avgleandt
-
Posts
120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by avgleandt
-
-
No - I'm saying if the Citizenry give permission, then Gov't can take actions to which power is granted.
I see, your right the government does gets its power based on what the citizen grant the government. The question is then I think, can the citizens grant the government other rights besides the protection of rights, with out initiating force on anyone? I don't think this is possible.
You seem to be making the argument that road builders have the right not to be competed against. However, the immorality behind pretty much our entire road network is not that other contractors don't get the work but that Gov't pays for those roads with stolen money, and builds them on stolen land (taxes and eminent domain).
I was saying that road builders or anyone else, shouldn't have to fund its competitors. They fund the goverment because they want protection, but if that money is also used for something else, they end up funding their competitors. Their other choice is to stop funding the government, but then they run the risk of government being to weak and not able to protect them. This doesn't seem like a voluntary choice to me.
Really I think if there is a large number of citizens who believe that government should run a certain business such as a casino to raise funds. They can just pool their donations togethere and start this casino, and then donate all the procedes to the government. This would be the same thing I think, without involving other people who don't want to fund a casino but still want to donate for protection.
-
If Government is funded without the use of force, thus funded morally, why can it not buy property by engaging in voluntary trade with an individual or company that wishes to sell it property?
It can, but only for its proper purpose the protection of rights. Government gets its rights from the people, this is the only right delegated to the government.
What you are describing is how an individual can act. An individual who obtains funds morally, can engage in voluntary trade with an individual or company that wishes to sell him property. If government could do that, it would be no different from an individual. But government and individual are different, an individual has rights, a government does not, apart from the rights delegated to it by individuals. The only right delegated to it, protection of rights.
If the Government pays for the road with money obtained morally on property obtained morally, the Government does.
You didn't answer my question.
So your saying that if I give money to the government voluntarily then the government can take any action with that money as long as that action continues not to be an initiation of force?
I would argue that even if we give money voluntarily, if the government spends it on something besides protection of rights, its automatically a initiating force on someone. Its a sort of blackmail. We depend on government for protection because we have delegated that right to them because we know that it is the only way rights can be secured. For this they get money, but they also go ahead and spend it on things that I or someone else might no approve of. Spending the money on anything else except protection of rights, automatically breaks someones right. If they spend it on roads, they break rights of people who make roads, ect. This is not really a voluntary choice, since threat of force is still hanging over peoples heads. They will be scared that if I don't fund the government it will be to weak to protect them, but funding the government also means the possibility of funding things they don't approve of, or even things that are directly against them.
This also could be a case of fraud. Where money is obtained from people under false pretenses. Government says that their next funding scheme will be building casinos. People who approve hand over their money. They decide to build power plants instead.
-
By that argument, Police cannot have police cars, and armies can't own tanks, and if they did, private citizens could claim the right to use them.
If Government is funded without the use of force, thus funded morally, why can it not buy property by engaging in voluntary trade with an individual or company that wishes to sell it property?
Government can have police cars and tanks because this is the right specifically designated to them for the protection of individual rights. And they can universally reject everyones claims to use these things. However if government begins to engage in ownership of any property for any purpose then they will inevitably violate someones rights.
For example government owns some roads. Nazi party wants to have a demostration on that road. Other people around the road don't want to see that. Both nazi and other people are tax payers. Whose claim to the road is valid?
-
Government cannot run public businesses. Running a casino, or any other business requires the ownership of property. By the nature of what government is, it cannot own property. Government owning property is the same contradiction we are running into now with public property. And would cause the same problems. Any tax payer would able to claim to be able to use the government property as an owner. How would you go about figuring out the validilty of anyones claims?
-
This is not an argument for God, but an argument for the existence of some un-caused event. An un-caused event is in contradiction with the law of cause and effect. So that means that everything must have a cause. This leads to a infinite regress of cause and effect, with infinity being in contradiction with law of identity.
However the final contradiction, the need for infinity only occurs if cause and effect is viewed in a linear way. As a line stretching out infinitely both forwards and backwards. Viewing it in a linear one dimensional way is the only way that creates this need for infinity. Viewing it as a circle for example resolves the problem. Law of conservation says that matter/energy can neither be destroyed or created. Universe/existence can neither have a beginning or an end. This makes me think of a circle.
-
I think any claim that free will has a tendency to move toward any idea is already a contradiction in terms.
-
Not showing Galt's face might not work well. One of the biggest twists later in the book is that you find out that Galt has been the guy talking to Eddie the whole time.
-
I think I understand.
Essentially, Man (which includes the human race and some other sub-categories of animals) is able to exist/survive only by the use of a rational thought process (rational meaning the faculty of reason). Since man enters the world with no automatic knowledge of what is good/bad/necessary/etc, man must use this rational thought process to provide those things necessary for survival. Since man needs the things he has produced as a result of this rational thought process to survive and exist, man then has a right to his own life?
This feels close but possibly missing a step?
This is how I paraphrased ayn rand to one of my friends when they asked me the same question.
The fundematal choice for all living organisms is existence or non existence, life or death. This does not apply to anything that is not alive because regular matter cannot ever be destroyed it can only change form. Any organisms life depends on two factors, material or fuel which it needs from the outside, and the action of using this fuel properly. The standard for proper in this context is that which is required for the organism’s survival by its nature. So what is man's nature and how does he survive? Man is a rational animal, he survives by using reason. He surives by using his mind, by thinking. Everything man creates for his survival is the product of his mind. This means that for man's proper survival he must be able to engage in self sustaining and self-generated action, which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. This is a man's right to his own life, all other rights are consequences of this right.
-
There is just to many unknows to be able to accuratly conclude what an advanced alien race would be like. Think about all different movies and books that propuse so many different views. Startrek, starwars, contact, hitchhiker guide to galaxy, independence day, the day earth stood still orignal and remake. Its only interesting to see what example hawking decided to use. Alien resource plundering aliens. No doubt that his example choice is influenced by his enviromentalist values.
-
So correct me if I'm wrong... did the House just pass the Senate bill or its own bill? Does this bill now go to conference to be made into a final version, or does it now to go the President's desk to be signed?
To my understanding the senate bill passed the house. And they also passed a bill for changes. The senate bill that passed both houses goes to the president to be signed. Then they will try to pass the changes in the senate with reconcilliation magic.
-
We should save the good name of Coffee and coffee-related products before it's too late
Objectivists should start our very own Espresso Party. We should advertise ourselves as a better alternative to the Tea Party: Our objective is not to mitigate big government, but to establish a goal: Separation of Economy and State.
Plus, we don't have to associate ourselves with lattes.
Whatever the name, drink related or not. I think setting up a party with such a goal is a great idea.
-
I have played Rome total war, and other strategy and simulation games. I would like to see a game developed that has more realistic economic consequences. In rome total war I found it that once you have a few cities under you control, its always in my advatage to murder the population of the new city I conquer. You get the most money and the populance is subdued. Once I got really huge, people in big cities would get unhappy and revenue would drop in those cities or even go negative. I found the solution to that was to remove the army, let the militia or whatever their called take over. Then re-conquer them, and murder them again. That would give me a lump sum, subdue the people, make them happier then before they where murder, and return the city to a positve revenue. I think thats ridiculous .
-
Morality ends at the point of a gun. None of the slaves are slaves because of their own free choice, they are being threatened with death. Under these conditions whatever they choose to do would be right thing to do.
-
On the issue of Na'vi rights and whether the humans were justified in attacking their home tree. I think the issue comes down to whether on not the Na'vi were a species like humans that have rights, or not. The issue of whether they understand the concept of rights, whether they are collectivists or not does not matter. If you think that they are people and have rights then the attack is morally wrong. It doesn't matter if they understand the concept of rights or not, they possess the rights by their nature, and the only way they can loose their rights is through the initiation of force. Just because someone doesn't understand rights doesn't give someone else the moral right to attack them anytime they want. If you think that they are not like people and don't have rights then the attack is fine. It is then equivalent of cutting down a tree that has some birds or monkeys living in it. Though you might consider it cruel to the animals its no longer a rights issue.
Pandora is an environmentalists fantasy world, and how they think humans should live on earth. The following is a excerpt for an article called the danger of environmentalism that appears on ARI website originally published in 1989.
-"The ideal world of environmentalism is not twenty-first-century Western civilization; it is the Garden of Eden, a world with no human intervention in nature, a world without innovation or change, a world without effort, a world where survival is somehow guaranteed, a world where man has mystically merged with the "environment."-
If this is not a 20 years earlier prediction of Pandora I do know what is.
-
Perhaps a real-life "lifeboat situation" is the most obvious way to illustrate why it is necessary to rely on more than the simple statement "It is NEVER in one's best interest to initiate force". A plane with two passengers is going down. There's only one parachute. The other guy grabbed it first. Is it "immoral" to take it from him by force? Not in that hypothetical it is not. It is most definitely moral to value YOUR life and not sacrifice it to the stranger.
Objectivism doesn't hold the none-initiation force principle as a simple statement "It is never in one’s best inters to initiate force". This principle is derived from objectivist ethics of egoism, or rational self interest. Objectivist ethics is derived from objectivist epistemology which is derived from objectivist metaphysics. Here is a short example. Man survives by using his mind. This means he must be able to keep and dispose the products of his mind in order to survive. The only thing that can take this ability away from him is the initiation of force. Therefore initiation of force is anti man’s survival anti man’s life.
What all lifeboat situations including yours do is remove the possibility of production, it makes impossible for any of the life boaters to produce what they need to survive. In a lifeboat scenario man's mind is of no use. Lifeboat scenarios are a sneaky way to set up an artificial metaphysical reality were the definition of man is destroyed. So it basically asks, if man were not man, then would it be ethical for man to do action X?
But men do not live in metaphysical realities of life boats so objectivist ethics is not derived from those metaphysics, so I would have to agree with jake and philosopher that rights and other principles derived from normal metaphysics do not apply. In an emergency situation in which death is eminent the primary goal should be escape the danger and return to normal conditions. Whatever the man without the parachute chooses to do is the right thing. If he decides to die then that’s his choice. If he steals the parachute, he will have to live with that.
-
I cannot concede the second point as a universal fact. That's what we're discussing. Remember, I'm specifically addressing the argument that relies on the premise that using force on another is NEVER in anyone's "best interest". Obviously, an Objectivist holds specific values and morals that (I think) will support the best interest claim. But surely the claim is not that violating rights is immoral only for adherents of Objectivism.
Ic. But I am saying is that if you do not concede the second point, its basically an attempt to eat your cake and have it too. By the definition of what rights are, you cannot both violate them and secure them at the same time.
An example? Sure. How's this?:I'm a paid assassin. I love my work. I realize there are risks (as there might be if I chose to be a fighter pilot), but it pays well and I get a lot of time off. I work outside the law, yet enjoy the protections of the law.
Simply put, it serves my interests to kill and do it well. In fact, I figure this line of work will allow me to retire the soonest. That's what I really want. Early retirement.
Another example:
I'm a Marine and it is in my best interest to use force on others (when ordered).
In both these examples you are not necessarily violating anyone's rights. Rights can only by violated by the initiation of force. Though both these jobs require the use of force, the use of force is not what violates rights, but the initiation of it. As a marine or assassin you could possibly be an American killing al-quada agents.
Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate against the point that RELIES on best interest. That is not, imo, the reason why initiating force on someone is immoral. It is immoral because the violation of rights and/or force initiation contradicts a principle.I agree with you, but those principles are build on the morality of egoism, of rational self interest.
-
True. Just not in EVERY case. Which then begs the question: If, in a specific situation, it is in your best interest to initiate force upon someone else (i.e. you're certain of a benefit to you and no repercussions), then what makes initiating that force immoral?
If you concede that it is in your best interest to secure your own rights( a = b ), and you concede that securing your own rights is not possible by violating others( b does not equal c). Then how can you claim that in any situation violating somones rights is in your best interest? How can you claim that c = a? Eating your cake and having it too is not possible in every case. Do you have an example in mind?
Objectivism holds that to act against your best interest is irrational and thus immoral. Since violating someones rights can never be in your best interest as I shown above, then violating someones rights can never be rational or moral.
-
Let me cast the question in yet another way. As Objectivists, we're egoists. We act in ways that advance our self-interest, and reject actions that harm our self-interest. So why is it always in my self-interest to respect other people's rights? What's wrong with violating someone's rights?
Do you think its in your self interest to have your own rights secure?
If Yes
Securing your own rights by violating others is just as possible as having your cake and eating it too.
-
I think it was hinted in the movie the the Ey'wa tree was a rational entity whose brain and nervous system consited of and located in the local plant life. Except for the scientists the humas were pretty much ignorant to this possibilty. What if this was true, that Ey'wa tree is a rational being. What if bulldozing part of the forrest was in essense destroying part of an Ey'wa's tree nervous system/brain. How would the Ey'wa's tree rights be handled, would it have rights?
-
All my knowledge of Telsa comes from these youtube videos, and since they have a conspiracy feel to it, it makes me question their validity. However, in the videos it seems like Telsa tried to build the motor that John Galt was successful in making?
-
You could always put text in the problem part, like:"This is John Conner Galt"
yeah thats what i did for now, added captions/annotations.
-
What is an easy but powerful program you can use to make these types of videos? (preferably that is free) I have always wondered and wanted to learn how to do stuff like this.
I use vegas video, the free demo version of it is pretty good I think.
-
Very powerful! I got goosebumps.
Well done, except for the voiceover where "Connor" is replaced with "Galt". I could imagine that if you don't know what to listen for, you might mistake it for a sound glitch.
yeah that part really frustrated me, couldn't figure out how to make it sound any better. mabye i can add some captions .
-
I am not sure this should be under activism, its a video I made, it could be used for activism purposes. Its to the back-round music of one of the terminator salvation trailers. Christane Bale saying this is John Connor on the radio reminded me of John Galt.
Voluntary Government Funding and Public Casinos?
in Political Philosophy
Posted
First I would like to say that an individual can always grant the government or any one else his rights. But I don't see how that can be done unanimously for everyone for any other right except self defense. The self defense right is granted to a third party by everyone unanimously because its a fact of nature that this is the only way to secure rights. This is the only reason a third party like the government is created. There is no such natural order for all individuals to grant to a third party their right to own property. Naturally property ownership belongs to an individual. Like I said before, I think that the initiation of force occurs when a person is lured to donate money for purpose of protection but it is also used for something else. You provide a solution for that below so I will comment on that there.
If government solicit separate funds, and it remains illegal to that any funds can be transferred then I do not see an initiation of force anymore. But do you think that these new funds, and people controlling these funds can be really called part of the government anymore? They can also be run by people who already work for the government or not, I don't think that part really matters. They seem to me like some kind new entities that have the purpose of funding the government, the government being the entity that protects rights. I have no problem with this. I don't know how successful this type of organization would be competing with private businesses but I don't see any rights violations.