Zip

You'll get no argument from me on this, none at all. Absolutely, just like the NYT and every other paper and their reporters. None of them care about the repercussions of the story only about the blood they are able to spill with it.

Wasn't it an American newspaper that outed a CIA operative a few years ago? Yes it was... and it was facilitated by the government itself. I guess there are "secrets" and then there are "SECRETS". Come to think of it I don't know of a single piece of information that Asange has released that had anywhere near the effect of Plame-gate...

Come on Maximus, you are a military man... You know that once it got to the point where Asange could get it, it was already in the public domain. There is absolutely no difference between what Asange did and what the New York Times would do, except that Asange released it all the NYT might have spared their political bedfellows some of the harsher blows.

What about the government classifying things that are not "classified" in the military/governmental sense just so that people in the government don't get embarrassed? If Governments are permitted to classify anything they produce in order to keep secrets then what is to stop them from classifying things that they are doing (to their citizens or others) just to forgo explaining themselves? For the record anyone who leaks classified material while working for the government or another agency where they have agreed to confidentiality clauses/security protocols is guilty of a crime. Is the person who reports on the information committing a crime? I'm not so sure. He is not bound by another's agreements. As far as I am aware, (so far) Wikileaks has only succeeded in embarrassing numerous talking heads and public figures and that is hardly a crime.

Welcome.

Actually the monarch has considerable power, it may not be exercised but the power is there. Each and every law must be approved by the monarch, the monarch is the Commander in Chief, the monarch has the power of veto and can dissolve parliament. All of this aside the idea of a hereditary monarch at the legal ruler of a country is about as far from the ideals of Objectivism as one can get.

From their constitution... That ought to answer your question about this being an Objectivist(?) "nation". How could someone ever reconcile the political ideal of constitutional monarchism with Objectivism? A monarchy relies on the ideal that some people are fit to rule others by virtue of their 'royal birth'. As a political (and social) ideal it ranks right up there with racism, oligarchy and fascism.

lol. He's not a ballerina and this isn't swan lake. You want grace and beauty go watch the ballet. The fact is that this man is incredibly skilled. He is dominating a sport that has thousands of professionals and millions of fans. Watch the clips, watch him take down and dominate men much bigger and heavier than himself. I guess to the ignorant it just looks like a guy flailing around, but after 20+ years of martial arts all I can say is that "Mastered" is exactly the right word for what Fedor has done.

I guess I'm missing your point then as softwareNerd already pointed out the OP was about "Government assistance" We all acknowledge the right of individuals to act in their own self-interest and that includes rendering "assistance" (or not) to other individuals. Are you trying to say that we as individuals have a moral and ethical responsibility to provide assistance?

This satisfaction would have to be consistent, which is to say the rule rather than the exception. So if you could point to any form of government assistance which has the agreement of every participant, all of the time, and allows those who do not agree to leave, or to not participate, with no penalty and no repercussions and no force applied then you may actually have the ability to claim that government behaves as "a group of individuals" and that you are "good" with government "assistance". Edited to add... Even if you are "good" with it you must acknowledge that it applies only to you and is meaningless when other individuals are concerned. For example, your state of satisfaction means nothing to me and even if government assistance could make such a program (which would include only those who wanted it and not appropriate any money from anyone else), the fact remains I don't care how happy you are with it I fundamentally disagree that government should provide any good or service for which, in the regular course of individual action, a market would or could morally and rationally exist or be created to fufill the need for that good or service.

Do they? Why? If your statement is true do you agree then that a successful company should have its advantage removed in order to prop up a failing one? In other words, do you believe in rewarding failure and punishing success? If your statement is true do you believe that your money should be used to achieve the above goal? With regard to Chrysler what do you think would have been the effect on the auto industry if Chrysler had gone under? Would there have been a car shortage? - No, the other, more successful players within the market would have made up for Chrysler's demise. That is a reward for success, not a punishment. Perhaps you are worried about the number of jobs lost... But consider this, if the other manufacturers are dividing up Chrysler's share of the market then they would most likely have to increase the number of people working for them, and would at the very least have to increase production. If they need to hire more people then who better than a skilled or semi-skilled worker who is already familiar with the industry. Perhaps there would even be a need for another plant to satisfy demand... What better than to buy a purpose built structure in a pace where the aforementioned workers live.

I've got friends all over the world (by friends I mean people I actually know not just "facebook friends"), my daughters are both away at University, and my immediate family is on the other side of the country. I find FB a very useful tool to keep in touch with all of them. It's much more personal than an email and much easier than a letter. I do have FB friends, ones I've never met in real life, but I'm quite specific about who I accept. I also delete all the stupid notifications you get on there for games and other applications. As Ifat pointed out, there can be a happy medium. The choice isn't shameless attention whore or cloistered monk unless you make it so. If that were the only choice an individual could consider, it would say far more of the nature of that individual than it would on the utility of Facebook.

I believe you have answered your own question.

I can't answer for Maximus, but as a soldier I have a different view of duty than Rand did as well. When I talk about duty I talk about it in two different senses. I may have a duty to perform. That would be the equivalent of a contractual obligation which, having accepted the Queens shilling I am bound to do by the very fact that I entered in to a contract. Certainly there is nothing wrong with fulfilling a contract under Objectivism, in fact the trader principle demands it. I might also talk about "Doing my duty" in a broader sense, but note the sentence... I am doing my duty. That is I am performing a task or fulfilling requirements of my employment that I tie to my integrity and my honour. The only compulsion (which if I'm not mistaken was the part of "duty" that Rand had a problem with) is my personal drive to be the consummate professional in my chosen field of expertise. I am truthfully sick ant tired of the number of civilians that equate military service with some sort of mindless servitude. I am a soldier because I want to be, I chose to be and I am bloody good at what I do. I perform my duty to the best of my ability because my integrity and my honour and my sense of life demands it. If that sense of duty makes me unfit to be called an Objectivist then I want no part of it.

What you said was that these companies motivate the US to go to war. That is a long way from saying that they profit from it. Do they profit from war? Of course they do. Do they have any say in the process that leads to war? No. Can they once there is a war do anything to actively prolong the war? No. If you have proof otherwise I'd like to see it. As a matter of fact the development of new weapons often shortens wars. War is a horrible thing, necessary at times but horrible none the less. Does that mean that every company or person that ensures that our troops can fight our nations enemies as effectively as possible while making a profit is part of some super-national evil cabal of warmongering money grubbing sociopaths? Please... It sounds like you are crossing into the line of thought that claims profit on some things is just wrong.

I'd do it. When I think of all the things that have been invented just since 1966 (my birthyear) I can't imagine ever running out of interesting things to do.

If the interrogator knows enough to know when a person is lying then there is no practical reason to even ask the questions much less torture someone to get information you already know. Intelligence by its very nature has a shelf life. Only the most senior people in these organizations know any operational details useful past 24 or 48 hours and as soon as one of the people that DO know something is taken for interrogation the plans are changed. Do you honestly believe that Terrorists would not have struck the US at some point if the 9/11 hijackers had been discovered before their attack? From conversations I've had with colleagues in the intelligence community the understanding I have is that good old-fashioned interrogation - not torture but by no means some UN sanctioned definition of interrogation that precludes such things as sleep deprivation or prolonged standing as "torture" - is much more effective at gathering useful legitimate intelligence.

So companies like Haliburton and Lockheed Martin motivate the USA to go to war. So you are saying that in a dark room somewhere these companies prompted the USA to wage war when? WW2? Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? Was it in support of Kuwait during GW1? Afghanistan? Surely GW Bush was nothing more than a patsy when he committed Troops to Iraq.

Hairnet can you please provide me with some examples of #2?

With regard to the original question it is ultimately the woman's choice where she gives birth. We as reasonable and rational people would hope that she makes an informed decision and one with the best interests and the safety of the child in mind. The rest is up to her. Yes she would be responsible if the child dies due to complications though I fail to see how that is any different from a hospital being responsible for any of a number of complications that happen in a regular hospital birth. The point about responsibility is an important one. We want to live in a society where the individual is responsible for his choices. We don't want government or anyone else assuming that they can take choices away from us in the name of protecting us from the responsibility brought about by making choices. The question couldn't be clearer. Do you believe we have the right to live our own lives or do you believe we can only live by and with permission?

Right, they are outside of freedom of speech precisely because they are an initiation of force and therefore would infringe on the right to life.

There is no provision I'm aware of with regard to freedom of speech that says things of "public interest" are subject to and fair game for free speech but individuals are not. The freedom of speech is just as applicable to the racist jackass down the street as it is to any multitude of assembled people, no matter what ilk they belong to. If the case was made for harassment by the Snyders I'd be the first to wish them well, but as far as I know they made this issue about free speech.

OK... What does the word mean? Harassment –verb (used with object) 1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute. 2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid. So by definition a single instance of torment, or bother or pestering does not constitute harassment. I will admit that at some point harassment does become force but at what point? How can it be objectively determined what is and what is not harassment?

The point where you draw the line is force. Did the speech cross the point where it becomes an initiation of force (like yelling fire in a crowded theater). As despicable as these people are they are harmless.

Hold on there Dominique no one here is saying that you made the whole thing up. However, honesty is a virtue and people here saw that you were posting under one name and referring to the author in the third person although that author is you. Wouldn't that make you suspicious? Jake's mention of the difference between a ban and a hostile reception is justified considering your description of the events. Now this may just be a problem with translation but I agree with Jake that without the force of law, no ban has taken place. Now if your argument is that the French Science Fiction community is so homogeneous that it's hostility toward the book is tantamount to censorship that may be a different matter, I don't know.