 20 years in the future, Jones pays a premium, i.e. interest. If there was "never enough money to go around to pay back that debt," then bankers and other investors would go out of business. Capital investment endures and thrives because people generally do pay back their debts.

I've addressed this issue forthrightly on another thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...41entry110441 If you can come up with a better resolution you're welcome to try.

Haven't dropped context at all. Same factors at play in both situations. Read it and applied it. Nothing in it contradicts what I've said. Feel free to disagree. My interpretation is the correct one.

On the contary, I regard all of Ayn Rand's principles as provable according to the nature of reality and man's ability to reason. Do you suppose they are not? I fail to see what you are driving at. I have fully explained and justified all of my Objectivist positions. Would you like me to justify any of yours? I have already explained that Ayn Rand's opposition to the draft is consistent with her support of killing innocents who are in the way of immediate self-defense. Would you like me to call on someone from ARI to explain it further? Okay, I'll bite. Tell me, softwareNerd, why the draft is different from compulsory testimony?

1. See Post #s 35, 46, 49 and others. 2. Answered in Post #78. 3. If an individual is the owner of his own life and liberty, then the responsibility for removing any threat thereto rests on himself. If he requires help to remove the threat, it is his responsibility to get the help he needs. 4. When government becomes a menace to an individual's liberty, it is his responsibility to secure or recover his liberty. One way is to change government. Another way is to leave the country. If he fails or makes no attempt, he simply has to endure the consequences as best he can. This is no different from bearing the responsibility of feeding oneself. Alternatively, who or what would be responsible for feeding or freeing you? God? Mom? Big Brother? Hegel's World-Soul? 5. Blame and responsibility are separate issues. If the population as a whole is responsible for getting good government, then by extension each individual is responsible as well. 6. If a gang of vandals destroys a farmer's crops, he is not suddenly absolved of the necessity of feeding himself. Do we blame Farmer John for the drought? No. Do we still hold him responsible for his own survival? Yes. 7. Refer to point 1 in this post. 8. You do the best you can and then accept the consequences. If your "best" was not good enough, then you still have to suffer. 9. See above. 10. See above and see what Ayn Rand had to say. 11. See all of above. 12. Refute it if you can. 13. In your previous posts? 14. Remember the distinction between "blame" and "responsibility." 15. And thank you for a delightful series of unsupported assertions. 16. But precisely how could a government remain stable or in power for any length of time unless the majority of the population actively sought to undermine it? 17. See point 3 above. Who should be responsible for freeing you from tyranny? The Tooth Fairy? The Angel Gabriel? Superman? The Care Bears?

In fact, it is not the government that is the violator of a witness's rights but rather the criminal whose initial aggressive act made the government's response necessary. This is the very point Dr. Ghate made in regard to the holdup man with the baby strapped to his chest. As to taxation and the draft, I explained before that Ayn Rand made it clear that those policies are never legitimate in a free society. Supporting compulsory financing of government or a slave army would automatically disqualify one as an Objectivist. On the other hand, Ayn Rand produced no strictures against subpoenas and other legal requirements to assist law enforcement authorities.

Unproven assertion. Unproven assertion #2. False. I've offered many arguments separate from Ayn Rand's statements. Strawman. No, because by definition "the immoral state of the world" and one's own government are not one and the same thing. Never claimed that everyone is equally to blame for bad government, only that everyone bears a responsibility for making sure he has good government. The right to life is the right to take those actions necessary to support one’s life, but each individual is responsible for taking those actions. Because it is self-evident that government would collapse if it did not enjoy the acquiescence if not outright support of its people. Because they are citizens too. Strawman again.

Check your premises. Government is merely responding to criminal activity. Any rights violations that are incurred through the pursuit of justice are ultimately the fault of the predator, not the government. Just as the blame for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves, so the blame for inconveniencing witnesses lies with the rapist, the murderer or the holdup man.

What do you mean "no longer directly in danger"? Do you suppose there is no danger in releasing a serial killer back into society -- because a witness has refused to testify? Do you suppose there is no danger in not reporting a kidnapping, a shooting, a beating to the police? Violent acts are threats of the most immediate and direct kind. In response, the government must use all the force at its disposal -- even if it means "hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

What I have done is to show that the right of self-defense is universal. It is not limited to bizarre cases of gunmen with babies on their chest. It extends to all areas of life -- including the courtroom.

Feel free to move on, but I have in fact shown that one may respond to an aggressor in self-defense even if the response means "hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent." I agree that my neighbor does not have to put up with aggression. If a thug kidnaps her, she should overpower him and kill him. But if she is not able to do so, and the thug uses her as a shield to come after me, then I have the right to shoot through her to kill the aggressor. Similarly, it is a legitimate right of self-defense to act upon a witness who is shielding a criminal by not speaking. It is consistent with Ayn Rand's position that "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138 Then obviously you disagree with Ayn Rand's position that one may may act in self-defense even if such action unavoidably hurts innocent parties,

If you'll read the whole thread you'll see that resposibility is not merely about suffering the consequences. Responsibility is the idea that one must think and act in order to obtain one's values, including life and liberty. Or as Don Watkins III puts it, "The right to liberty is the right to take those actions necessary to secure one’s liberty – the responsibility for taking those actions is one’s own." http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4367

I have shown that the situations are practically identical in the fundamental issues involved. My position is consistent with what Ayn Rand has written: "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

1. I would argue that the removal of a violent predator from society requires immediate action. How many more rapes and deaths must we endure? It is true that the witness has not chosen her role as the bearer of testimony against the predator. But for that matter the infant in Dr. Ghate's scenario did not choose his role as an avenue for the passage of the bullet into the holdup man's heart. 2. If the only option one has for self preservation is to puncture an infant with a bullet aimed at the heart of a holdup man, then one is morally entitled to do so. The same holds for testimony that stands between jailing a killer and setting him free. It is an issue of self-defense. See points 1 and 2 above.

Defensive force does not require any altruism on the part of unwilling witnesses or bystanders. In Dr. Ghate's hypothetical case, when the person in jeopardy shoots through the baby to kill the holdup man, the shooter is not demanding any altruism from the unlucky baby; the shooter is simply defending himself in the only way that the aggressor has allowed. In the case of a subpoenaed witness, the force comes ultimately from the criminal's acts against others. If the only way to get to the criminal is through the witness, then the subpoena power is legitimate. Furthermore, if testimony is compelled, then it cannot be considered an act of altruism, because it is not chosen.

Yes, the distinction is important, and I should have been more exact in my wording. The evidence has been submitted -- and more than once: "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life." (Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Forum 1976) Which doesn't square with her Ford Hall Forum 1976 statement above. Then I'll rely on the 1976 Ayn Rand as my authoritative source. If immediacy is the criterion, then what could be of more immediate concern to a society than to move killers off the streets? If one witness stands between keeping a serial murderer in jail or releasing him to prey on more victims, then a subpoena could be as valuable as a bullet aimed at the heart of a holdup man. If I wished to argue that all ethics should be based on emergencies (which I don't), I certainly wouldn't contend that the concept of "emergency" is invalid. And, by the way, I'm not the one who introduced emergencies into this discussion.

Sometimes defensive force brings regrettable but unavoidable costs to third parties. But the vital point is that the defensive force as well as its unfortunate consequences was made necessary by the initiator of violence. As for setting precedents, I have already explained on this thread that military commanders and public prosecutors should not have unchecked powers to coerce innocents.

Defensive force is retaliatory not initiatory in nature. In considering a case, you must ask who was the first person to act in a way that put another's rights in jeopardy. We have discussed shooting through a baby and shooting down an airliner to eliminate the threats posed respectively by a gunman and hijackers. Clearly, those who react to kidnapping/hjacking by sending a bullet through a baby and a missile into a hijacked plane did not create the crisis. Their ability to respond in a way that spares all innocents has been intentionally limited by the aggressors. Therefore, the aggressors must take full blame for loss of any innocent life. Ayn Rand: "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent."

I have already answered these points. See Post #66 regarding the nature of responsibility. See Post #65 regarding the "quote out of context" calumny.

Here's what I wrote, "Ultimately, it is not the victim of a crime or his government-protector who bears responsibility for compelling witness testimony. Rather, it is the lawbreaker, the aggressor, the violator of person and property." By this I meant that the victim of a crime and his government protector are not morally to blame for the inconvenience done to a witness who must testify; it is the predator who is to blame. There is no inconsistency between this statement and holding that the individual is ultimately responsible for securing his life and liberty. Being responsible for securing one's own liberty does not mean that the victim of a hold-up is ethically at fault for a witness having to take a day off work to testify in the suspect's trial. It is the perpetrator who takes the blame. If the President is acting morally (as well as legally) in shooting down a hijacked plane full of innocent U.S. citizens, then my point has been confirmed: that the rights of one person are sometimes unfortunately violated in order to protect the self-defense rights of another. This is precisely the point that Dr. Ghate makes in his example of the holdup man and the infant. Saying that "Rand did not advocate killing babies" does not address any part of my argument. I never implied any such advocacy. Rather, I provided a specific hypothetical authored by Dr. Ghate and carefully explained why Ayn Rand would agree with using defensive force, even if it had unfortunate consequences to a third party: "answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him." What is your definition of an "emergency"? If it means some short-term event, what about a war that goes on for 10 years or so? After, say, five years on conflict, would military commanders be forbidden to take any action with the possibility of collateral damage? "Under Ohio law, persons who have knowledge of a felony (a victim of or witness to the crime) are required to report the crime to the police (Ohio Revised Code § 2921.22). Failure to report a crime may itself be a crime." http://www.ps.ohio-state.edu/police/campus...rting_crime.php

Would it be considered impolite to ask for the source of the quote?

Assuming responsibility for securing your life and liberty means that ultimately it is the individual who has to make sure that he survives and does become the victim of a predator. It does not mean taking the moral blame for acts of coercion against one. And it not mean throwing one's hands up in defeat when one is confronted with an attack or the threat of one.

Who said the victim of a crime is not responsible for his own life? Not me. Citizens who take measures to thwart crime, such as putting a proper Objectivist government in power, reduce their chances of becoming victims. Yes, establish and enforce rules. One such rule forbids the hijacking of planes. If the President had the power to order United Flight 93 shot down, that would be one way of enforcing rules and providing for the defense of the nation. Now does blowing the plane up in mid-air further the interests of the non-hijackers on board? Hardly. But, as Ayn Rand pointed out, "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent." Nothing to disagree with here. It is not always necessary. But in the hypothetical cases of United 93 and the holdup man with the baby, it may be necessary. And when force is used in self-defense, the ultimate blame must be cast on the initiator of force. Ayn Rand wrote, "When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138 Now is it your position that when Ayn Rand wrote, "never mind . . . who is behind him," she did not mean to include infants but adults only? And presumably she'd have a SWAT team climb aboard United 93 in mid-air and disarm the hijackers of their box-cutters.

So the President, if he had the means to do so, could not morally have ordered that United Flight 93 be shot down? After all, it had quite a few U.S. citizens on board. Why would you assume that the holdup man would not pull the trigger once you had dropped your gun and handed over your wallet? Anytime a gun is pointed at you, count on it being loaded and count on it being fired. I could not consider myself an Objectivist (i.e., one who believes in the philosophy of Ayn Rand), if I supported either taxation or the draft. Ayn Rand opposed both. If you wish to claim that Ayn Rand was inconsistent in opposing the draft but permitting the use of force against innocents standing behind a gunman, I'd have to disagree.

Ayn Rand wrote, "When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138 Are you suggesting that when confroted with this situation, Ayn Rand would have taken a course that did not value self-esteem and the sanctity of her own life? Ayn Rand described those "who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people" as "g*dd*mn*d pacifists." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5138 I consider the answer I gave you satisfactory. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, you yourself have not ruled out laws that require one to help the legal system. So how do you reconcile that with opposing the draft?