Randall

I am in the American military as well. I will echo SkyTrooper's sentiment in that America is still worth fighting for. America remains one of the most free and moral countries on this earth. It faces a physical and a philosophical threat. If America is eliminated physically, it obviously cannot be saved philisophically. I believe that it can be saved philisophically, although things are probably going to get worse before they get better. --Randall

David, This is a vote to enumerate, not eliminate the conditions surrounding an individual's death. The government has taken something from us to which they have no right, and to vote for this is to say that we acknowledge that they still have the right to place restrictions on our choices. Their control over the right to end our lives must be eliminated entirely. --Randall Weytens

It's not the government's place to put parameters around the conditions of our death. However, the residents of the State of Washington are seeking legislation to do just that. It's called the "Death with Dignity" law, and it mirrors legislation put in place in Oregon approximately a decade ago. Essentially, it states that if you are terminally ill and it is determined you are going to die within the next 6 months, you can seek help from a medical professional to self-administer life ending medication. On the surface this sounds like a step in the right direction. However, the cost is greater than the benefit here. By voting for this legislation, we are sanctioning the government's right to put conditions around our basic rights. The right to dispose of our life is a property right. No man or government has the right to say "you can die if and only if...". Link to the bill: http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06...0Bills/6843.pdf Now, there may be a need for legislation to protect doctors who administer euthanasia (from being charged with murder), that's a separate issue. We have to take extra care when it comes to voting on our rights, because while we think we are getting an inch back from the government, we are really giving them a mile. --Randall Weytens

If a substance can subvert your mind, like an irrational idea, how can it be moral to consume it (unless temporary consumption of said substance is shown to keep you living)? One can argue "up to a certain point", but what point? --Randy

Thomas, just to clarify, I understand the concept that is being put across. I understand existence, and identity, and how they are inseperable. However, it is the concept of saying two concepts are the same when they are different concepts. I don't see how that is logically valid. The square peg is not fitting into the round hole for some reason.

Intellectualammo, I appreciate your reply. I do understand those things. But the idea is that existence is identity (as stated in the book), which means existence = identity. But they're not. Perhaps I'll understand it better after researching IOE. --Randy

I'll check IOE for this. Thanks for the tip.

I think you're having a weak moment, David. I don't mean this negatively, but as a recognition of the frustration and occasional lonliness I think many of us feel as Obejctivists. I think Rand herself experienced these moments, as portrayed by Dagny in Atlas Shrugged. I can think of times of when I've longed to see someone else who thinks as I do. All in all, those others don't matter. Sure, we have to deal with them on a daily basis as part of civilization, but you have to remind yourself you're not being forced to live in any certain way. There are those who try to force guilt upon us, but you don't have to accept it. If you've done something that you think voilates your principles, you will feel guilty. But then recognize it, resolve it, and move on. Survival is possible because we are certain we are living in accordance with reality. We are not burdened by contradicting thoughts and emotions, and we refuse to be chained. --Randy

I've been re-reading OPAR, and was confused by the claim that existence is identity, but yet they remain as different concepts. Peikoff claims that it is common practice in Philosophy to use two concepts to explain the same existent, to provide for different angles. I can't find any examples of the use of this technique, and why it's a valid technique. Perhaps I'm thinking of it too much like a computer program, where if a=1 and b=2 and you set a=b, then b is 1? Essentially, my question comes down to: how can two concepts be identical and different at the same time? --Randy

I think what Sophia is saying is that the import taxes imposed by our government, which are supported by pharmaceutcal companies through campaign donations/interest groups, on foriegn drugs is immoral. They're artificically inflating the price of foreign drugs so that they end up more expensive than what is being sold in the U.S. I wouldn't say this is a central issue since as it was pointed out most foriegn drugs are under price controls, which would make them cheaper than ours in many cases, and possibly provide a case for drug price controls to be implemented here (as I understood it some are under price controls, but I don't know who or which ones). It's just one of many symptoms of system hampered by government controls. The solution is to get the gov't the hell out of the system entirely which would not only fix the regulatory issues but also the company's abilities to influence our politicians.

Aside from being an effective insertion method, it's an amazing rush, especially when the door opens.

By definition, there can be no such thing as "State Capitalism". A requirement of Capitalism is private property and the freedom to dispose of that property. Whomever makes that claim needs to understand that words do have exact definitions. In terms of there never being socialist states...that's a difficult claim to make. You'd have to look back on history to see what private actions if any were being allowed in those mostly socialist states. The thing is, they have to bounce back and forth between the capitalist and socialist ends of the spectrum otherwise the state would have nothing to loot. This is easily shown by the multiple "5 year plans" that the Soviets would come up with that permitted certain levels of private enterprise as a temporary measure so they could get the economy back on its feet. All in all, it's easy to see the success of socialism by looking at history. Those states that are less free are the ones that starve, and those that are free don't. --Randy

Hello K-Mac,Yes, it is here and I volunteered for airborne school. I completed it back in early July. Have you ever jumped from an airplane?--Randy Hello Dan,When did you serve? I'm a Forward Observer (13F). Just getting out of training and into the "real Army".--Randy

Hello! I'm new to these boards and would like to take a minute to introduce myself. I've been an avid fan of Ayn Rand since 1998 when I first read The Fountainhead. I was fortunate enough to "discover" her works in my early adulthood. My primary goal here is to gain a deeper understanding of Oism through debate. It's been a long time since I've studied her works at length - rather, I've integrated Oism into my life and have lived it more than continued study of it. I'm a very black and white thinker, and I take ideas very seriously. I'm 29 years old. I've been a health food store manager, software developer, systems administrator, and now a U.S. Soldier. I love to learn and I love to experience many aspects of life. My next career will be Neuroscience. I look forward to my time here on the boards. --Randall