Zip

Seems to me that your current employer is not only offering you a manipulative contract but was also being deceitful in not being upfront about the existence of the contract in the first place. ***Whatever you do, watch your back with this organization!*** Now since the job you currently hold has bad pay and crappy benefits how likely is it that they will be able to easily replace you? Why not negotiate with them? Tell them that since they demand to be able to fire you at any time for no reason that you will not accept that they can punish you for either being fired or quitting on your own. If the principal is going to have to ask some sort of head office if this is possible (and if he says it's not, right off the top of his head, ask him to ask the head office anyway) this will buy you some time to find out if your dream job is going to come through.

I agree with sN... and I agree with what you wrote.

As a Canadian I believe that it wasn't our tighter banking regulations (which I believe would be be SOP for a bank in a free market anyway) but rather the disastrous directives issued to your banking sector by the Government that viewed owning a home as a right worth achieving regardless of the buyers ability to pay for it.

Welcome Freedombreeze, good to see yet another Canadian here.

So you are saying that if I truly believe that it is moral to butcher babies and eat them, then that action is just as moral as your refusal to do so?

Two different opinions do not make two correct choices.

The question posed was basically "Why is the initiation of force wrong?" What you are claiming as a reason is a symptom of why it is wrong, not the why itself. Force causes that degredation of morality you correctly cite in the way you say, because it in one form or another denies a man the ability to correctly react to reason, the facts of reality, or his self-interest. Are you sure one man's freedom isn't another's as well? The neccessary condition for freedom is essentially the non initiation of force. That holds true for me as much as it does for you. Should someone initiate force does it not negatively impact the freedom of those arround him? Didn't the 9/11 attacks constrict all of our freedom as others reacted/overreacted to the attacks? I live hundreds of miles from New York but every time I encounter barricades around government buildings or fly on an airplane I am being impacted by a gross initiation of force that was perpetrated against others hundreds of miles from where I live.

The reason to not live like a thug is that it is wrong for all the reasons others have listed above, (A negation of freedom, thought and action) not for the fact that living like a thug will make you live like a thug even more... Police use retaliatory force (or ought to) in the accomplishment of their duties which is not the same as initiating force.

Force corrupts a persons ability to live as a man. It is always designed to make someone disregard reality, discard reason, corrupt their values or act opposite to their rational self-interest. The branches of Philosophy are a chain, each link is connected to the others and each is only correct in so far as the others in that chain are correct. This is why you can not have (as someone suggested in another thread a few weeks or months ago) a benevolent "Objectivist" dictatorship.

Welcome Pheonix

Welcome to OO.net Fabian

Just imagine how much a really good teacher could get paid in a free market... That is the essential that is missing, it would not only improve the quality of teaching overall but the crappy ones would probably not be permitted (by the market) to survive.

Personally I don't like it because except for the first line it is word for word the expression used by AA, a group with heavily religious ties. The other problem I have with it is that serenity in and of itself will not give you the rational impetus to change anything. Knowledge, ingenuity, creativity and skill... those things could lead to a substantial, meaningful change that merely being at peace with the world will probably not.

The issue is dealt with during Galt's speech as well. You can not use force to make anyone do anything worthwhile. Force and mind are opposites. They need to understand why, that is a much harder solution than demanding compliance with an ultimatum.

I agree with sN. You would see Due-Diligence Firms which would make their name and reputation scrutinizing and rating private firms. This would reduce the possibility of Bernie Maddof's as much as ensure that Company "X" can provide the services it advertises. To further what sN said, the current system is designed to create a sort of unconscious citizen who implicitly or explicitly defers to government for his security in almost all matters. Why did people trust Maddof? Because he built a reputation for shrewd investment and the government didn't tell them that they were being ripped off. If someone had investigated his incredible returns they would have quickly discovered his house of cards

Welcome...

Conscription is a gross violation of individual rights. It doesn't matter whether it is done by some 3rd World dictatorship or by The Netherlands. A country that has to resort to what amounts to a period of indentured servitude by its citizens in order to maintain its sovereignty doesn't deserve to be sovereign.

I agree with this, from my point of view watching and listening to my Daughter who is going to University here in Canada, in one of the most prestigious schools for her Degree program available (Your University - Graphic Design) which is partnered with Senaca College (A community college here in Canada). She relates that although her counterparts at Seneca don't get a university degree (and the status that a "degree" brings) their program is much more applicable to the actual industry of graphic design - they are shown how to construct a portfolio and their education is much more concentrated on the actual job of being a graphic designer as opposed to learning a lot of esoteric theory of graphic design.

I hope you tutor your students rather than tooter them. Having said that I agree the practice of which you speak is disgusting.

There is. In Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged. All of the Objectivist virtues touch on exactly this issue in different ways...

You are mistaken a soldier has the responsibility to obey all orders except those which are "Manifestly unlawful" At least that is what the Queens Regulations and Orders state in Vol 2. I'm quite sure the UCMJ has a similar caveat. So had the lead Police officer or some judge ordered the officers to shoot the dancers then they have every right to refuse to carry out his orders. However, as has been stated in a number of ways, by several different people in this thread, these people were arrested for an offense which is real, namely protesting without a permit. All the objections about the rational for, and "justice" of such a law aside it remains in effect and the police have the responsibility to perform their duty.

No, no, no. A police officer does not get to decide what laws are just or unjust. He is sworn to do his duty in upholding the laws of the land and that means that he is supposed to be absolutely and completely impartial as to the efficacy, legitimacy or application of any and all laws. You are confusing the role of police officer with the role of legislators and the courts who's job it is to ensure laws enacted are just.

Force and mind are opposites. In order to cause people to change at a philosophical level, such as is required in order to achieve a society able to understand and employ reason and Objectivist Philosophical principles, you intend to force them to think?

The real problem is the mere existence of "public property"