Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

progressiveman1

Regulars
  • Posts

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by progressiveman1

  1. progressiveman1

    Traffic Laws

    You mean the five hundred pages from these threads? Should I quit my day job and quit pursuing my main goals? I'm trying to find Peikoff's lecture "Why should one act on principle". Do you know if it's still free on the ARI website, because I can't seem to find it on there.
  2. Mammon: You're only going to do situps, not a complete routine?
  3. progressiveman1

    Traffic Laws

    People shouldn't drive fast through a mall parking lot(private or public property)because it puts the driver at a high risk of hitting another person or car. That doesn't have to do with the mall property rights though. That's so the driver won't go to jail for vehicular manslaughter. But on open roads, driving at a comfertable speed over the speed limit in a more desolate area wouldn't cause any physical harm to anyone. And a person(citizen) should never kill another person because there's always some chance of getting caught. The risk doesn't outweigh the reward.
  4. progressiveman1

    Traffic Laws

    Alright, I guess I'll offer the concrete examples of gaining more value by violating other's rights which isn't in an emergency situation. A pizza delivery driver gains more value by breaking traffic laws because he, 1)gets places faster, 2)gets a lot less stress from not following unnecessary rules. The value he loses is, 1)???. Watching rights-infringed videos on the internet, or burning a cd for a friend. You gain pleasure and knowledge. What value do you lose? It's tough to think of them off the top of my head, but there's a couple.
  5. progressiveman1

    Traffic Laws

    How do you know that? I can think of some concrete examples that go against your statement, but I would like to hear your reasoning on the first question first.
  6. progressiveman1

    Traffic Laws

    Actually I should've said that you would be acting on the principle that you shouldn't ever violate another person's property rights just for the sake of acting on that principle, even though you can gain more(or cause no harm) in some situations by violating their rights. But by acting strictly on non-contradicting principles, then you would have no choice but to always follow all the traffic laws to the T. So you could say, "I must act strictly on principle," or you could say,"I'm only not acting on this principle for select situations because I can gain more by doing so." The problem with the latter is that you couldn't follow any principle that wouldn't contradict the other principle of violating people's property rights. Unless you modify the fundamental principle of Objectivism, which I think is what DavidOdden tried pointing out to me earlier when he talked about red meat: Then again, he confused me when he said that he would start strictly obeying traffic laws if the road properties became privately owned, which means he sees no sense in modifying the principle of not violating people's rights. Anyways, the modified principle could be: "you shouldn't violate other people's rights unless you can gain more value by doing so."
  7. progressiveman1

    Traffic Laws

    Inspector: What I meant by "property rights" is what Adrock clarified in post #48. If the roads were owned by private parties. Even though most aren't nowadays, people who commit minor traffic offenses on these gov't roads would probably drive the same if the roads were privately owned. I think this because their current actions explain what they think the consequenes are, and if they see no harm by breaking minor traffic laws(no matter if they are public or private property) then they will probably drive the same way on both. If the roads became privatized and the driver stopped committing the traffic offenses solely because of that change, then that person is just acting on principle for the sake of acting on principle, not out of practical necessity. I think I understand what you mean when asking, "whose property"? Not that you said anything, but are probably implying that the gov't doesn't have any property rights concerning the roads because of the way it obtained the money: they stole it from us. DavidOdden: Are you implying that you don't mind committing minor traffic offenses because the roads are publicly owned and thus wouldn't be violating property rights? I take it you mean this because you say you strictly obey mall roads because it's private property, but don't strictly obey...public roads, I assume?
  8. progressiveman1

    Traffic Laws

    *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread - sN *** I'm curious if Objectivists ever drive over the speed limit or violate other minor traffic laws. Based on a fundamental principle of Objectivism that a person should not violate other people's rights, you should try to be perfect at never violating traffic laws. I admit, however, that I constantly commit minor traffic infractions- a comfertable speed over the speed limit, rolling through a stop sign, etc, but it's still a violation of property rights. It just seems so insignificant to me to strictly abide by these laws when I've learned from experience and observation that doing these things doesn't put one in more risk of physical danger or of getting a ticket from the police. But like I said, it's still a violation of property rights and by definition contradicts being an Objectivist. The same type of reason why I have a hard time resisting the temptation to watch possible copyright-infringed videos on the internet. Watch video, gain pleasure/knowledge. No negative consequences for me. If strict, enforceable laws were created against the act then I would consider stopping because of the harm that I know it could cause me. Should people act strictly on principle just for the sake of acting on principle?
  9. What are you guys going to do on Christmas? I don't have any family in Charlotte(and that's how I like it), so it's going to be an ordinary day for me.
  10. Intent to frighten or negligence would have to be proven, and it probably couldn't be in this case.
  11. But if we're talking about just performance-enhancers, then judging them on their potency and negative risks should be the standard of disallowment. I think that's what the issue comes down: preference. Some prefer better talent combined with performance-enhancers, some prefer less talent because of no performance-enhancing. That's the whole point of a free market though, that a business can be run how the owner wants.
  12. There is no line to be drawn on being "natural." Grounds on disallowment should be based on potency and negative risks. If something is safe and/or useless, then there is no need to restrict it.
  13. The obvious distinction is altering vs. being born with it. The "unfair" argument is based on the willingness of some to use potent and potentially dangerous substances, not on if the athlete earned it. The argument wouldn't make sense if it was based on if it was earned because of reasons like you mention.
  14. Aside from legalities and rules, using potentially dangerous substances can be right or wrong, depending on the individual. To improve athletic ability the most, athletes have to give up long term health to achieve short term/medium term performance. They may reach their goals of becoming a great athlete for the time being, but they may end up with beat up joints and muscles, heart problems from the high food intake and physical stress, and if they choose to use dangerous drugs then they may reasonably accept those associated risks as well in order to be a great athlete. The use of these drugs is dependent on how important these goals are to the individual. The gov't doesn't understand that individual's have a right to choose to live or die, and that each individual can take certain risks if they want to. There is no reasonable principle that it can be based on.
  15. It wouldn't hurt to try though. Getting just a few pieces of truth may help a lot.
  16. ^Common grammar=common understanding. The more normal your dialogue is, the better you will be understood.
  17. I think it depends on each individual's crimes to determine if they qualify for torture. A person who has intended or committed acts that significantly endangers individual rights(namely freedom) in a country loses all their rights because of the extent of their crimes. Given this, and since a proper gov't should act in self-defense, trying to obtain knowledge from these criminals in order to prevent future crimes against them is in the best interest of the country.
  18. Isn't his comment really the foundation of socialism, or any type of collectivist state? The principle that everybody is responsible for everybody. It's the reason why socialism is an immediate threat to humans.
  19. I didn't take those types of comments by him seriously. His job was to investigate which players had involvement with certain drugs, and making judgements was not part of that job(people just can't resist, can they?). Obviously it wasn't all those people's fault, since most of them don't have any authority or responsibility in controlling drug use. Maybe George Mitchell is close friends with MLB commissioner Bud Selig, and wanted to try to convince the public and soften their views on Selig's passiveness during those steroid years. I can only speculate on that though.
  20. I'll take a stab at it, although I'm not highly knowledgable with the details of law. The courts should be a place of objectivity, with as little subjectiveness in rulings as possible. Things like property damage, medical bills, loss of work, can usually be decided with little or no subjective reasoning at all. However, rulings on "pain and suffering" would have to be significantly subjective because it would be based on a psychological state and not numbers(money). That's why I think courts should only award money strictly for objective and monetary damages.
  21. 1. Lazy cat. The cat is lounging like a human. 2. Run-by farter This one is for the immature crowd, like myself. A man runs by a newswoman and rips one.
  22. Should the courts award money for "pain and suffering?" If so, what objective standard should there be to determine the amount awarded?
  23. In that case, I'll understand if you don't respond any further, but I want to try to milk everything out of you anyways. The more fundamental principle I assume you mean is: no initiation of force. Is this right? You think a gov't lottery is fine because it wouldn't initiate force on anybody?
  24. I thought SN made it a point that one of the reasons gov't run schools are bad is because there are teachers unions associated with them(2nd to last paragraph). But if teachers unions exist in the private market as well, why is it listed as a reason that makes gov't schools bad? It would make all schools bad. It seemed like he was condeming gov't schools because they had unions, but the gov't part doesn't have anything to do with the union part.
×
×
  • Create New...