TheOpposition

Are those quotes not talking about the comapanies who are asking/receiveing their "stimulus package" funds? If so, wouldn't the government be able to decide what terms they require to continually supply them with American taxpayer-dollars? (Not trying to say that anything the American government is doing at the moment is right. However, I think focusing that the government even considering handing out money to whoever asks for it is the problem at hand.) Obama is a good public speaker. But everything he speaks of is limiting freedom for everyone in America... I don't understand how he became so popular so fast

JeffS - I think there is a problem with how you are communicating your question, which is leading to this confusion. So, before I go on I have a question. Let's just say for the moment that I go to some public place and make the announcment: "If anybody here punches me in the face, I will punch you back." or "If anyone Initiates force(coercion) against me, I will use retalitory force(coercion) as a response." Am I initiating force?

What is a "real choice" and a ""fair" wage"? Having limited options for employment and having someone put a gun to your head and telling you to toil around are different things. Slavery isn't just having limited options available to you, it's somebody initiating physical coercion against you to steal your time(labor) and wealth. No, he's not. He's a man who is trying to find a better job.

I know when I was in Highschool, heck, even middle school, There were class dues. I live in Ontario, Canada. There was no vote in the class, just an announcement from our teachers stating that the cost for a student to properly equip them was X amount of dollars. I never really understood it myself, Since we were required to have all needed classroom essentials (Pencils, pens and what-have-you). I heard the excuse to get new textbooks to help replace destroyed ones, but I've never seen a new Textbook in my Highschool in my entire career. If you don't pay they call your household to ask for it directly from your parents. If they say they cannot afford it, you're off the hook. We're also supposed to have 'free' schooling paid for by the government. If this is a private school/College/University, then yeah, I guess your stuck

Hello again everyone. I have a question about a question I've been running into a lot recently. Like the Topic title indicates. "Well, how can you prove that God doesn't exist?" I have a lot of discussions with people, on other forums, friends, family, and acquaintances(for fun/practice). In the subjects I feel familiar enough to actually get into a debate with another person, things usually dissolve when I get hit with that question... I am unsure how to respond correctly. I tried the "burden of proof" line and got it retorted back to me. I essentially got lost in the question. The best thing I came up with is stating "I can't disprove anything, because you haven't given me any arguments for me to refute." And that generally ends the discussion. I'd go deeper into the fallacy of negative proof, but I find it derails the current topic. And I find it hard to articulate my thoughts when things I see as rudimentary (Like some fallacies) and explain them in detail... Any other ways of thinking, or answers to that dreaded(stupid?) question? For some reason that I can't put my finger on, I don't feel that response is 'rock solid' enough. Maybe I'm getting tricked by the fallacy itself, I may not even require a more in-depth answer. Anyone have any pointers for me?

Thank you for the link JAKSN, I'll be sure to read it thoroughly.

Well, perhaps empathize is a better word for it then. I too was confused with all the 'hub-bub' of mainstream 'Philosophy' back when I was younger, never really committed to it, but lacked the self-confidence to stand up and say "I disagree". I lacked the courage to make enemies back then. It was when I realized I poured everything that was me into trying to attain their kind of 'good' was only driving myself to the ground, I chose to walk away from it, and set-out on my own. ...Anyways, If I can give an honest person I'm discussing with an idea that he has not considered, and goes along that line of thinking, I could spare him some of the grief I had to go through. So, at best I gain an ally/friend, at worst, another tally point to the people I write off as pointless. Either way, it's worth it to me. Well, from my understanding of the Objectivist stand-point on values, is that Life is a requirement to have a capacity to value, which makes it the 'Primary Value'. With all other values necessarily lower on the hierarchy of values for any given life-form.

Hello everyone, Finally back here on this forum for something other than lurking. I was wondering if anyone is willing to explain the 'Broken Unit' as Ayn Rand or Objectivism defines it? Or can point me to some reading material where I can study up on it. I ask because I notice a number on 'Abortion issue' threads on the forums, and I believe knowing the Objectivist definition of the broken unit will help me sure up some things I have rattling around in my head. I'd elaborate a bit more, but then I'd make this thread another 'Abortion issue'. and that's kinda outside the scope of what I had planned for tonight Also, any personal musings on the subject of Broken units would also be appreciated.

True enough. I have heard that before, even before I learned of Objectivism. Before when I heard this I was at a loss for words, I was unable to speak to him. Now, that I have some sort of understanding of what that means, (Reading/Studying philosophy is something I like to find time to do.) ... I'm not sure of the word for it, its a mix of disgust/confusion/pity for that person. I try to explain that Truth and Good and Evil can be objectively concluded, but most people can't/won't understand something unless it takes less than 10 seconds to explain or comes from a 50 to 1000 something year-old text. I just remind them that words have definitions and meanings, and that they are saying that everything is nothing, and that being burned alive -can- be a good thing, or that happiness can be a -bad- thing. I usually get sneers after that though.

I haven't sat down with VOS for a while now, but I beleive Ayn Rand stated that because all forms of life (other than humans) has it's own survival as it's top priority (Primary value) dictated by it's nature. (However, I've seen a thread on these forums a long time ago that disputes that an organisms life is not always it's primary value.) Man, however, has the ability to choose to live life or die. As opposed to animals who don't have the faculty of reason and automatically choose life. I believe the defintion of good "that which promotes one's life" is synonomous with "that which coincides with one's nature" which for man is using his ability to reason to his utmost potential. And evil being the opposite; "that which is a detriment to one's life, or "That which goes against one's nature". I can't wrap my head around anyone who says they can't -prove- good to be this. The only other option is to saying that defying nature; refusing to know what you are (Read: Dying) is good. It baffles me. Keep in mind I have not studied Ayn Rands works for quite some time, and only just recently started back up in earnest (Had to do a lotta school and work and I'm now finally getting some time to enjoy some other things I've been wanting to sink my teeth into. (Currently going through "The God Delusion" by R. Dawkins. it's entertaining reading) (Edit: Wrote Hawkins instead of Dawkins.)

Now, I'll admit I did skim over the first half of the thread, so I may not have picked up every idea presented. However, the longer the discussion went on, the more I understood it. Basically, when a debate or conversation goes on, I notice that it forces both sides to break down there arguments into more fundamental basics to show their reasoning. Freddy and Brenner couldn't get past the "Well a guy did it and nothing bad happened to him, so that makes it right to do" argument. I say if you have to try more than 3 times to try and get a better argument, just leave it be, they are more just trying to save face than actually try and concretize a concept to themselves. Also just don't bother when the sarcasm starts to flow. Not worth the time after that. I found the things you presented to be insightful to the discussion.

Hello all, this is the first thread I have created here on this forum. I apologize in advance if the topic is not located under the proper forum. I have a question about the abilities of the government. I understand that the Government, under Ayn Rand's view, should only consist of the Police, Army, and the Judiciary system. All of which I understand. However, is the government limited to only these three fields? This question stems mainly on the governments ability to receive funding for itself. Can the Government be a landlord? A businessman? Or is it only allowed to accept donations? Any insights on this would be appreciated.

Hello all. First time poster here, I thought I'd start here on this thread. A striving student of Objectivism. Although I'm still a little hazy on the Emergency Situation, (I'll think on it some more.) I have a comment about the Grenade tossing example. If person-A- suddenly finds a grenade in his room, and knowingly tosses it into person-B-'s room, would that not mean person-A- is initiating force against an innocent being? And thus person-a- is considered Evil by Objectivism? It just sound like Altruism from a different angle. Instead of being guilted to sacrifice yourself, your physically put on top of a grenade. (If you choose to toss the grenade at another person) So, I guess an objectivist would either learn, very quickly, how to stop a grenade from detonating. Or come to the conclusion that living a shorter-than-expected and Moral life, is better than living a longer yet Evil life. If there are any holes in that kind of thinking, make sure to point it out