Richard_Halley

Scowler, hatred is an emotion, not an action. Particularly, it is the emotion which one feels for that which one percieves destroys ones values. Based on that, ask yourself: what are the dangers of ignoring ones hatred? Would that not be a neagation of ones values?

\ I suppose someone should mention that all Objectivists are in favor of the companys freedom to expand... not most.

Like I said, Rexton... here.

Again, Slave, when you only have two options, picking the best of the two is not a compromise.

"None of the Above" is not an option. While one may abstain from voting, this action is merely an abdictation of the choice, it leaves the decision up to others. I would hate to be the one to break it to you, but, next January, either Bush or Kerry is going to be president. In November, you have a decision to make: which one do you prefer?

It seems more likely that she said that, while she agrees with most libertarian politics, it would be immoral to vote for a libertarian. She certianly never wrote anything suggesting that voting itself is immoral.

Based on Thjatsi's description, Transhumanism is not a philosophy at all. It seems to be merely the belief that technology is good, connected with a few other, unjustified, beleifs (such as this "singularity" nonsense). In any case, Transhumanism seems to be a floating abstraction. As a result, it is a bad idea to associate oneself with such a group/movement.

Justified? Yes, they are invading your property... Wise? No, it is a losing battle. Fighting such a battle would surely result in an even worse situation than before.

You are missing the point of my question... Under your system, the primary (only?) reason to register your contracts is to prevent having to hire lawers to write them, but your system still requires that one hire lawers to write contracts. Seems like my (Rand's?) system is a little easier...

So than, if this is your contract fee, where are your contracts coming from... is the government writing them for you? I believe the version of this Rand argued for went more like this: Upon any contractual agreement, a certian percentage of the value of the contract may be paid to the government. If this is done, than that contract is to be legaly binding, as opposed to being merely a personal agreement. The courts, then, would not have anything to do with any contracts for which this amount is not paid on.

Your suggestion amounts to having to pay extra for items you don't "need." And your answer did not even attempt to provide justification for this. Erik: I like the "contract enforcement fee" so long as it is optional, i.e. if I choose not to pay it, than my contract is not enforcable by law. I also like an optional sales tax, so one may simply tell the cashier "yes" when asked if one would like to pay it. This is a good way for someone to keep their donations to government in proportion with the amount of property the government is protecting.

Why? What justifies taxing "luxury" items and not regular items? Who decides what is "luxury" and what is not?

The fact that they did not mention it explicitly does not mean that they were not complaining about it... They were complaining about taxes altogether, how you divorce this from "Business Welfare" is beyond me.

Life should be the first value of every man, particularly, his own life. But this does not mean that the government (or anyone else) is entitled to force everyone to act as though this were the case... I suggest you read The Virtue of Selfishness... there is an essay in there regarding the purpose of government in a free society. Perhaps it will explain this to you. And, while the above is true, it says only that somethings must be regulated, not that "public interest monopolies" are among them. And, since Rand was clear that only the initiation of force may be regulated by a proper government, if you are offering the above as evidence that Rand would have agreed with you, you are doing so dishonestly.

It is not lamentable to me. In fact it is benefical to me...

94% huh... Yeah, I guess that would be about all the "small" businesses. And, Geezer, I think that is one of the things that they are complaining about.

Invictus, you still seem to be implying that saving lives of American troops is not "cause" to kill citizens of an enemy country. It is.

This is like saying: Pasta salad requires no pasta. Clearly, rational anything requires rationality. You seem to think that the personal is, by definition, not rational. That, when I look at a painting, or hear a peice of music, I (should) merely feel, not think. Why do you think this?

Race is not the issue here, Invictus... nobody has suggested that Iranians are worse than Americans because they were born in Iran. In fact, up to now, you are the only one who has even mentioned race in any way. However, there are other reasons why one may say that anyone living in Iran is less valuable than someone living in America. I can and do... I say that the life of each and every American troop is worth more than all the Iranians, whose deaths I may be held accountable for, put together.

I would like to point out that the truth of the Objectivist axioms is observable in the same way scientific evidence is... in fact they are observed in the very act of observing. Heres how: In order for something to be observed there must exist something to be observed, there must exist something to be observed, and there must exist a consciousness to observe it. Their truth may not be proven, however, since all arugments rely on them (including scientific ones).

Very good, Balin, very good...

daniel, I call Spears' music meaningless mostly because it is not intended to have any meaning. I have not heard much of her music, from what I have heard, though, her music is essentially standard pop beats with standard pop progressions... I am not really arguing that none of her music has any meaning--although it would be unintentional if it does--just that it doesn't have enough meaning to interest me.

Picking the least harmfull of your options is not a compromise... And by the way, I was under the impression that Rand did vote (I seem to remeber something about voting against Reagan because of his policy on abortion). In fact, I looked up "voting" in the Lexicon, and found nothing about it being immoral in any way, much less for the reasons you stated.

I was attempting to use Spears as an example of how even Objective judgment may vary from person to person... I could have articulated this better, but my primary point in discussing Spears was not that her music is meaningless--though I do believe it to be--but that, even if we prove it to be meaningless Objectivly, value judgments may still be different.

It has been a while since I have seen Amadeus... but I had thought that Salieri had not killed him in the movie, but thought he did. Salieri's reasoning, if I recall, was that God did not want him to have any good music to his name (or no eternal fame?), so God killed Mozart before he could finish the peice Salieri was going to steal from him... I don't know how historically accurate this is, but I think that is the way it happened in the film.