Craig24

Yes but what is the action? How do you know what the action of that individual will be??

There are passages in the Quran stating that later verses abrogate earlier ones when such contradictions exist. This article explains: Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam This also helps to support the "Three Stages of Jihad" video that Grames posted.

Can you make the case for what 'x' is in the formulation? How do you know what it is or what it should be by reference to the golden rule and only the golden rule?

I suppose that one could say that "funny is in the eye of the beholder"

Does the Declaration of Independence have a typo that makes us selfish? A social science prof claims a typo may cause a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Declaration. From the article: This is a transparent, desperate and pathetic attempt to read a collectivist premise into the document and to teach others to do the same.

Harris vs. Quinn ruling: 5-4 against union dues for at home workers

As a follow up the last post, HuffPo did a fact check on the fact check: (Fact-Checking Wal-Mart's Fact-Check of the New York Times)

Somewhat related: This 'hit piece' on Walmart (and Starbucks) appeared in the NY Times (The Corporate Daddy) Not content to let things go, Walmart had a response (Fact Check: The NY Times "Corporate Daddy")

What is lobbying specifically? I think I misunderstand what you mean by it.

I have a question for you: What does the consensus tell you about a theory? How do you know the consensus is right?

I don't know how to evaluate this data without knowing what kind of results the survey would produce from the same age group (11-32 year olds) in the past (20, 30 or 40 years ago). People do change their thinking as they age.

Ok, If I read you correctly, you are claiming that no rights are violated by this action. Is that what you are saying? Does that mean this action is justified within the context of Objectivism?

On the subject of scientific consesus, I found this post by a participant at JREF (James Randi Educational Forum) to be of great value. The person writing this is a confirmed Objectivist who I may invite to post here in the future. He has a unique perspective as an actual scientist:

We are go for launch:

According to Objectivism, IP stands for: the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind. IP protects: the mind’s contribution in its purest form: the origination of an idea. The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property. An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. By forbidding an unauthorized reproduction of the object, the law declares, in effect, that the physical labor of copying is not the source of the object’s value, that that value is created by the originator of the idea and may not be used without his consent; thus the law establishes the property right of a mind to that which it has brought into existence. The U.S. copyright office states: Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works. The reason for emphasizing the fact of being in a fixed tangible form is because, obviously, the content of your mind is not the what the law deals with. The law deals with and can ONLY deal with objects. After reading a book, the story is in your mind (and that's the whole point actually. It would be useless to create a work of art and then prohibit the idea of it from entering the minds of your customers. The artist WANTS it to do so.) If you reproduce the book without authorization from the author, you are violating his right to property.

First, what do you think IP is? So far, I've seen you make a reference to "an idea that is in someone else's mind" but that is not what IP is. It may be helpful to read through this thread : Why should there be patents and copyrights? Of particular interest to you would be the following posts written by 'Grames': Post #16 Post #20 Post #38 In post #38, Grames makes the following reply: Emphasis mine.

Who is misrepresenting who here? You say that what's in your mind is yours, correct? Ok, but that is NOT what IP seeks to regulate. IP doesn't deal in ideas as such. It deals in tangible expressions of what is original (in works of art) or novel (in inventions). I can have any song in my head at any time. I can even sing it for my own pleasure without violating the copyright. If I copy the actual recording of the song without the artist's permission, then I'm violating the copyright.

A thief hasn't signed any contract either but he still can't just take your property. Land deeds and titles to automobiles are implied contracts that you didn't sign. Incidentally, imitation as such isn't the target of the prohibition. Literal copying is and copying of the actual work of art, not just some idea floating around in someone's head. If I whistle an original tune and you imitate me, no one will think this is a copyright violation. Even if I obtain a copyright of that original as recorded, your imitation of it will not violate the terms. If you perform or copy and distribute my work for compensation without my permission, then you have violated the copyright.

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family" - W Bush

Inequality.is This interactive website aims to teach you (from a certain political perspective no doubt) the causes and solutions to inequality. It begins with this opening question: "If it were up to you, how would you split up income between the top 10% and the other 90%" The right response is: It is not and should not be up to me. But this is a game with loaded dice so if you want to play, you have to play with the dice they give you. The first major claim is that women and minorities in the same category (mine was age 45-54, some college) as white males make substantially less (about $11,000 to $12,000 per year less). The next major claim is that if American wages had kept up with increased productivity, I'd be making about $26,000 more a year. "You Make More Stuff. They Make More Money" is how it is put. Yeah, who knew my boss was exploiting me for his personal profit. Anyway, the solutions are what you expect: Increase taxes on the rich, higher minimum wages, more worker protection, more regulation of the financial sector.. .. In other words more of the same old same old..

Not voting endorses an outcome as well. It endorses permitting others to select the winning candidate in your absence. If there is a distinction between the candidates that will make a difference in how the govt impacts human lives (starting with your own) then not voting could permit others to help make life worse than it would or could have been.

Well so much for property rights. There may be atheists who don't want to serve religious people, whites who don't want to serve blacks and muslims who don't want to serve infidels. Maybe I don't want to serve folks under 30, being they can't be trusted and all. Come on, people, it's my business who I serve and don't serve. Be consistent and give us all the right to discriminate against anyone we wish.

I am participating in a debate about free will. I explained that free will refers to an ability to choose between more than one option. I explained that if you select A instead of B, it does not mean that I could not have selected B instead of A. My opponent asked if people have a reason for a choice. I replied "yes". He tried to assert that this reason is what compelled that course of action and that you can't choose the alternative due to that reason. He is saying "if you had a reason to select A, it prevents the ability to choose B. Otherwise all actions are simply random and have no reason at all". According him, only a random selection without a reason can actually be considered free. Is this correct?

See, this is really annoying. I specifically said that if a candidate of any party expresses skepticism of or rejects a well supported theory of science like evolution, I would regard this as dumb. Now I could stop here and maybe people would be satisfied but since a candidate for office is to be judged by his politics, not his understanding of science, I proceed to ask what this candidate's political ideology and policy preferences are and since he has an opponent in any election (unless he's running unopposed in which case it will make no difference) I have to evaluate both candidates on their policy preferences and choose the one who's policies will be the most beneficial or the least destructive depending on how you want to look at it. If the scientifically ignorant candidate has a better political platform I will vote for him. If not, I will not. This seems logical enough. What am I missing here?

I think we can stop you right here. My post and this thread doesn't address Objectivist attitudes towards libertarians. It addresses a poll that says Republicans reject the theory of evolution more than Democrats. My original point stands. If some politician (it doesn't matter what his party is) comes out and says "I'm very skeptical of theory of evolution" then my reaction is "yes that's a dumb thing to think but what is his platform?". If he openly endorses a dangerous ideology like socialism on the other hand then I wouldn't consider voting for him.