KendallJ

I have a third even more viable option for you to consider. Option 3: Drop bomb number 1 on a purely military target. If that fails to acheive surrender, then drop bomb #2 on a mixed target. Surely, you must agree by your principles that the targeting of the civilians of Hiroshima, MUST have been immoral since it was not the "only" option open to the U.S.

Nope, I expected this response. I worried about it for a while, but it's quite easy to answer. I still don't understand why bombing Hiroshima is the "only" option available (by your standards)? Let me give you another option, going by your principles. You want to keep Hiroshima moral by your standards, by making it a problem of discrimination. Option 2: Target a purely military target, even knowning that it is possible that you might not wipe it out. You see although it is difficult to assure hitting the military target, it is quite easy to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Don't confuse the two. Won't the bombing still provide psychological impact (albeit maybe less so) even if you miss the military target, as an overwhelming show of force? Demand surrender after the bombing. If not enough, then you simply wait the required time to build another bomb, and try again? Why is this not a viable option, and thus, the Hiroshima bombing is not the "only" option? To choose to include a civilian target is not a problem of discrimination. It is a hedge. Both are viable targets. It simply improves the probability that you'll acheive the desired impact in one go. I think its a tougher distinction, so I won't accuse you of revisionism (which would imply some sort of willful evasion). Nevertheless, I believe the example holds, and by your standards, you may have to declare it immoral. Why this argument is important to me is that, while Hunterrosse wants to claim my position makes me a baby killer (which it doesn't, and which is so extreme as to not be useful in many instances), I claim that your (and his) position will make you back down due to ethical "guilt" in many tough, real-world situations, at exactly the point that my position says you shouldn't, and exactly the point that you will risk sacrificing lives of US soldiers and citizens, and fail to eliminate the threats that you have a moral responsiblity to eliminate. It is certainly a convenient position to try to deflect the example (i.e. turn it into a problem of discrimination - which is why I entered the discussion in the first place), but that isn't really the heart of the matter. There is a long list of real world tactical decisions that we will split on, not the "baby-killing" examples, but real life tough tactical decisions. As much as you think that you are as a staunch defender of a nations right to self defense, your methodology will fail you at exactly the time you need it most. I think Israel is clearly warranted to strike the Lebanese and Palestinian people, you question it. I think the Israel (or the US) is warranted to strike Iran and Syria now, my guess is you wouldn't. What I misestimated (and I can see that now) in entering the conversation was the animosity that you had for Myron and his style of argumentation. I'll grant you in the spirit of hashing out the details, his style may not be the best. Ultimately he speaks for himself and I speak for myself. However, what I like about him is that he isn't about to accept unearned guilt for ethically valid actions.

Interesting tactic, taking snipets of phrase from here and there to portray an inflammatory position on my side. No sir, you misrepresent my position. I don't think that raping in general has any sort of psychological demoralization effect, and as such would be a lousy tactic. Raping women generally has an inflammatory effect. In addition, it would have a profoundly negative psychological effect on rational troops asked to perform such a tactic. These are objective assessments of the tactic, as a military tactic in the context of its effectiveness at acheiving morally sanctioned ends, and not ethical considerations. Therefore I maintain that it would ineffective, and therefore [since not germain to ethically sanctioned ends, initiation of force principles take over] unethical. The evaluation is not intrinsic, and therefore absolute, but rather contextual, and objective. If you wish to argue for a particular context where you think it would be effective, and therefore ethical I'd love to hear it. Good luck. We arrive at similar ends, but through very different principles, which is what I'm fighting for here. The right principles. ...for which the individual was court-martialed for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline". How does this contradict what I said? Honestly, find me the military handbook, the textbook of military science that advocates mass baby killing as a viable tactic. That's policy. This is an order. There is such a thing as a crime in war, and a proper code of military justice would prosecute such crimes severely. What there is not in war, is a "war crime" perpetrated as policy by a proper self-defending nation (but then that is Vladimirs question, which I haven't had time to post) Why don't you wish to debate the Hiroshima bomb? I'm sure that killed more children under 10, than this individual. Are you implying that the Hiroshima bomb was unethical as well? If yes or no, on what basis? Lots of people are "contending" (which is another word for "assertion"), but principles seem rare. I have not advocated arbitrary use of force as you seem to want to portray me, but rather objective use of force to sanctioned ends, up to and including the targeting of civilians. Why is it that people want to pull stuff that falls into the arbitrary, and them claim it falls into the objective (i.e. "effective"). Come on, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Sherman's March. Debate these! They're the tough examples. All valid real-life examples of the applications of the principle I'm talking about, implemented as policy, after significant deliberation. I just finished John Lewis' dissection of Sherman's march, phenomenal example of a man who was willing to target civilians, and private property, with an objective set of tactics. And surprise, no baby killing... Honestly, this feels (and please don't debate this comparison, I'm making it as an aside, not an analogy) a lot like the folks who advocate on the continuation of the FDA (separate thread I think), because they really don't understand when Rand meant laissez faire, she really meant it. And then dredge up examples (extreme ones) that expose their misunderstanding of economic and psychological principles that provide for a self regulating economy, that needs only the initiation of force principle in politics and ethics to subsist. And so too this debate needs only the proper objectives of a self defending govt in ethics and politics, and the rest is up to military science. I ask you to bring your principles hunterrose, because I really believe strongly that if your premises depend on "discrimination", "proportionality" or what I believe that diamonds "last resort" concepts depend on, then they are really anti-concepts that serve to morally equate the initiator of force with the self defender, and can only help the enemy. If they are based on proper principles then you and I will end up agreeing.

Many posts to answer, but since diamond and I were engaged, I'll start with his. blackdiamond, Thank you. This is what I was waiting for. Mostly because it helps me understand where you position actually is, mostly I better understand your premises behind when the "should" are considered. I think you'll find that my position is between yours and Myron's. I don't take responsibility for Myron's method of argument. We all argue for ourselves. However, I have been challenged several times subsequent to my entry into the discussion so I will continue to clarify my position. My objection to your respose to Myron, had to do with the fact that you claimed that he was "revising" history by making the claim that the US dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. I told him not to answer your counter, not because even though your argument was correct, it wasn't germaine. He chose a poor quote to make his illustration, and I believe his fundamental assertion that civilians were targeted specifically by the US is correct. I briefly searched an pulled this reference from Wiki (referencing the targeting committee). The reference if from the Targeting Committee report. This has nothing to do with the technology not being available to discriminate between civilian and military targets, but rather with the decision to target BOTH a military and civilian target, with the intent that if it didn't hit one, it was sure to hit the other, and create the "psychological effect" desired. In that context I would still defend Myron, as right and you as wrong. But now that we have your additional premises, let's see if we still disagree. I need you to clarify the "only" in , "sure that this is the ONLY option...". I would phrase it instead that "unless you are indeed sure that this is the BEST option". You mis represent my position, as I have clarified in further discussion with Sophia. The prosecution of a war requires ethical consideration, but the standard by which those considerations are ethical needs require nothing other than the ethical sanction already granted to a self-defending govt, and the proper objectives that go along with that sanction. Anything tactic that is outside those objectives is unethical, but tactics that meet those objectives are ethical. Evaluating a particular tactic then is not one of ethics, but one of military science, and requires evaluation of multiple factors. In this respect, I agree with you. Just because you can doesn't mean it is the best course of action. And for this you need to be military commander versed in military strategy and tactics. I can think of all sorts of actions that members of an army may take that would be unethical, so I'm not advocating for arbitrary use of force. (I'll ask Myron to come into the debate and see if he is. I think you suspect that he is, but I am not.) To this end, a separate ethical concept, such as "proportionality" is unwarranted in order to evaluate the actions of a defending govt, and in fact muddies up the waters and serves as a package deal, which the agressors will use against you. I realize that you have not advocated that concept yet, but several others have joined the debate specifically to use it as an ethical tool. I hope you'll clarify your position and either help me defend the correct concept, or continue to debate me. I think we still have a point of contention around your "only option" so we should pursue that. If your criteria for "only option" in fact yields a separate ethical concept then we will still have a disagreement. As to the inflammatory use of the examples of baby-killing (separate from targeting the civilian population, in general) and raping as military tactics. I can make strong arguments that if you evaluate these as military tactics, they are poor options, and as such, would not be used by an objective military (again, my logic is if they are poor military options for acheiving ethically sanctioned ends, only then would inidividual rights principles eliminate them from consideration - however, if someone could show a conditions where a commander would actually make a case that rape was a valid military option to acheiving this end, then they would be ethical. I think that is a tough task for anyone that wants to try it. I think this is a reason then that you don't see it used as a matter of policy). Really, these are tactics used by agressors in general, and defenders with poor military discipline (which is a whole other topic). If someone can bring me an example of its use by an rational defending army, as a matter of specific military policy (rather than the actions of individuals), I'd be happy to debate it. Otherwise, it is like debating what we'd have to do if monkeys suddenly became conceptual. To counter these extreme examples, I will however, bring back in Myron's example of the fire bombing of Tokyo, and European cities, and more specifically the dropping of the atomic bomb in WWII. I think the evidence is clear that these actions involved specific targeting of civilians, in the case of the bomb, specifically for the psychological effect it would have in demoralizing the Japanese govt. I think anyone who would like to argue that it was "the last or only" option available will have a tough time defending it on that basis, as well as the basis that technology to "discriminate" or select purely military targets was not available. In fact Hiroshima was a minor military center, and had been spared much of the previous bombing (same Wiki refered to earlier) Ok, hopefully you see my angle. this leaves open challenges to both Myron, and diamond (diamond to explain further "only" options, and Myron to come back in and declare wether or not you are for truly arbitrary use of force by a defending govt) I'll say essentially the same thing that I said to Sophia here, and ask you to look at the Rand quote, where she specifically talks about sanction of a governments actions by "passivity". I think that the underlying ethical development of inidividaul rights, and the right of an individual to self defense do not necessary translate exactly into political terms. Also, the statement, "to kill or harm..." is not true as an absolute. It is not intrinsic. There are times, when if I kill or harm someone who is not a threat to me, that I have not acted immorally. There fore it is possible that there are times when a govt acting in a proper mode of self defense will be moral even if it kills or harms someone who is not a clear threat to it. What those times are is exactly what we are debating. The Rand quote is pretty damning. "Passivity", and even just intellectual support of an agressor govt, earn you some accountability for that governments actions.

I'm sorry Sophia, where does Rand ever use this concept of avoidability vs. unavoidability in defending the concept of self-defense? She did say that you should retaliate only against those who initiated force, but in that case then even "unavoidable" force against innocents is immoral then. How do you reconcile your statement with the quote provided by Marc K. from Rand on this very topic, and in context? First of all, my intent was not to insult you. I did not say you quoted Rand out of context. What I said was I thought that you applied her theory of individual rights improperly in this new context. My whole post was the evidence for the fact that this context doesn't apply. The quotes you gave, were Rand discussing individual rights in the context of an individual responding to an initiation of physical force by another individual. However this context is a government acting as agent of a group of individuals against either another government or rogue group. That is not what I have said, but I'll admit that my context was not clear. By saying "all" I didn't mean to imply that you have arbitraty moral sanction. If you look up at my reference to the Brook article, you'll see that a govt responding in self-defense does not have arbitrary objectives. It has morally sanctioned objectives: Any action within the scope of those objectives are sanctioned. What this means is that there is not some separate ethical test (either "discrimination" or "unavoidability" or "proportionality" or whatever) that you use to determine if an action is moral. If you can objectively show it serves to progress towards the objectives, you have moral sanction. I would be hard pressed to claim that this action, in any way objectively meets the objectives above, but certainly could be debated. Ethically, it would be eliminated, not based upon proportionality or any other test, but based upon the morally sanctioned objectives of a just nation acting in self defense. It is immoral to carpet bomb Vancouver in response to 9/11. uh huh. The difficulty is that while you use "proportionality" to rule out an extreme case, Hizbolla will use the same argument to say that military incursion into Lebanon is disproportionate. They put civilians in harms way and then claim that their deaths from Israeli responses were "avoidable". Who exactly gets to decide how much is too much, and what is avoidable and what isn't? You have placed an ethical test that is separate from the ethical sanction already granted a proper self defending government, and your enemies will try to pit one test against another. It will be your sanction of the concept of "proportionality" that gives this argument credence. The fact is governments are already bounded, or regulated in their prosecution of a proper self defensive action. They are bounded in several ways: a. They have proper non-arbitrary objectives, not arbitrary sanction. b. Such actions cost great expenditures in terms of resources and effort of its own citizens. c. Stepping across the bound of their proper objectives, may threaten retribution from another country who would be acting properly to retaliate. So the wild extreme examples, such as using nukes against Lebanon, would not in reality be used by objective governments. However, inserting the separate ethical test will commit sanction of the victim, by allowing your opponent to put it at odds with proper moral objectives. Moral sanction is already granted, and bounded. It does not need a separate ethical concept, such as "proportionality" or "discrimination". Those extra concepts are package deals that will allow your opponent to disarm you. By the way, Ifatart, this would also by my answer to your question of what bounds proper self defensive action by governments. Also, Blackdiamond, this is the kind of argument I was looking for from you.

I will conceed to all who may assert it, that my spelling is atrocious... stick around tho. I'm sure diamond is on the verge of stating his premise, and we can all find out what he really meant.

Ok, clearly, you are correct here. You're should is the same as his should. My questions were: "If one "CAN rightfully kill innocent people", when should you and when shouldn't you?" "Could you please quote from your previous posts, the principles by which you have clearly made the case the Myron is "clearly wrong"?" "Are you or are you not arguing from an ethical perspective against Myron?" I fail to see where there are embedded premises here that are fallacious? They are simply a request to provide data and/or state your premises. Answering those questions helps advance the discussion. Pointing out what you think is a fallacy in my arguments, in leiu of answering the questions is *nit picking*. See, the confusion resolves itself when you simply state your premises. There is no fallacy in my assertions because you haven't provided enough data to say one way or the other. I am inferring your meaning as a rhetorical tool to draw out your premises, which you are incredibly resistant to give. Most people, when they believe their position has been mis-represented, clarify it. You simply insist I am wrong and I haven't read your position, and you don't have to answer my questions. OK, what are the fundamentals of your position. What is it about clarifying your position that makes you so reluctant to do it?

Hi blackdiamond, I stand by my statement above, and yes, you do need to continue. Are you or are you not arguing from an ethical perspective against Myron? When you have said that he is "clearly wrong", where did you provide the basis by which he is clearly wrong? Yup, I'm inferring from your "should". Your "should" appears to be pretty different from Myron's "should". At least Myron has stated the principles by which he stands. You, although you've claimed, "clear wrongness" on Myron's part you have yet to state your principles. Don't blame other people for misrepresenting you when you have yet to state your premises. All the confusion is dispelled when you actually make your argument from principles. I've read all your posts. If I've missed it, I'm happy to admit it. Could you please quote from your previous posts, the principles by which you have clearly made the case the Myron is "clearly wrong"? This is the 2nd time I've asked you, yet you clearly avoided it the first time so you could continue nitpicking my logic. We're all waiting with baited breath.....

Sophia, I agree with your assessment of Rand's discussion, *as it applies to individuals, acting within the framework of a civilized society (which I take to be a "rights respecting society")*. However, that is clearly not the context here, so I think it is a valid to ask if it applies as directly as you would suggest. Your argument from individuals rights does not succeed in resolving your "distinction between unavoidable war casualties and specific targeting of civilian population." Just because you didn't intend to violate the rights of the "unavoidable war casualties" does not mean that you didn't also violate those individuals' rights. Rand resolves this clearly. The moral responsiblity for any innocent victims in the case of self defense, such as war, lies solely with the initiator of force. What we can debate is wether that includes innocent victims that the "self defender" chooses to target. I clearly say, yes. You are claiming no, based upon what I believe is an out of context application of Rand's theory of individual rights. I agree that wars are blunt, terrible acts. Your idea of retaliation, *as it relates to govts acting as agents of its citizens* reintroduces the idea of proportional force. The purpose of war made by civilized society acting in self defense (note the *new* context) is more than just retaliation. If it was only retaliation, then you feed the claims of anyone who claims that only the proportional response is ethical. The ethical purpose here is to eliminate the threat, and yes, you will have to violate individual rights to do this (wether "unavoidable" or not), and the moral responsibility for ***all*** rights violations lies with the agressor. To the extent that a particular civilian targeting tactic does or does not contribute to the aim of eliminating a threat, we can discuss this, but *not as an ethical issue*. Objective tactical mistakes made by the self defender should not shift the moral responsbility for rights violations. The Brook article is really clear about this, and I would suggest that anyone who is serious about this topic spend the $49 (student $39) to get a years subscription to The Objective Standard. Additionally Volume 2 has a follow-up article by John Lewis, that specifically examines General Sherman's moral march through the south during the Civil War, where he specifically targeted civilian support for the South's war machine.

Ok, let's go back to blackdiamond's original assertion. Instead of Myron defending his position and Diamond sniping it, please, blackdiamond, state a position. Should implies an ethical principle. So what is it? If one "CAN rightfully kill innocent people", when should you and when shouldn't you? The Brook article essentially articulates this: What the article clearly states is that the decision to target a civilian population is not a province of a moral situation. It is not a "should" issue. Ethically, and morally, any targeting of civilians is a military tactic, and the option is up to the military strategists prosecuting the war, once a morally justified war has been initiated. But that they would be morally justified, up to and including, the wholesale destruction of civilian populations. To that extent, blackdiamond wants a "should". Myron advocates it as a clear tactic, and blackdiamond says that it is "quite a big step in the wrong direction". Brook says, an objective assessment of the situation tells you what tactics to use, and those options include everything up to and including wholesale civilian destruction. One might call Myron overzealous, but frankly its one of the options. Certainly the Brook article would not fault any military commander for making an assessment of the situation and "going overboard". Blackdiamond says Myron's clearly wrong (an ethical judgement), but this is contrary to the Brook article. Blackdiamond, what is your ethical basis? If this is just a discussion of the objective principles by which one would decide, then you two are closer than you think, but until Blackdiamond states his ethical principle, then frankly Myron is closer to the Brook position, and blackdiamond appears to be arguing from mixed premises.

Diamond, 1. I read the thread from the beginning before I posted, which is why I questioned whether you had read the Brook article. It seems strange to me that you question wether Myron has read it, but have yet to pull any principles from it to defend your position. In fact, Brook argues against both "proportionality" and "discrimination" as invalid concepts coming from the Just War Theory, saying in effect (Hunterrose, pay attention) even if there is technology which would allow for discrimination that it is an invalid concept from which to evaluate tactics. Thus, whether you should target destruction of a civilian population is at the option of those prosecuting the war. Myron is simply extending that option to its fullest extent. Diamond, while you have certainly questioned the limits of that option, I have yet to see you offer the principle by which you would limit that option. 2. You're the one who seems to think I haven't read the thread, so I'd ask you to offer evidence to prove your assertion, rather than you asking me to disprove it. 3. The point which I disputed upon entering the debate (your claim of WWII revisionism) was a stand-alone point that doesn't require your main point to substantiate or not, so even though I had read the thread, I didn't need to have that context to dispute your claim of "revisionist" history of WWII tactics. 4. If you are that threatened by my rhetorical use of the imperative tense, I'd remind you that they are only words and both you and Myron can ignore them if you so choose. I was helping him, just in case he hadn't seen that you are trying to insert the concept of discrimination into the argument, so I doubt he'll be upset by it. I didn't direct it at you, so if you're offended, well, get over it. But then since you seem to want to dictate the terms under which I can join the debate, I must assume you simply want reserve that priviledge for yourself.

Myron, don't answer that. Diamond, are you asking Myron to prove that the commanding generals were Objectivists? Their intent matters not. The fact is, that civilian targets were bombed, and that was the cause of the "will breaking" of the Japanese people. The cause and effect is in reality, and that has EVERYTHING to do with Myron's charge. If you want to show that the intent of the generals was not that, then you first need to show that had they been able to follow their real intent, the war would have been won anyway. In fact, we have evidence ongoing of how the use of "proportionate force" does NOT solve the problem.

I beg to differ. How does one "break the will to continue fighting", and not do everything else listed? To claim we broke their will without in fact deliberately targeting their industry and their civilian populations is acting the revisionist. In fact, Japanese industry was targeted, and its civilian cities were firebombed. That's fact. (By the way, you substituted "by" for "including" in the original quote, which changes the meaning) You were asking because.... what? I read the whole thing and Myron summarizes it pretty well.

In fact this is unnecesary as well. Where govt is not involved there have always arisen all sorts of private mechanism by which to communicate information and assure safety. These are in fact so ubiquitous that we don't even realize they are there many times. Think of Underwriters Laboratories, Consumer Reports, Good Housekeeping seal of approval. Each of these institutions is independant and has a vested interest in keeping their reputation for impartial assessment. If the FDA would have gotten out of the way, you might even know about aspartame.

yup... What does the assertion that "Israel has a right to defend herself, but her responses should be 'proportional'." do to the principle of a self-interested national defense? It pretends to agree with it, and eviscerates it from the inside. That is exactly what package deals are intended to do. It might as well be an assertion that Israel has no right to defend herself for all it's worth. That's what the open system concept does to Objectivism. So while some won't reject the principles you mention outright, they will implicitly, and thereby commit the sanction of the victim.

Since Diana's already pointed out the problems with the rest of your assertions, I think this one is spurious. If the 2% inaccurate Objectivism happens to be a fundamental that sneaks its way into all sorts of concrete evaluations that might cause a young Objectivist to spend a lot of time spinning their wheels, then yeah it is a big deal. As we learn Objectivism we accept all sorts of ideas implicitly until we have a chance to work them out for ourselves, and insidious little package deals like Kelley's can take a long time to work out, and really only get worked out by the extremely committed and conscientious (Diana's been through this so she has a great perspective) In short, not all 2%'s are created equal. As to this being a choice of 98% right or 0%, well that's not really the alternative here, and I think suffers from low expectations, or low aim. I have no data that says its' half-baked Objectivism or nothing, and until it really comes to that, I think I'll be advocating fully-baked Objectivism, thank you very much. Why anyone who takes ideas seriously would not do the same is beyond me.

hmmm. One would think that if it was at the heart of Kelley's issue with the mainline, and if he thought ideas were important, he'd have it out for people to see, like Fact and Value is.

The "freedom of dressing"? How exactly is your freedom of dressing compromised? In fact, if by freedom you mean "the ability to wear what you want", that is not compromised at all. But in fact, you mean "The freedom to wear what you want and still have me give you the job..." Oh, wait, that would compromise my "freedom of selection" wouldn't it. It strikes me that its that freedom that you begrudge. yup. you have a misguided definition of freedom. Violation of freedom? How do voluntary choices made by people violate anything? Violation implies force. Where's the force?

Bingo. My first thought was "Sure, if one understands rationality and independance, then it doesn't hurt to contemplate a God, but WHY would one want to?"

They have a word for things that result from diffuse causes. It's called: nature. Why is it necessary to think that you have to have something to take action against? I am walking down a path and a rock falls on me from a cliff above and it paralyzes me. Who do I take action against? huh? Wait, are we protecting the environment, or human life? As to the need for "a little regulation" please see my post in this thread regarding the non-objective nature of regulatory law. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=120569 I find this argumentation spurious. Assume something that is not true is, take it to its far distant and absurd end, ignore all of the millions of private actions that will take place between now and "then" that will make the senario unworkable, and then use the implausible outcome as a basis to assert that reglatory legislation is necessary. If as you say "No individual entity is even remotely close to legally responsible for the injury to your property." then guess what, you have no business seeking redress at all. It defies the nature and purpose of redress as a legal concept.

Why is this not right? That's pure Kantian "categorical imperitive". If life of any kind has no value, then why jump in front of any bullet for anyone, much less try to duck a bullet headed for me. Doing something because it's right, in spite of the fact that their is no value is one of the sickest things I think I've heard. It is a perversion of the concept of value. Would the act have less value if I was jumping in front of the bullet aimed at my wife, whom I loved, because I was acting from purely selfish motivation? [quote name='Torin' date='Jul 12 2006,

Well said. The understanding you desire then is essentially one of discussion and understanding of epistemology. ITOE has several references to Rand's discussion specifically as it relates to animals. I'll pull some references when I'm home again. One last night about generalization in animals vs. conceptual beings. For contrast, my dog knows how to do all of those things you mention, and as for "getting upset", anxiety is a strong behavior modifier, that is directly biochemical. The behaviours you describe can be learned with just a perceptual consciousness. Yes, animals can generalize, and learn responded behavior, but that is still not conceptualization. I haven't had time to look at your videos and papers, but some offhand thoughts on experiments or observations: a. is the animal able to port a "concept" to a new situation, a context it was not taught, and that cannot be linked to any sort of immediate behavioral learning methods or biochemical explanations for its development? b. Can the animal teach the concept? c. Does the concept sustain itself in the animals natural social setting (i.e. not require man's continual intervention to teach and maintain it)? d. Does the animal use metaphor (complex example of a.)

Sorry Peter, I'll go one further. Regulation is inherently non-objective law (i.e. it must be either arbitrary, or subjective). It consists of flipping the maxim "Innocent until proven guilty", by instead asking the "regulatee" to prove that he is innocent (something that is a totally arbitrary, and insidious task), and criminalizing the failure to prove, rather than the crime itself. It divorces reason from the person who needs to use it most, i.e. the person in the context of decision, and instead places decisions in the form of "policy", "boards of review", and "central planning". And replaces one form of crime, with a worse form of crime (subjective law). Every example you come up with can be shown to be inherently of this form. Take zoning for example. Who decides how land is to be zoned? a "board". By what rational mechanism do they decide? [blank out] Are they subject to influence that is non-rational (in fact they are subject to more influence of this type). What's worse than your slaughterhouse example is the zoning board who bends to the influence groups to change your zoning status by whim to allow the slaughterhouse to be built. You haven't really solved the problem, you've just changed the nature of the abuse, now with little legal recourse available. The fact is people who still think that "just a little regulation" is a good thing never stop to understand what free market mechanisms would be in place that would resolve most of the "extreme" straw men cases they want to pose as "the problem". Read Greenspan's article in "Capitalism: the Unknonwn...". "Atlas.." was rife with examples of what happens when "regulatory" legislation is introduced. Did you not believe them? Far worse in the real world.

That is a "broad jump". Apologies for the big pic. Forgot to resize and now can't seem to edit. This is the "hurdle".

I'm not even convinced that apes are conceptual even at lower level concrete concepts, and I have seen some of the studies. I think it is true that there is a continuum of behavioral function that might look like some animals might start to "get it", but they are so far away from anything that I would call conceptual that I would highly doubt that it's worth the discussion. My poodle is smart as hell, with a pretty big "vocabulary", but I don't mistake behavior learning for conceptualization. Once again testing Objectivism against the last 0.00000001% of the possible senarios. Rand addressed this, although I can't find the reference yet. But I believe it was along the lines of, "Any conceptual being should have volition. Metaphysics is the same regardless of species, but epistemology may vary a bit due to differing nature of consciousness, giving slightly different ethics." While its interesting to think about coexistence of two conceptual species, I'm not sure what good it does you, nor what it tells you about Objectivism's validity. Cute thought experiment, but not very useful. I'd rather spend my time doing this!!!