SkyTrooper

I saw some discussion about this topic here (Privatized Military, so "Why Support Israel?"), but the thread doesn't make much sense to me and is a somewhat unstructured discussion being as it seems to respond to another thread. My question is, should I have any issues working with groups like Blackwater? Should I consider these groups a useful tool to advance freedom or as a threat to freedom? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA (I've included the wikipedia page because it links to primary sources, so provides a good starting point for evaluation) Virtues of Blackwater include the fact that they are extremely competent fighters and they can operate outside "Just War Theory" meaning they don't have to fight like sacrificial animals. Shortcomings include the fact that unlike soldiers they are not very disciplined, they could conceivably be hired by other governments than the US, do not have to follow any Law of Land Warfare, and are not sworn to protect the US Constitution.

My notes from my middle east history class are that Genghis Kahn supported: Property Rights Freedom of Religion No death tax No Titles/Aristocracy Of course my teacher was a horrible revisionist so this might be wrong. As for the treatment of conquered peoples: those who surrendered were treated favorably and even held high public offices in the Mongol governments, while those that did not were usually massacred/enslaved. I make a strong distinction between Genghis Kahn and the Mongol practices that both preceded and followed the Kahn.

I don't think there has been federal legislation about it, although I know some states have passed similar bills. There is also a group called the Patriot Guard Riders who prevent protesters (nonviolently) from going to the funerals of troops (http://www.patriotguard.org).

DarkWaters, I never said looking at statistics was a waste of time (in many contexts it is useful). However, I have no idea what you seek to determine by examining statistics for this issue. As long as we are in agreement that a statistical analysis isn't going to allow you to determine if men should be allowed guns (on principle), I have no problem with you calculating all the correlation coefficients you wish.

OK, try this: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html I don't feel like dusting off my statistics textbook to analyze this right now, but maybe someone else does. I still think your going at this from the wrong direction although I'll have trouble articulating it correctly: basically, you can't expect to develop a principle like "the right to bear arms" by doing a cost-benefit analysis weighing the cost of an occasional accidental shooting vs. the benefit of being able to prevent the actions of future Cho Seung Huis.

Where did you say anything about society? Strawman. You said that man needs liberty to survive.

David, I would have no problem with someone saying "I am an Objectivist but I do not think a partial-birth abortion is moral." I see rational support for this position, even though I am pro-choice. I reiterate that ethics is a normative branch, which means a long chain of reasoning from the Axioms will be required to come to a certain ethical conclusion. The abortion issue seems like a trivial part of ethics, since it is one specific application. This largely goes back to the "at what point is a person an Objectivist" debate. Please show me what else in Objectivism rests on the conclusion that abortion is moral. I doubt you will find anything, because the abortion issue is a single specific application of ethics. Edit: quote included

When did I attack ARI or Stephen Speicher? If you don't accept the method of reason to determine ethical questions and would rather just accept the opinion of a philosopher you trust, don't call yourself an Objectivist (because you aren't). Call yourself "someone who takes the opinions of ARI on faith." Note: I'm using parallel construction to show you why I took your last comment as an insult.

This kind of language always makes me cringe. Like the fact that I am still evaluating certain topics that were also evaluated by Ayn Rand somehow makes me an Apostate, so my choice is to accept ARI on faith or to reject Ayn Rand. Yeah right OPAR has two paragraphs devoted to the topic of abortion, and it is a normative topic, so the claim that the entire philosophy rests on the evaluation of the abortion issue is ridiculous. Clearly someone who has a claim against abortion because of their religious beliefs has a poor understanding of individual rights. However, the question of when the zygote becomes a man ("rational animal") strikes me as a scientific question, not a philosophical question. My primary skepticism comes from my observation of my cousin who is 3 months old and also clearly meets all of your criteria for "parasite." This is not an extremely important topic to me since I will never have to opportunity to get an abortion. Currently I am pro-choice because I do not feel the government should be involved, but I would not recommend to someone to get an abortion.

I think you guys are wasting your time comparing statistics. Although I suspect that statistics pragmatically support gun ownership as a crime deterrent, the objective support for gun ownership comes from the principle that rational men must be allowed personal firearms to protect their own lives. A government with the amount of power to provide the same amount of protection for every individual as a personal firearm does is probably impossible (and certainly undesirable).

I am planning to go to the Middle East as a self-appointed Objectivist ambassador. If you would like to join me, you can sign up on this website: http://www.goarmy.com

This also brings up the virtue of Justice. Read these two plays and ask if the kid's teachers practiced "rationallity in the evaluation of men." What would you do if you were a teacher and these were turned in to you? http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

Details on the Shooter: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/index.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...ewsbreaking-hed So, not much information yet.

A tazer couldn't even protect someone against a "saturday night special" (cheap handgun), which could easily be obtained by any criminal in any country regardless of government control. On the other end of the spectrum, a gun would still be a better defense against a suicide bomber with C4 strapped to him or a terrorist with a bazooka: so there is no need to allow a basic citizen to have C4 or a tank. This is really the key, that on principle rational men must be allowed the ability to defend themselves against irrational men. Ideally only good men would have guns (and only the US would have had nukes during the cold war), but failing that it is better to ensure the right of good men to guns even if it makes it easier for a criminal to obtain one. Surely, in the case of this shooting rampage, you can admit that it would have been better if all of the students had guns? If Virgina Tech is like any other school in the United States than the students were probably not allowed to have guns in their dorm rooms or on their persons. If they had, it would have been impossible for one shooter to inflict this sort of carnage.

Clearly. My point was: 1) A hard and fast Standard Operating Procedure like "if there is a shooting in a school, immediately charge in" or "if there is a shooting in a school, wait and call for backup" is limiting because every situation is different. 2) Officers should be given the flexibility to decide how to react, and be trained to assess the threat and their own capabilities (the Army's 3:1 rule is just an example of a simple assessment tool). They should also have the authority to react without having to gain permission from higher.

If every student had a gun, this incident would have lasted about two minutes... assuming the guy would still have even had the balls to try it.

The military mindset here would be to decentralize leadership: push the power down. No two incidents will be the same so it has to be up to the highest ranking troop on the ground to make the decision about what to do. A "standard operating procedure" to charge in guns blazing or a "standard operating procedure" to always 'hold the fort' and wait for backup regardless of the situation would limit the ability of officers to choose the appropriate action. The best solution is something along the lines of the "3:1 guideline" which is essentially "if you are engaged by an enemy, and you outnumber him three to one (e.g. there are three cops and one shooter), then assault him. If you see an enemy and you do not outnumber him 3:1 than suppress him and call for support."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/index.html • Police chief says at least 22 people are dead; AP reports 31 • Four hospitals report 29 wounded • Attacks mark deadliest school shooting in U.S. history • Student describes situation as "mayhem"; says 2 students jumped from window There isn't enough information to know the motivations of the shooter yet, but I won't be surprised if it was along the same lines as the personal subjectivist philosophy that Eric Harris held: "My belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am the law, and if you don't like it, you die. If I don't like you or I don't like what you want me to do, you die."

Amazing! I can't wait to see the look on Haji's face when our army of Sky Troopers swoop in.

My old essay on the Crito: In the “Crito” Socrates is given an opportunity by his friend Crito to escape from prison. Socrates argues against escape using a personification of the Laws of Athens. The argument is reductive, taking the one moral criterion that it is just to maintain just agreements and unjust to fail to fulfill a just agreement and uses that criterion to make the final decision. The Laws argue using three main points which are that by disobeying the court’s verdict to put Socrates to death that Socrates would destroy or be attempting to destroy the city, that the Laws and the State are like his parents and that by disobeying them he is failing in his filial duty towards them, and that he has made an implicit agreement to either obey the Laws or persuade them of their injustice. Taken as individual reasons the arguments are extremely weak. If it is taken as a single argument it is compelling enough to convince Socrates to choose death over life in exile. Crito’s plea for his friend to escape is not immediately compelling to Socrates. In order to determine if it is just to escape or just to face his penalty he gives a voice to the Laws. As such he treats them as moral agents capable of bringing claims of justice against him. Doing this seems strange since immediately prior to this personification he explained to Crito how “we should not then think so much of what the majority will say about us, but what he will say who understands justice and injustice” and in a democracy the laws obviously are made by the ignorant majority rather than by the just minority. Either this is the source of his suggestion of an agreement to “obey or persuade” later in the argument, or he does not consider the source of the laws at all. The first argument by the Laws is that by disobeying the court’s verdict and escaping Socrates would be attempting to destroy the city and its laws. This argument is based on the idea of universality. The Laws are claiming that by him doing something that everyone else will also do it and that if Socrates chooses which Laws to obey so will everyone else. Socrates certainly does not think peoples actions will differ based upon what he does so he cannot be stating this literally, since it would follow from this that a criminal who does not understand justice will try not try to avoid his sentence if Socrates, who understands justice, decides not to escape. He is rather using it as his criteria for ethics by posing the question “if everyone did this what would happen?” The Laws are right to claim that if everyone acted in a just way the laws would be destroyed, but not right to claim the city would be destroyed. If in fact every person had devoted their lives to understanding justice as Socrates did there would be no need for laws at all and the city would thrive. A just man, if he through accident committed an injustice, would be the most eager to receive his due punishment and so would ensure that he received it. The laws are only necessary for those who do not care about justice. The next reason the Laws give to Socrates for staying to receive his punishment is one of filial duty. The Laws claim that they are like his parents and as such are on higher moral ground than he is and so must obey the Laws. The Laws are right to claim an asymmetrical relationship but it is not asymmetrical in the way that the Laws claim. Socrates is in fact the one on higher moral ground since he must, because of the way he lives his life, understand justice better than the Laws which were made by the general public. The reason that parents are generally considered on higher moral ground is because they are more experienced so have probably learned more about justice. Socrates goes as far to point out the relationship of a slave to his master and the ethical system he is using to make his decision is in fact very similar to that of a slave. The final argument of the Laws of Athens is that Socrates has entered into an implicit agreement with the Laws to either obey them or to persuade as to their injustice. By staying in the city after he had reached voting age the Laws claim that Socrates agreed to follow their laws. It is unlikely that a just man would agree to obey an unjust law which is why the clause about persuasion is necessary for this argument to have any weight. However, Socrates has learned with his discussions with the Sophists that oratory is the skill that produces persuasion among many people without knowledge, as in the assembly. He is essentially saying that he thinks he has agreed to either follow unjust laws or be skilled enough in oratory to persuade the assembly of their unjust nature. Escape does not seem worse in “badness” to oratory, which persuades without knowledge and this agreement would basically mean that it is not possible for a just man to live in a democracy with a majority of unjust men. Just men and just laws seem to have a higher claim to a city than unjust men and unjust laws, so it should probably be the unjust men and their unjust laws that should have to go elsewhere. If the just men allow them to remain than it does not seem that just men should be subject to their whims. Individually it is apparent that these three reasons given by the Laws are not very compelling, primarily due to the nature of laws in general. When many arguments are combined, no matter what their weaknesses, it is human nature to be more compelled by them than by any single argument alone. With so many reasons given and so few reasons to the contrary it is not surprising that Crito was left speechless when Socrates finished his speech. It is more surprising, but understandable, that Socrates would be convinced by his own logical fallacies. Unfortunately, only Crito was present which left Socrates forced to essentially reason out the matter himself without the benefits of dialectic. It may have been that Socrates made the right decision by not escaping but the argument for doing so in the Crito is too flawed to come to that conclusion.

My class in Plato had a huge impact on me, and in reading the dialogs I immediately felt an affinity for Socrates. It was before I had much exposure to Objectivism. I became rather angry after reading the Crito, and I was really pulling for him to escape despite my vague understanding of the history. It was after reading his justifications for not escaping that I realized how jacked up Plato's philosophy was. When I read the Phaedo I became physically sick and was actually upset for days afterwards (I know, it sounds crazy!). I'll try to hunt down my original essay on it. Clearly he should have escaped.

Hi! Understanding Objectivist Philosophy will help you out significantly in you're life. However, because there is no mystical deity to deal out success to everyone that is virtuous I wouldn't say that "everything will fall into place".. you still have to face situations where you have a shortage of factual knowledge (e.g. you can't automatically be a great Engineer, although you now have the method to learn Engineering) and the rather significant issue of having to deal with other men who may or may not be rational. You definitely need Philosophy to deal with others. Dealing with other people involves the branch of "politics" more than "ethics." If you were alone on a desert island you would still need ethics, but would have no need of politics. Its a fine distinction but you'll figure it out. You should definitely read "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand."

To clarify, you are operating under the second of these two definitions So that the question becomes who was the most tactically competent, right?

This returns us to the issue that Alexander did not live as long as Ghengis. Alexander suffered no defeats in a period of fighting lasting about 10 years, but did not conquer as much land area as the Kahn. The Kahn suffered two defeats in a period of fighting lasting about 26 years, and conquered a larger land area (largest in history?). Unless we clone the two and have them fight it out the answer to this question might down to personal preference. Do you know the metrics for the land area conquered by various leaders? I can't find it anywhere.

It was certainly a significant accomplishment for Ghengis to overcome what he did in order to form the tribes of the Steepe, and it exceeded what Alexander had to overcome to get his Army in line (thanks to Phillip). However, when we are talking about "Who Was The Greatest Military Leader of All Time" where the general started from does not seem that important to me. When Rommel and Patton have their troops arrayed against each other across the Battlefield, no one is really asking "so who overcame the most?" but rather "who is better?" I'm guessing we won't actually be able to come to a consensus on this question. My subjective opinion on this is that Alexander was the best based on my readings of his battles. My (unsupportable?) theory is that he was the best because of his close association with Aristotle. You might be right. I always think of "greatness" as having a positive connotation. For example, I got in a debate with someone this week on how despite Marx's obvious influence on the 20th century I wouldn't describe him as a "Great Political Philosopher." Clearly there are times where conquest is justified. Ghengis Kahn, for example, invaded the Ilkhanate empire when his ambassadors (who he sent to establish trade) were brutally murdered. To quote Ayn Rand: "All the reasons that make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative." (The Virtue of Selfishness) As for Alexander's reasons, they are widely debated. I consider the painting of Alexander as glory-hungry madman to be worse revisionism than the current stereotype of Kahn as a savage bloodthirsty barbarian. In the case of Persia, Alexander probably attacked Darius because he had arranged the assassination of his father. Many of his other conquests seemed to be based on the idea of bringing Greek civilization to the barbarians. Note the many cases when Alexander allowed various cities and countries to keep their autonomy after meeting with their leaders and judging them to share greek values. Whether this policy was essentially a form of altruistic "nation building" or actually a rational policy to advance the greeks is hard to judge at this point.