Craig24

A great principled argument from Ayn Rand: Selfishness (from the Lexicon) A robber IS pursuing his own interests but it is not his selfishness that is evil. It the sacrafice of other men's interests that is evil.

Keep in mind that YT is public forum. He has an opportunity to make his case to a fairly sizable audience of more rational people. It isn't just an argument with a single person.

Excellent point. The question is whether protection against natural disaster is a proper govt function. The Declaration states that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.." and Rand would agree. Is a natural disaster or emergency a rights violation? Is a rethinking in order here? How much further can we go with this? Do we make the leap from protection against nature (floods, hurricanes, tonadoes) to protection against economic deprivation (poverty, unemployment)? What measures would that require? Do you then have to concede that some forms of govt welfare are justified? I'm just throwing this out there.

At Politicalforums.com this post contains the following paragraph: Is this a commonly held view among any libertarians that you know? Isn't this precisely the kind of view that has eventually led us to our present mixed economy?

It's useful to consult a dictionary. consent: Indifference or passivity is acquiescence. I call it consent by default.

The book 'New Deal or Raw Deal' was recommended to me by a friend. Has anyone here read this?

Your qoute from Ayn Rand describes a Trade and you proceed to agree with that so what are you debating?

A lot of people on another forum I sometimes post at are accusing the Tea Party left and right. It's dizzying.

The biggest challenge is convincing others that selfishness is harmless to others. Think about how the profitable businessman is portrayed. The more he profits, the more harm other people think he does to others. Why do they think this? How do you demonstrate that this is not so?

Are all taxes an initiation of force? If not, what kind of taxes are and what kind are not?

I was going to ask if this is what he meant by consent and I agree with you on the matter.

Utopia isn't the end being sought, a ban on all rights violating activity is. A 5% tax is a rights violation as far as I can tell. Am I to understand that this violation of rights is necessary?

I think this is the correct place for this thread but if not, move it to the appropriate catagory. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37423584/ns/wo...frica?gt1=43001 It looks like this tragedy is giving the anti-semites and their apologists (particularly on the left) another opportunity to condemn the state of Israel. A flotilla carrying aid to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was raided by the IDF and ten people were killed. Israel claims their soldiers were attacked and that the raid was self defense. I found this snippet to be incredulous to say the least:

If there is something to worry about, it would be the reaction of independent voters in KY who may decide this election. If they are persuaded that Rand Paul is a racist, would that change their vote, assuming a majority are leaning towards Rand?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH-ZptFWn34 This is a good trailer of the upcoming "Robin Hood" movie with Russell Crowe.

I'm recalling a quote from head coach Sam Wyche of the Bengals during Super Bowl XXIII. He was lecturing his players on the sideline saying "Don't be a selfish ballplayer. When we give you the ball, do your job. When we don't give you the ball, do your job again." Anyone remember this? Try substituting a better word for "selfish" in that one and see how that sounds.

A "rebuttal" consisting of an insult and a mere quote of the offending statement isn't a rebuttal at all.

Check this out. It's the same video with annotations by someone who disagrees with several major points.

Here are the questions I would have: Is it permissible to prohibit irrational behavior even if it does not violate the rights of another? When is it permissible to do so? Why is it permissible to do so? Take the example of using a harmful drug. Is it permissible to prohibit harmful drugs? When and why?

I'm puzzled by this kind of thinking. Here's what I'm getting from you. If a person wishes to use a harmful drug (cocain for instance) then he should be denied the right to do so because such an act is irrational. Isn't that a contradiction? If a right is identified as the freedom to act as one wishes so long as it does not violate another person's rights (A right is a moral principle that defines and sanctions a man's freedom of action in a social context), then why would the right to act be determined by the irrationality of the act? I thought that the primary characteristic of man's rational faculty that gives rise to the need for rights was his VOLITIONAL nature (the ability to think or not and to choose or not). Isn't his freedom to choose what a right is protecting?

By "rights-respecting egoism" you mean a moral code that forbids violating the rights of others. If she hasn't made a case for this then I must ask if anyone has ever made the case for the opposite in your opinion. Make it personal by asking yourself "Does anyone have the right to take what is mine without my permission"? Would you answer yes? Is so, why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un3B7Og-FS0 Here's to Brett Favre and good luck to him and the Vikings today.

Good morning, I saw this movie on Friday night. As I read through this thread yesterday, I kept asking myself the following: "What is the underlying philosophical premise of this film?" I finally realized what it was and it is encapsulized in two lines towards the end of the film: " “There is no green anymore on our planet, we killed our mother.” and “The humans went back to their dying planet.” The filmaker thinks we belong to mother earth and it is our duty to protect it. Take that for what it's worth.

This is a curious question. Presumably the thief needs this one dollar to survive (which seems unlikely) but why must he steal it from anyone? Can't he earn it? Is there no one who will lend it to him or donate it to him if he asks? On the larger point, are you sure you understand the stated justification for protecting everyone's right to property? The millionaire will no doubt survive the theft of this single dollar but is his survival being at stake really the stated reason it is immoral to steal it?

This subject is being discussed on a myspace thread: http://forums.myspace.com/t/4660730.aspx?f...amp;SortOrder=0 This is an example of what you can expect on a general political forum: and now the reply: Counterpoint: The next reply: Now is person A beginning to reach a little here? Is this a common retort?: I'm person B in this conversation. What should my next reply be?