Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Zip last won the day on September 4 2011

Zip had the most liked content!


About Zip

  • Birthday 04/27/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    Military, Martial Arts, Politics, Home Renovations, Liberty

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Occupation
    Capitalist Oppressor


  • Member Title
    Track Walker

Recent Profile Visitors

14166 profile views

Zip's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)



  1. Possibly; but I've seen the term used in the way I understood it like it was some sort of biological imperative and that is just wrong.
  2. Unconditionally? No. i could not imagine loving my children if they were child abusers, pedophiles or murderers. It would break my heart, but such a thing proven without a doubt would be enough to destroy my love of them.
  3. I think there is a huge dropping of context here. al-Awlaki wasn't acting as a us citizen when he was killed he was an enemy combatant. He was actively engaged in a war against your country and as such he was a legitimate military target, no different than any Taliban terrorist firing his AK at US troops. His citizenship is not protection, nor does it provide an excuse for his direct and violent action against your country.
  4. Zip

    Objective penalty

    Trebor. I do understand the interconnected nature of rights but there are crimes which primarily concern ones property (theft) ones liberty (Kidnapping) or ones life (murder) and regardless of the philosophical nature of those rights it remains useful to list them in priority (as Rand does) and to use that hierarchy as a basis to determine which crime is deserving of the harsher punishment. This is a prime example of what happens when that hierarchy is ignored/forgotten...
  5. Zip

    Objective penalty

    Personally I would place the crimes according to which of the individual rights was violated with the most severe punishments for violations of the right to life, then liberty then property; the first two dealing with actual harm to a person vice a more abstract violation of ones rights to property. So a person who robs a bank would not (normally) expect a harsher sentence than a person who commits rape, but one who robs a bank at gunpoint would earn a harsher sentence than the unarmed robber because of the added possibility of a violation to the lives and liberty of the others in the bank at the time of the robbery. Consequently the greater the violation the greater the punishment, a rapist would not normally be subject to the same punishment as a person who tortures and rapes his victims or a murderer Of course there will be mitigating circumstances in many cases and the context of the crime must be taken into account as well. *edited for formatting*
  6. Being a soldier. At least in the Canadian Forces it is a way to make quite a good living at a young age and when/if you should release you get a good serverance and perks such as education and/or training grants. I'm fairly certain that the US Army has similar programs but others can probably speak to these better than I.
  7. Point taken but newbies also need to get the feel for a place in order to be comfortable as part of a community like this, and asking an easy question is often a good way to do that.
  8. I guess not all of us would wish to possibly alienate a newcomer with terse response to "go look it up" than give a simple answer. If you don't want to participate then don't.
  9. People could. And we would all be free to disassociate ourselves from them, to publicly let it be known that they are abusers of defenseless animals. To warn people to not let those others take care of their children or to watch their pets. We could privately censure them for those despicable acts, we could organize and boycott their business if we so choose; because although their acts would be permissible in a free society, they are still morally reprehensible, disgusting, and cruel.
  10. With regard to Andrei and Leo ask yourself which is the more honest/moral position... 1. Andrei - I used to believe "X". I have been shown and now understand that it is wrong. I can't live like this any longer I must escape... any way I can. 2. Leo - I believe "Y" but that is not the way things are so, if I can't beat them I might as well join them. Ooh, I can drink myself into oblivion as I do it too. Yes, I'm prejudiced in Andrei's favor. Andrei is a good example of how an honest man, even if he is completely convinced that he is correct, after being proven wrong will not compromise but change his course 360 degrees to comply with facts and reality. Even as a Commie Andrei was a better man than Leo.
  11. Interesting POV. I will have to think on this. I'm not sure the two are as separated as you think.
  12. Yes, they are Libertarians. And yes, they plan on having all these "barges" joined together. Competing Governments... The fun game every power hungry madman can play...
  13. Oh... It's ontology spelled incorrectly.
  14. Living doesn't merely mean the ability to continue to draw breath and sustain life, it is the enjoyment of our existence with all the chances and even dangers that sometimes includes. Avoiding death isn't ones highest value, living is.
  15. For what it is worth UNCLOS prohibits any such construct in international waters.
  • Create New...