Leonid

This is simply not true. Go to www.aynrandsociety.org

You well formulated what it isn't but never indicated what it is. I think that this kind of questions creates bad PR for philosophy as a meaningless word game.

Is it ethical to use maternity leave at all? What code of values justifies employer's funding of rearing any child expect his own? Moreover, is it ethical to use state coercion in order to force an employer to pay maternity leave?

I translate: If something happens, but there is no evidence that it happened, then did it happen? This is meaningless question, it second part negates the first. If there is no evidence, than how do you know that something happens? By Holy Spirit?

The good remedy against ambiguity is to invoke a context. It is very difficult and often impossible to define concept out of context. Try for example to define " bank". Dictionary can bring you many definitions and all of them will be useless without context. The same applies to "sound". To "untrick" the question one should define his terms first. BTW, "sound" also means sane, valid. So, to make sound argument about sound, one needs sound premises of context.

Why, one can break down anything and than wonder why he cannot find free will by means of autopsy .

This is not a proposition but an observation. Pinching a piece of sand is not an essential property of ant, such an action doesn't define it. Tautology, however, is a defining proposition which describes an essential property of the object. Therefore " Ice is frozen water" is a definition but " ice is white" isn't. Existence has only one essential property-it exists. Existence exist by definition.

In their book Biological Self-organization Camazine et al. (2001: 8) define self organization: ‘‘As a process in which pattern at the global level of a system emerges solely from numerous interactions among the lower level components of the system. Moreover the rules specifying interactions among the system’s components are executed using only local information, without reference to the global pattern. In short pattern is an emergent property of the system rather than being imposed on the system by an external ordering influence.’’ Life emergent properties are not more magic than emergent property of a rolling ball as result of connection of its halves. None of it parts have a property of rolling, its only appears as a result of interaction between them. Such a property for the obvious reason cannot be reduced to the any part of the ball. So emergent properties of life like self-sustained self-initiated goal orientated action which appears as result of interaction of non-biotic parts cannot be reduced to them.

I'd define it as a statement in which the meaning of the subject and predicate are identical. For example "Ice is frozen water". However to make such a statement one needs previous knowledge about water and the process of freezing.

There is the only one situation in which suicide becomes selfish-when the life becomes an opposite of itself, an agony, painfull and slow dying without any possibility of escape. In such a situation the decision to terminate this anti-life process would be in fact an affirmation of life. Person who does so proclaims by his action: I know what life is and I refuse to accept its opposite, an agony, as a substitute since such an action would be an action of selfless sacrifice.

I cannot see the point of this experiment. In pre-industrial society over 50% of the children died before age 5 and people with dementia didn't survive at all.

"There are other, more free countries" Like what? Yes,eventually every looter runs out of his victims, but this is a long process. One cannot go away from the Western dominant philosophy of Altruism. The only way to defeat it is to discover its alternative-rational Egoism. That exactly what British students failed to do, that why their riots are meaningless and that why they are rightless, though bold.

Again, try to solve the issue of siamese twins... There is no issue. Siamese twins is one entity, however abnormal. In regard to fetus's "rights"-this is stolen concept. "A right is a moral principle defining a man's freedom to act in social context." Fetuses don't act. They even don't breath.

"A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality." This is not a definition but description of arbitrary concept. Definition is what separates species from the rest members of the genus by it essential property. There is no such a thing as a genus of supernatural. Supernatural means that something exists without to be part of existence, which is contradiction in terms. Whatever is not part of existence cannot have any properties and therefore cannot be defined. Even descriptive definition applicable only to existent objects, not to fantasies. Only objects or relationships could be defined. If God is defined than he is an object with certain properties which separate him from all other objects. He is therefore limited, part of existence and thus, not God.

Baby is a human because baby can live as separated entity. During the birth process they are about hundred events happening which separate foetus from the mother's body

Yes, if you want to put it like that. Entities interact in certain ways because they are what they are. The mode of action is defined by their identity. Laws of Nature aren't invented, but discovered. What people do invent are artificial concepts like orbit, horizon, meridian etc... They are tools which help to understand Laws of nature, but not laws in themselves.

Existence exists sounds like tautology if one drops Objectivist context. The meaning of this statement is that existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is an axiom which doesn't require validation since every validation based on it. It also means that nothing can transcend existence, that it-to exist outside of it or to create it. Existence is identity,since nothing can exist as nothing in particular

"Atheism seems almost as irrational as religion. To assert a particular God exists, without proof, is foolish. But to assert no God exists, also without proof, is equally foolish." You would be right if you were be able to define God. But you are not, since definition of God turns him into the object with defined boundaries,one out of many, which can be observed, investigated, proved. In other words definition would eliminate his divine properties. Whatever cannot be defined, doesn't exist. So this is your choice-definable ungodly God or non-definable non-existent fantasy. Unlike flight, God is arbitrary contradictory concept which cannot be proved.Epistemic tools like possibility, probability or certainty are not applicable to such a concept, as any other tools of scientific investigation.

Perhaps you have read about the recent atrocities in Belarus, a former Soviet-bloc country in Eastern Europe. This past week that country's government held another rigged "election," and now long-time Stalinist dictator Alexander Lukashenko has cracked down on his opponents with a ferocity not seen since the worst days of the old Soviet empire. Lukashenko's KGB — yes, they still call it that — violently crushed a mass protest demonstration in the streets of Minsk, arresting hundreds and sending many young men and women to the hospitals. More outrageously, his goons have viciously beaten and brazenly kidnapped seven of his opposition presidential candidates. They are now being held incommunicado at undisclosed prisons and jails, being subjected to brutal treatment and interrogations. Jaroslav Romanchuk What you may not know is that the matter is personal, for many of us. One of Lukashenko's high-profile political opponents is Jaroslav Romanchuk — a long-time admirer of Ayn Rand's writings. I met him at a Rand conference in Vermont in 1999 and have followed his activities as much as possible since then. Jaroslav, who represents the United Civil Party, is one of the rarest politicians in the world: He is a staunch free-market economist and an Objectivist — rightly regarded as an intensely brave, even brilliant, man. See for yourself, in this interview that Robert Bidinotto conducted with him in 2006. Right now Jaroslav is trying to elude capture by the goons that Lukashenko has dispatched to arrest or kill him. There have been past attempts on his life already, so his situation is serious. Tomas Krsmanovic One of the most practical short-term strategies for keeping Jaroslav alive would be to have an American citizen — preferably a reporter with quick access to media outlets — standing by his side at all times. This approach has been used successfully in similar situations, such as in 1996 when my friend Steve went to then-Yugoslavia to help prevent the assassination of pro-freedom Milosevic dissident Tomas Krsmanovic, whom I got to know during my own visit to Belgrade last year. Many of you will recognize this Steve — whose last name I won't include here since he's applying for a Visa to enter Belarus, and the KGB has heard of the internet — because he's a long-time columnist for the Atlasphere. And a trained reporter. And a seasoned activist for pro-freedom causes in Eastern Europe. Steve has sufficient professional connections in the region to enter Belarus quickly, where he could live and work at Jaroslav's side until the situation settles down. This trip would be sponsored by no newspaper or government agency; it would be a private effort, arranged by those of us who wish to support Jaroslav's safety. What Steve needs, and quickly, is funds to help pay for a plane ticket. Steve has the experience and logistical connections to make this happen, but needs financial support from those of us who understand the need to act fast. With that said, here are a few things you can do right now to help: Publicize this article. Please help us disseminate this article as widely as possible, as fast as possible, among principled advocates of political freedom. Put pressure on the Obama administration to act. If you have a blog, a Facebook page, or an e-mail announcement list, please request that your readers call or write the White House and ask the Administration to organize international sanctions and universal condemnations of the brutal Lukashenko regime. Encourage the Administration to demand the immediate release and end of persecution of these political prisoners. Support Steve's trip. If you can afford to help Steve with the cost of his plane ticket, please send it to him immediately, via PayPal, at swabrow at yahoo.com. Last minute international plane tickets can cost a couple thousand dollars. I just sent Steve $50.00. If forty other Atlasphere members do the same thing today, he'll have a plane ticket tomorrow. (I'll update this article once Steve gets enough money.) Were the plan to get aborted for some reason, he'll refund our money. Steve's personal e-mail address, if you have questions, is swabrow at msn.com. Our united efforts at this critical moment may very well save the lives of some courageous champions of liberty. Right now, they're isolated and facing torture or death. Their freedom would be a Christmas present for which they and their desperate families would be forever grateful. UPDATE: In subsequent developments, we have learned that Jaroslav is not in hiding. He is one of two opposition leaders that has not been arrested and is, in fact, in discussions with Lukashenko himself. Steve — who was involved in the production of this column and whose safety is not endangered by its publication — still intends to go to Belarus in order to get to the bottom of the rumors being circulated about Jaroslav. Joshua Zader is the founder of the Atlasphere and co-founder of Atlas Web Development. He is temporarily living and working from Estonia.

Recently in South Africa number of medical professionals have been prosecuted and sentenced for heavy fines and suspended prison terms for performing completely legitimate medical procedure-kidney transplant. From the medical point of view the procedure was flawless; doctors’ crime was against world-wide acceptable ethical rule-under any circumstances the recipient of the organ shouldn’t pay to the donor. Never mind that such a rule directly collides with the fundamental principle of medical ethics which is a principle of autonomy. “The principle of autonomy stands for the proposition that an adult with capacity to decide has a full and perfect right to determine what may be done to his body.1 This is a right recognized in ethics, medical practice, and law. “ http://xnet.kp.org/permanentej... Medical ethics therefore recognize and accept the principle of one’s ownership on one own body which means that one can do whatever he pleases with any part of his body-he can donate or sell it if he whish. However, despite that organ donation from the living donor considered to be a great act of moral virtue, voluntary selling of organs is immoral and constitutes a criminal offense. The most cited reason for that is “the exploitation” of the poor and promotion of the organ’s black market, which is killing of people and harvesting of their organs. But these arguments cannot withstand even brief examination. Organs’ black market is indeed a crime and should be treated as such. However nobody in his right mind would advocate the prohibition of money or any commodity because criminals kill people for them. In regard to the poor, if anything, blood or organ donation for money can only improve their condition. The real implicit and often explicit reason for the prohibition of organs’ selling is that such an action is selfish, for profit and therefore contradicts the “noble” altruistic nature of selfless organs or blood donation. The other reason is that free market for organs would eliminate the government monopoly on the organ transplantation as it stipulated by the National Organ Transplant Act (Congress 1984) which outlawed the commercial trade of organs. Government also established the "United Network for Organ Sharing," as the country's monopoly provider of organs. In other words, government took on itself the power which previously has been ascribed only to omnipotent God-literary the power to control life and death. The last but not the least reason is egalitarianism. The argument is that only rich people could afford organs on the free market and the poor, therefore will be discriminated. In other words, if everybody cannot be saved, then it is moral and just that all will perish together. Such an altruist morality is really to die for.

Anti-discrimination Laws are in fact an assault on individual rights -in this particular case: property rights. This is common perception in today's "duty" society that so called "public servants"- like taxi drivers, doctors, teachers, even owners of hotels and restaurants or grocery shops and golf clubs have no right to choose their clientele or to serve them according to the best of their own judgment. The notion “The right of admission reserved" became meaningless anachronism. Freedom of association is one of the basic principles of free society and it includes "public servants". The only institution which is strictly prohibited to discriminate anybody on the basis of race, gender religion or what you want is a government, since government has no rights. However in today’s statist society the boundaries between government and private establishments became very vague. As result we're living in topsy-turvy society in which government does discriminate people on the ground of gender, race, age or even physical conditions through affirmative action but taxi drivers are not allowed to choose their clients.

Anti-discrimination Law is in fact an assault on individual rights -in this particular case: property rights. This is common perception in today's "duty" society that so called "public servants"-like taxi drivers, doctors, teachers, even owners of hotels and restaurants or grocery shops have no right to choose their clientele or to serve them according to the best of their own judgment. The notion “The right of admission reserved" became meaningless anachronism. Freedom of association is one of the basic principles of free society and it includes "public servants". The only institution which is strictly prohibited to discriminate anybody on the basis of race, gender religion or what you want is a government, since government has no rights. However in today’s statist society the boundaries between government and private establishments became very vague. As result we're living in topsy-turvy society in which government does discriminate people on the ground of gender, race, age or even physical conditions through affirmative action but taxi drivers are not allowed to choose their clients.

"From this respect, I think your example of British students' riot is a perfect illustration of Rand's fear. Look, parents who send their children to private colleges do not use the publicly funded colleges." In my post I referred to publicly funded colleges in which tutition fees defined by government. Government arbitrary increased fees and students rioted. My point is that since these students accepted the premise of " right" for education provided by government, they became rightless. There is no such a thing as right obtained by permission. Granted right is contradiction in term.

Laws of Nature describe cause-effect relations which define the mode of interaction between entities. Objectivism views Law of causality as Law of Identity applied to action. That means that Laws of Nature are not invented. They are intrinsic properties of entities which have to be discovered.