Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tom Rexton

Regulars
  • Posts

    391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tom Rexton

  1. Would not an armed individual in public constitute a "real, provable, physical harm" to the unwilling people around him? I believe that in this case criminal intent is the essential issue--because if it were not, then the state would have justification for prohibiting gun-ownership.
  2. Well, regardless of whether they're lying, you can let go of any hope you may have of President Bush ousting the current regime in Iran. He can't rely on the argument of WMD's because his credibility on that count was destroyed by the fact that there seems to have been no WMD's in Iraq at the time of the invasion up to now. He'll have an almost too difficult time convincing the American public that it won't be the same kind of bloody, chaotic mess that Iraq is, either. Had the Iraq war been an instant success, the public might have been more open to the idea of replacing the Iranian regime.
  3. Exactly. An armed individual (police officer or gun-owner) in public would 1) have the means to initiate force (with his gun) 2) have the opportunity to inititiate force (he is in proximity to many people) But he would not necessarily have the INTENT and thus would not constitute a threat.
  4. Well, to a certain extent, many jobs were hazardous, low-paying and had long working hours--compared to the air-condition, electrically lighted office jobs of Americans today over 200 years after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. But it was NOT because of lack of government control. If you want to know why such poor conditions were prevalent during the early years (and in third world countries today) and why it was gradually improved over the course of the Revolution, you'll have to learn a bit of economic theory. I'd suggest learning economic theory before reading economic history.
  5. Of course we can only infer an agent's intention to initiate force by analyzing its actions! No one can read another person's mind. But how is not objective to infer from an agent's action that it intends to initiate force? If someone's pointing a gun at another, would the police be unjustified in attempting to disarm and arrest him because it may be possible that that person is just feigning to initiate force? Inference from body language, facial expressions and verbal messages is our ONLY means of determining a person's state of mind at that moment we observe him. Are you implying then that every form of judging a person's mental state by inference is not objective because his mental state cannot be directly observed? I believe you may harbor the erroneous premise that objective judgement is only possible through direct observation. Inference from indirect observation may be more error prone and naturally more complex and difficult, but it can still be objective.
  6. Agent A threatens the initiation force if: 1) Agent A has, or is acquiring, the means to initiate force 2) Agent A has the intent to intiate force 3) Agent A has, is waiting for or trying to gain, the opportunity to initiate force Agent A has the pontetial to intiate force if conditions 1 and 3 hold, but 2 does not. The FBI's discovery of McVeigh's plans would fulfill all three conditions and therefore justify a retaliatory response. An armed individual (such as a gun-owner) would fulfill conditions 1 and 3, but not necessarily 2.
  7. You're question was originally this: Which now confuses me now because you have changed it from a matter "failure to perform duty" to "performing duty inefficiently". The two issues are very different. A failure of duty would be akin to failing to retaliate against criminals by established objective laws--i.e., a disregard of objective procedures established by law. It would also be akin to the government itself initiating force against its own citizens or even refusing to retaliate against criminals. Inefficiency, on the other hand, may simply mean hiring more bureaucrats and staff workers than necessary. Or using old inefficient paper systems instead of electronic databases and other new technology. Or establishing court rules and procedures that make the proceedings longer than necessary. This may impair the government's ability to perform its duty--but it is not FAILURE of duty.
  8. let's analyze your question: "Since this argument is just going in a circle I'd like to ask a question of you who are arguing against me. Why is it so that America has to be the country that liberates all of these dictatorships?" A "why" question asks for a reason, a cause or a purpose. For instance, the question "why did you vote for President Bush?" already presupposes the statement "you voted for President Bush" and is asking the reason(s) for your choice, not which candidate you voted for. Similarly, the question above presupposes the statement "America has to be the country that liberates all of these dictatorships" and is asking for the REASON for this presumption. It didn't ask "Should America do so?" It already assumed the answer to be "yes" and asked a further question "Why?" Now tell me you didn't presume anything false.
  9. The question you asked me PRESUPPOSED that I thought America had to be the one to oust the dicatorships. Since your presumption is false, the question is invalid and deserves no answer. Indeed, we live in the real world. And in this real world, self-determination and democracy are only means of tyranny. And tyranny in Objectivism is IMMORAL and EVIL. And what is evil and immoral will never be practical in this real world.
  10. That the individual has inalienable rights because he is a human being. And that therefore, no majority, no matter how great, has the right to institute a government that will violate any of his rights. And by the way, you still haven't answered the question. You just dodged it.
  11. I, or any else here for that matter, never stated that America has to be the country that does so. You, on other hand, haven't answered my question: how can you possibly claim that a dictatorship has the moral right to exist? In other words, how can you claim that a government has the right to violate rights of its own citizens, provided that it doesn't violate the rights of the citizens of another country? How does the fact that a majority of Muslims want to institute a rights-violating theocracy MORALLY JUSTIFY that theocracy's violating the rights of others, particularly non-muslims or dissenting muslims in the theocracy? I'll stop reprhasing my qustion from this point on if you still don't answer it.
  12. That is absolutely false. No institution that violates individual rights to the extent that a dictatorship does has a right to exist. To claim otherwise is to claim that it has the right to violate any and all individual rights. (!) In otherwords, you're claiming that people have the right to be dictators provided that they not use their dictatorial powers to invade another country. Or, if you still don't get the implication of your argument: that people have the right to enslave, loot, plunder, kill, rape, etc...others who are citizens of their own country. Not only that, your very argument blatantly denies the right of individuals to OVERTHROW dictators who have not invaded other countries. Unless you maintain that absurd position, you had better read up on Objectivist ethics. "There is no such thing as the right to enslave." --Ayn Rand
  13. Believe it now, for the assault has begun! see "US Forces Storm Western Fallujah"
  14. Well, it looks like the moderator has just banned you, or at least redirected every link to ronaldreagan.com from here back to the thread "Bush's Moral Mandate".
  15. Those polls are seriously MISLEADING. Notice how "Iraq" and "Terrorism" are given as two separate issues--which clearly indicates that whoever made the poll considers Iraq to have nothing to do with terrorism. If they were combined to one issue "National Security" They would beat out "moral values" by 12%. Also, if "taxes" and "economy/jobs" were combined, they would beat "moral values" as well. Again, the poll is indicative of a mindset tha considers "Iraq" and "terrorism" as two separate issues, and that "taxes" and "economy/jobs" have nothing to do with each other, too.
  16. Well, I used the name "culture war" because that is what it is called by most people. I didn't intend to present a more apt name, though your point is well-taken.
  17. Thanx, that's definitely more thorough than the coverage of most mainstream media.
  18. Better late than never, right? It seems some sense has been seeping into Bush's mind over the last few days. Hopefully this portends more aggressive operations in other terrorist-havens in Iraq. (for details, see foxnews.com.)
  19. If anything, this election clearly demonstrated the growing cultural rift between the rising religious right and the declining left. The rift is deepenning to the point that small demonstrations of (light) violence between the two have begun to erupt--especially from the loosing leftist side. The issues at stake this election year and in the country in general are deeply MORAL issues as well as political and economical. In my albeit short life-time (18 years) and having lived in the United States since I was 9 years old, I've never seen such bitter division between the two groups. In my very own high school, friends who supported opposing candidates would even passionately argue to the point that they have to reassure each other their friendships. I've heard my own classmates struggle with the moral issues, arguing amongst themselves about religion and morality (discussion topics which obviously confirmed the fact that those issues dominated the minds of most voters in this election). Of course, the current division from this election still pales compared to the election of 1860, but as the religious right gradually gains more and more power and as the bankrupt left continually loses power, do you expect the violence, hatred and angst to escalate to levels similar to those in the United States in the 1850's? Could it possibly split the country to the point of secession and civil war again?
  20. Really? Funny, I've heard quite the opposite from many other Objectivists. Granted, the particular liberals and democrats Objectivists try to "convert" certainly differ widely, and so do individual Objectivists' methodology of "coverting" others. So determining which group of people are more susceptible to Objectivism is difficult. The initial approach (which can vary widely among Objectivists) can often make all the difference. Personality, familiarity and many other factors also play largely on how susceptible a person is to Objectivist's promotion of Ayn Rand's ideas. So unless you have personally spoken with a wide variety and very large number of democrats/liberals as well as religious right/republicans, I highly doubt your statistics is generally accurate.
  21. I get the same feeling when thinking about global and national politics in general, as well as current social and intellectual trends, etc... I think such things will almost always seem negative (except during the Enlightenment), so I've learned to focus my mind instead to things which are within my firm control--my own life--and not spend any more time than necessary contemplating all the evil men and the shortcomings of what would have been heroic men, and all the predicted apocalypse and doom to come. Much of life is still enjoyable. Focus on that. Don't look at Bush and Kerry. Look at your own personal hero(es). They do exist, and in numbers greater than you might think. They're just not as publicized as politicians.
  22. "...wiped out from the planet by any means necessary." Are you sure you heard him right? I am aware of anti-Americanism prevalence in Europe, but THIS? Sounds just like what a vallain in an Ayn Rand novel would say! His affirmation of the "egocentric" and "individualistic" American "liv[ing] their lives just for their myopian happiness" is his one good comment, though.
  23. Not quite yet. The election isn't technically determined until December 13, when the electoral college actually cast their votes. But this is certain (and perhaps more ominous): the Republicans retain a majority of the US House (226/435), US Senate (52/100), and Governorship (27/50). And I suspect--a majority of the State legislatures as well... 11 states have just passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. The Religious right is certainly gaining even more momentum.
  24. True, it is the same set of existential facts--but the facts are quite complex and incredibly numerous. There are even some crucial facts which are not known or at least not well-established. Remember that among other things, we are trying to judge their characters AND predict their future actions--the two most difficult and error-prone forms of rational judgments.
  25. ahh. The allure of mass consumerism! I once lived in a foreign country myself and have witnessed first-hand the effects of American pop culture on the younger generation! My very own aunts, uncles, and grandparents are bemoaning how their children and grandchildren are becoming "Americanized". It's just incredible to witness the influence of American culture abroad. It's still a bit paradoxical to me, though, that considering how secular Americans' lifestyle is, an overwhelming majority still claim to 'believe in God' in contrast to Western Europeans. Why?
×
×
  • Create New...