Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

O.K. Stone

Regulars
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by O.K. Stone

  1. The new national slogan is "1Malaysia, Rakyat didahulukan, pencapaian diutamakan" meaning "1Malaysia, the people come first, achievement is top priority", priority paradox anyone?

    The achievement of what is top priority?

    Does the use of 1Malaysia have any meaning or is it just a a typo?

  2. Therefore in your example the big donor would have to commit a real crime, something like rape, murder, kidnapping, theft or fraud. Could the authorities exhonerate him in return for his money? Sure. Corruption can exist anywhere. But I ask you to imagine what the reaction would be from the general population and other authorities.

    Even if the big donor is by then untouchable in a legal sense (he might be depending on several factors), those who did him favors would not be. They would be prosecuted and/or impeached by state or federal authorities.

    And consider such a society would be familiar with the concept of the sanction of the victim.

    -bold mine-

    I think that a more accurate statement would be that they would be liable for prosecution and/or impeachment. Anyway, rational people would not tolerate this and they would show this in the electoral process, if no other official means were available to them.

  3. Why are you afraid that Lithuania will be next? Lithuania is a NATO member. Do you think that Russia is willing to engage in a war against NATO now?

    What do you think are the goals that Russia is pursuing in Georgia? How far do you think they are willing to go - and how much risk are they willing to take? Do you think they seek to crush the Georgians and re-conquer them, or are their goals more restrained?

    P.S.: As I type this, TV news says that Russian troops are 20 km away from Tbilisi.

  4. Any free nation has the right to kick the ass of a rights-violating dictatorship.

    Eloquent. So its time to fuel up the Tomahawk missiles and Abram tanks, because we have a lot of ass-kicking to do in the world if this is how low the threshold is for the use of the military.

    A free nation has the right to use military force against a rights-violating one, but definitely not the obligation.

    Since, to a smaller or greater degree,all governments violate rights one should first answer this question: what amount of rights-violation authorizes the use of military force against another government? What is the threshold?

    Further, before using outright force, there is a place for diplomatic measures. Mind you, carrying a big stick does add to the attention paid to your discourse, never mind how soft-spoken it may be.

  5. It is still moral for a just nation to overthrow a dictator, such as Saddam Hussein, as long as they do not wish to replace him with another brutal dictatorship. To execute this morally in practice in a quasi-ideal capitalistic society, a separate division of a volunteer army would need to be established for the purposes of such missions.

    Although this is probably subsumed under the term quasi-ideal capitalistic society, I'd like to point out that the government, and therefore the army should be voluntarily funded. Perhaps going as far as creating a special fund where those interested in a specific mission could contribute, financially or otherwise.

  6. Hello.

    Suppose that a huge, previously unknown asteroid, Trein, is discovered to be on a collision course with Earth in 30 days. Many panic, a mission is hastily drawn up to divert the asteroid, anti-man movements try to sabotage the mission. Then, shortly before launching it, so before any human intervention, another asteroid, Soter, is found to be approaching Earth. Further calculations prove that the gravitational attraction from Soter will nudge Trein away from its collision course with Earth. The dreaded catastrophe becomes a skygazing opportunity, as the asteroids.

    Question: was Trein ever on a collision course with Earth or not?

  7. This is a suggestion - what about a psychological evaluation? For instance, when a person is between some age and another, they may be psychologically evaluated to see if they are rationally an adult.

    There could be a private licensing system, that people could take a test in, that would provide some license that would be accepted as proof of adulthood.

    I can imagine some people in their 30s or 40s trying to pass their adulthood test.

    I wonder what kind of tests would be devised in an Objectivist society. I doubt scarification would be one of them

×
×
  • Create New...