aequalsa

ok...I see the problem. Just an idea. Not sure how to escape that. I guess my trust for capitalists and distrust for bureaucrats got the best of me. Any ideas on how to practically insure that people are not able to vote away my rights for their own interests? Because that is my major concern. The only other option that occurs to me is to wait for that paradigm shift where everyone(or at least a clear majority) act in their longterm rational self interest, which requires a level of idealism that I can't honestly buy into. Without an answer to that riddle, I see little benefit in constructing even a perfect constitution. Even rights which are expressly stated are almost wholly ignored. Take for example "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed so long as they wait seven days and acquire the proper permits and do not attempt to buy anything which could be used to fully automatize the weapon and....." Or somethin like that. Unless it is actually properly enforcible they are just words with meanings which can be reinterperated and ignored. I can see it now. Article 7 The government shall have no power to levy taxes. Instead we will have sales tariffs and income fees. Up until the 1830's in the US, property ownership was a requirement of sufferage. I understand that they had similiar concerns and that was their attempt to slow the apparently inevitable shift. Property ownership seems to be a poor estimation of economic vestedness. A CEO who lived in an apartment would be disqualified. Doesn't really make sense. I thought this might be a better way to insure moral voters. To answer your question, yes, of course it belongs to them. But the paper they owned would possess no value if other people somewhere didn't produce anything. I hadn't thought about the ownership factor of the money. I assume that to be consistent, you could not keep them from voting either since that would interfere with their liberty to act. So ideas?

Strictly speaking, I would argue that if you work for the government, you are not "making" money. The goods which that money represents had to be created at some point prior to being given to you. The amount you are paid and your job security are tied to the governments ability to get more money. In the market, your pay scale and job security are directly proportional to the degree of economic freedom and your personel abilities. Donating money to a campaign is a way of influencing policy. My contention is, that in order to encourage a free market friendly government, it is necessary to have a clear relationship between the self-interest of the voters and policy shapers, and the market. Consider the difficulty in changing something so obviously evil and flawed as social security. You would have to convince one of the most sizable voting blocks in the country (AARP type folks) that it is in their best interests to not have the $1200 they steal from me at gun point each month. Just not likely to happen. They have a direct vested interest in the immorality. Another example is the teachers union. 2nd largest lobbying group in the country. I know quite a few business owners and not a single one of them could afford to eat if they were to work the 180 days/ year required of the "underpaid" teachers. So when it comes time to vote on whether to increase taxes to pay teachers more, they are going to, by and large, vote yes regardless of what economic harm will result. In theory, unlike now, there should never be enough government employees to influence an election, but a little insurance that it stayed that way probably wouldn't hurt.

I have always held a secret distaste for democratic and even republican forms of government, given the apparent human predilection for voting away their economic rights in order to gain some supposed benefits. Of course, the alternatives, monarchy an so forth, are even less appealing. The 9th amendment(unenumerated rights)in the US constitution is easily understood by any 10 year old but almost never considered in court(apparently most judges possess the intellect of a 9 year old ). So saying that rights must be protected would be a lot more likely to be followed by those to whom the rights actually apply. At least with regard to economic issues. So a way I recommend which might help insure that people are less likely to vote away property rights is to limit sufferage to only those people who produce an income solely, in the free market. Particularly excluded would be anyone who collects money from the government in any way. So, senators, soldiers and bureaucrats who get federal paychecks; welfare recipitents, if such a thing exists; contractors, military or otherwise who provide a service or product to the government would all be excluded. Not only from voting, but also from contributing to any political campaign. They have a direct vested interest in transfer of wealth to the government, and are not the producers who ultimately pay the bill. I believe this would go along way to insuring proper representation. I do not think they should pe permanently banned from voting but ,perhaps a significant period of time should lapse(7 years maybe?) during which they produce in the market before gaining their sufferage. Not unlike immigrants.

What sort of activities are you interested in? A lot of outdoorsish things available up in the mountains; hiking, climbing, rafting, etc. Otherwise, goldmine museum, hot springs, or a bunch of other stuff in denver if you are not staying just in aspen.

" 'Integrity' is loyalty in action to ones values. As the name suggests, this virtue is one's recognition of the fact that man is an integrated being, a unity made up of matter and conciousness. As such, he may, in Ayn Rand's words, 'permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions...' " -Leonard Peikoff OPAR pg. 259 I like Peikoff's definition better. I understand having integrity to mean being integrated mentally, physically and emotionally. So not only 'walking the talk' but feeling the talk as well. Wynand I would describe as being integrated mentally and physically but not emotionally. His thoughts and actions corresponded well as seen by his efficaciousness in regard to work, but his obvious lack of emotional fulfillment as evidenced by his earlier choices in women do not correspond. He wanted Dominique and Mallory statues but spent most of his time, money, and energy promoting drivel with the banner and chasing cheap women. Probably because he did not think better things were possible. When he did later acquire them, he did his best to keep them secret, for himself. The key difference between Roark and Wynand revolves around this lack of integrity with regard to values. In the same situation, Wynand would not have worked in a quarry. He would have designed what people wanted regardless of what they should want. So...no...you can't sell your soul and still have integrity. At least not in any meaningful sense of the word.

I highly recommend getting a copy of How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age It will give you a better handle on how all of that nonsense actually "works". Also Check out the James Randi Educational Foundation. "For more than 25 years, Mr. Randi's prize of $10,000 for “the performance of any paranormal, occult or supernatural event, under proper observing conditions” went unclaimed. A 8 syndicated television special for Lexington Broadcasting titled, “Exploring Psychic Powers – Live,” was broadcast June 7, 1989, and seen all over the USA, in Italy (with simultaneous translation) and in Australia. The $10,000 prize was temporarily increased to $100,000 for this occasion. The two-hour program was also seen later in Scandinavia, Japan, France, England and Germany. Currently, the prize amounts to $1,000,000 – thanks to a donation from a patron. There are still no takers. The prize is now administered and guaranteed by the James Randi Educational Foundation, and held in the form of negotiable bonds in a special account." If any of it could hold up under the scrutiny of a trained magician/researcher in a double blind experiment it would probably have been clained byu now.

I do not disagree, Grant. That is why I put right in scare quotes. If someone owns property, they can set any policy they wish. The violation of rights happened when they owned the schools in the first place. Gordon

I don't know if you are aware of it or not but there is an underlying assumption in your question that schools should be publicly run, owned, and/or regulated at all. If they are privately owned, each individual school could properly set it's own policy. If governments do own the schools like in the US then it's their "right" to set any policy they feel is appropriate.

Ouch...*rubbs bottom*...consider me summarily spanked. For the record I'm not that bad of a guy. I did in fact "peak" at comments and actions of hers but failed to find anything particularly revolting. My time constrained shortage of research was why I pointed out my own lack of expertise on the subject of Angelina Jolie in my original comment. Sorry for any offense. Gordon

I don't know anything concrete about Ms. Jolie's humanitarian efforts, but I don't see that her being charitable would disqualify her from being an objectivist. She is ostensibly wealthy enough that she is not going to be making sacrifices in her efforts to save children in africa or whatever. Cut the poor gal some slack. I'm starting to think that I might not be an objectivist either since I donated money last year to ARI's book project.

I have had pretty good luck, in general, with smaller businesses in terms of personal treatment, product quality, price and honesty and use them whenever possible. I do not refuse to use large companies because they are large, just when I hear about them taking subsidies or profiting by government force in some other way. Or for lack of good service(home depot). A couple things which make it easier for me are that I do not really shop in the strict sense of the word and 95% of everything I buy is business related. If I buy something, it is usually something in particular so it is easier in those cases to find alternatives. And most of my business purchases are from specific suppliers. I am a little lazy and do less research then I should, so in all probability I have shopped at equally bad places. I just don't do it when I have specific knowledge of their immorality. Also if something seems a little shady and I don't know the details, Ill give them a pass, but eminent domain is about as close as I can concieve of something being catagorically evil, a priori. It is complete and utter disregard for property rights. Which means that no one is any longer required to respect walmart's property rights. Probably not many shoplifters on this board, but if there are, I encourage you to concentrate your efforts on walmart. Your profession would be more morally justifiable that way.

Yeah...I guess they're ok....kinda like this guy I know who has only killed a few people. He would be a murderer if he killed all the time. Seriously though, they believe it's ok that they recieve subsidies and free land stolen from other people because they aren't the ones holding the gun? I'm not letting them off that easy. One time use of eminent domain makes them permanently guilty. An honest person or business is always honest. If he is dishonest only occasionally he no longer deserves the honest label. A dishonest person after all is never always dishonest. Morality is an all or nothing game. I won't ever shop there again.

My experience has been that a combination of evasion, laziness, and short-sighted thinking are the usual, primary culprits. Ultimately, the right answer might be bad philosophy, but most people(especially bad ones) operate on a predominately emotional plane. As such, the things I listed seem to be the more immediate causes.

I don't disagree. I had heard about that case awhile ago and when I looked up "walmart "eminent domain" colorado" that was just the first link in the list. Many more sources can be found. I just wanted to make the point that one ought to be very careful about picking heroes out of reality. The line between government and business people is very blurry these days, and being in the "private shere" isn't a guarantee of morality any more then working for the government is a guarantee of immorality (at least for military, police, and courts-I might be easily convinced that anyone working for any other government agency or bueracracy is necessarily evil, but that's another conversation.)

I don't know about that. Here's a little story about wal-mart using eminent domain in my neck of the woods. http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/independen...ent_domain.html Sounds a little more like Orren Boyle then Hank Rearden if you ask me. Also, as I understand it, wal-mart makes available to their employees at their stores, all the necessary forms for collecting government aid. I'd also keep in mind in defending wal-mart that they are not advocating capitalism with they're money and they are encouraging, contributing to, and taking advantage of the statist system in which they exist.

As a group, no. Rights only apply to individuals. If they had personal property or some concept of individual rights which specified ownership, and that was taken from them by force, then there would have been a moral breach. However, to my knowledge there was no such protection for individual rights which means there was no proper ownership. The closest might be that they were using some particular area for hunting and gathering, but wondering across land does not bestow rights in any meaningful sense. They had and have the same rights as white people to purchase land to use for whatever purpose they choose. Other people coming here and establishing a government to protect rights did not take away their land any more then it would today. If a wealthy Japanese businessman came here and purchased property, he would not be taking away my right to own some. You might be able to support some number of abuses by white settlers in terms of raided villages, murders, and whatnot, but likely you could find as many on the other side. It would be hard(and improper) to speak to these circumstances in general. To decide on morality, it would be necessary to look at particular cases to have the right contextual details. Custer's last stand or the trail of tears or whatever.

I agree except for the idea that there is any cost at all involved in being polite. Being rude and mean is usually much more stressful and tiring. I think it would be safe to argue that being congenial is usually in your best interests.

I have always preferred the "silver rule"... "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." It does not require action on the part of the doer, just inaction. In other words, do not trample someone elses rights. The golden rule for most people is procative and boils down to "give others lots of free cookies" since thats what most people want. If an individual truly did not desire the unearned in any manner, then it probably wouldn't make a difference, but then again, someone with that level of morality would not need a bromide to reinforce his ethics.

Are you identical twins? Because if so, that should be the nail in the coffin of genetic determinism I am curious what value you think you would gain by entering into this arrangment with someone you hold in such low regard. It seems like a one way street. Were I in your shoes I would not move in, based on what you have explained. He can man-up get a second job if he needs to in order to keep his children. If he does value them as you say, it would be little inconvenience for him.

"90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad name" You're right Jen. Politics qua politics does not neccessarily have to be evil, it just always is . I was speaking more in regard to our current political climate. I would be curious to know if their are any senators or reps on the national level who get elected without raising a good deal of money and who when elected do not toss slabs of bacon back to the people or companies who paid them to get there.

I think I understand what you are asking. Since I am most familiar with myself I'll use me as an example. I am a construction contractor. I have to find people that want things built. Ideally, I would only do business with objectivists, but unfortunately, they do not make up a sizabale market share, pretty much anywhere, so I do work for people who probably have all manner of philosophical shortcomings. (Religious, socialist, etc.) My job as a builder is to build what someone wants built. What they believe about metaphysics really doesn't come up that often and when it does I just go back to talking about the building as quickly as possible. I have always disliked sales and marketing. They strike me as, usually, dishonest and manipulitive. So in going into business for myself, I possessed some reservations about that aspect of the business. But what I have found to my delight, is that most people with regard to their house or building want something done well and in a reasonable amount of time. So when I go to "sell" a job, I give a price, answer any questions they may have about the job and how it will be done, then give them addresses to other things I have built. They go and look at them and the work I have done does all the "manipulation" for me. I don't have to change who I am or act in any nonintegrated way. It might be a form of compartmentalization, but, in this manner I can be completely honest without neccesarily causing offense. I don't see the benefit in discussing someones religion with them in general since they arn't likely to change, and even less benefit when I have something to gain by focusing on those aspects of reality where we can find consensus. Their other beliefs are not pertinent to our working relationship and I would guess most professions are the same. Whatever you do, do it well and focus on your job and nothing else. This way you can maintain your integrity and not suffer financial hardships. The one exception to this policy that I allow myself is that I avoid working for the government or churches directly. There is excellent money in that, but it makes me feel dirty. I am sure I could find ways to justify it to myself, it just doesn't seem worth the risk, effort, or inevitable hassles.

Tough question. Without knowing the full context of your situation, I don't know that anyone could answer that well. If you do choose to move in to help him, I would recommend that you do it for a predetermined period of time. 6 months or one year or what ever you are willing to invest. Then later, if it worked out in a way that was acceptable to you, you could extend it longer for an additional 6 months or whatever. This would avoid hurt feelings when you left and give him time to get a second job or whatever was required to keep his family together, while giving you a fairly easy out so that you don't end up making a sacrifice you regret and blame him or his kids for.

I think 'self-sustaining' may not be exactly what you mean. What makes architecture good symbolically in the novel is that Roark has absolute control over the design which allows Rand to highlight his independence. He has complete autonomy over this initial step. Later when building the actual building he must deal with other people at some level. It is not shown in great detail because it is probably not essential to the story, but in real life, he would have to deal with contractors and subcontractors, zoning boards, getting permits, the banker lending the money, material suppliers,the eventual owners or real estate agents, etc. She shows a few interactions with them like when he first meets "Mike", but for the most part they are not important because those other people and circumstances are mostly outside of his control. Ethics, requires volitional conciousness which requires choices in reality. The choices available to you are determined by what exists. Frank Lloyd Wright designed a mile high building that was never built because no one wanted one(at least not enough to pay for it). Any profession is going to be a mix of things which you have control over and things you don't. Your behaviour ought to be judged on how well you act upon that which you have power over. If Roark designed a great building but had a poor contractor who did shoddy work, and the building fell down, roark would have done nothing wrong. Regarding politics, I(not sure about Rand) do not believe that it is a proper career choice. I think it, if you go into politics at all, should be for a short period of time and never before the age of 40. An action taken to help protect your freedom if you feel a gratefulness to the country you live in which you wish to repay in some measure. Professional politicians are a mark of a statist regime. One citizen statesmen would be infinitely more qualified to make rational decisions after two decades of productivity then then any 50 people out of school with a pretty face, a BA in politics, and an masters in Law. A politicians job is to raise enough money to get reelected. The only way to keep getting reelected is to transfer wealth to those people who give you money to get reelected. This circle requires dishonesty and wealth transfer(stealing) all the way through. I wouldn't recommend that path to anyone interested in living an honest and moral life unless you are independently wealthy, which brings us back to the citizen statesman. edit:welcome to the forum, btw

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/3...nyt&emc=rss Here is one concret example of a way that religious belief might be detrimental. "Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found. And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested. "

Yeah...but good luck finding most of those in english. I have honestly considered learning french just to read his other books. I have read Toilers of the Sea, Les Mis, 93, Man Who Laughs, Hunchback, and Hans of Iceland but the rest I have been unable to find even in used book stores(a lot of them). Has anyone else come accross Hugo collections which are more complete, online or otherwise? (semi-spoilor) * * * * * * * Toilers of the Sea is my favorite as well. If you read it, though, I recommend stopping 30 pages from the end and then creating your own ending for it. That way you avoid the worst of Hugos well known malevolent universe premise.