Spano

It's hard to tell from just the example of Air America. I don't know any of the details, but it's possible this particular business was just run poorly. I wonder how much market share NPR has, which might be a good indicator about how much of a left-wing audience there is.

Yeah, it's a shame. He's the smartest, most crever, most physicarry fit...but nobody erse seems to rearize it. I will never be able to think of Kim Jong Il with a straight face after Team America: World Police.

Well, if you can't communicate with the waiter, go to a different restaurant. I fail to see how you use this logic to make ANY conclusions about government policy. The convenience of diners has nothing to do with a proper government. More generally, your preferences for the public sphere have nothing to do with a proper government. Government deals with force and its use against individual rights, exclusively.

First off, the discussion is highly rationalistic, i.e. not tied to reality. This is shown by the example of a math function returning certain values for certain inputs, which has nothing to do with the referent with which we are concerned: life. If you're going to continue the conversation, I'd suggest first defining your terms. Life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action. To say that life is an end in itself is to say that the purpose of that process is to continue the process itself. There is nothing illogical about it -- this simply points to a fact of reality. Look at a living being. What is it doing, to what end does its process of life lead? To the end of continuing that process. Or to put it negatively: look at a being who fails at the process of life. Which end did it fail to attain? The ability to continue the process of living. For the full explanation of this, see The Objectivist Ethics in VOS.

Ah, but aren't you forgetting an important fact? A gambler isn't free -- he's addicted! The bookies are exploiting him! We cannot permit this shameless assault on innocent people who've been caught in the inescapable trap of depravity. [/sarcasm] Seriously, though, the expansion of "addiction" has been one of the major tools behind such efforts. There still exists some acceptance of the idea that when people do bad things to themselves voluntarily, you can't stop them. But change that behavior to an "addiction", free will goes away, exploitation enters, and the government comes with it. We now have a group of behaviors called "process addictions", which include gambling, overeating, playing video games, and surfing the Internet. Here's a link to an article I wrote about a ban on lottery machines in Iowa that discusses this idea.

I'm aware of Ayn Rand's quotes to the effect that one can tell a man's philosophy based on his sexual attractions. I'm wondering to what extent people think this idea could be applied. Specifically, it seems to place the locus of sexual attraction at the conceptual level, or at least is in danger of doing that if loosely applied. If that were the case, it seems to me that sexual attraction would be impossible outside out knowledge of another person's values. For example, suppose a man walks down the street, sees a tall brunette with nice curves. He doesn't know anything about her. Are you guys maintaining that he couldn't be sexually attracted to her, or if he can and is, what does that say about his philosophy? Anything? Or does the philosophical aspect come in later, for instance if the two got to know each other and the attraction was maintained (or vanished)?

It's hard to offer any solid advice on limited context. But one thing's for sure: if you worked, they owe you a paycheck. I see no reason why some missed paperwork would stop that from happening. As for the choice of whether to move or not, I'd say you need to check whether they will indeed pay you, and then meet your obligations accordingly.

I think this is because the ethics of sex is one of the farthest up the chain of abstractions. There are a lot of prior ethical concepts that have to be integrated to come to the Objectivist view of sex, and hence a lot of places to go wrong. Given this fact, I think some of the quick condemnations in this thread are unwarranted - in complex issues, one doesn't have to be stupid or evasive to make a mistake somewhere. This subject is anything but self-evident.

In all the instances I've seen Norton, such as on computers of acquaintences who want help fixing their systems, I've always been annoyed and frustrated by it. I'd recommend switching to another AV software (I use McAfee, and it works well).

Sorry to hear that. I agree that force and mind are opposites. I just don't understand how my idea of force is flawed. Before you bow out, could you explain?

Meta and CF need to either demonstrate that "injecting" unreason into a relationship constitutes force, and is therefore a potential rights violation, or that contrary to Objectivism, rights can be violated without the use of force. At this point, we are still using "inject" in a vague way with connotations of force -- yet it is not. Fraud is force because the defrauder physically obtains the property of the defrauded against his will. If a con artist car salesman writes a contract that guarantees the car he's selling you gets 1000 miles/gal, there can be no rights violation until you actually give him the money for the car, and he refuses to return your money once the lie is discovered. There is no fraud in his simply convincing you of that fact, BEFORE you transfer property. Nobody's rights have been violated when you say, "Gee, that's awesome...I've never heard of a car like that before." At that point, unreason is "injected" into your mind by your lack of critical thinking. But if you nevertheless decide not to make the purchase, no fraud has occurred. Now, in the case of defamation (or false praise, in this case), a third party convinces you – falsely – that the car salesman is a good, honest fellow. You believe him. Where is the force, where is the violation of rights?

I agree with what DavidOdden has said. I'm also interested to see a proper defense for such laws, if one exists. But remember that according to Objectivism, rights pertain to freedom of action. Thus, you have the right to be free to deal with others on a basis consistent with reality, but you do not have the right to have others provide that for you, or to force them in any way to bring this about. Also, you are equivocating on the definition of force with your use of the fuzzy term "inject". When a person accuses me of a falsehood, he does not use physical force, but uses his capacity of speech and persuasion. If another person accepts his ideas about me, where is the force?

Came across this sign in the Tampa, FL area. Thought I'd post it to see if anyone has an idea why a veterinarian's office would display this. Enjoy.

Sophia, one of your statements caught my attention: Here again, you are trying to equate theft or assault with sex. I don't see how you can do this, considering sex is consentual. I'd like to stress Jennifer's horse gift analogy, which I think is helpful. Sex is like a man offering a woman a horse as a gift. He approaches her house, horse in tow, shows her the horse, lets her appraise the horse, etc. Since horse-giving is a common activity in our hypothetical universe, let's say neither of them discuss the details of the implications of the woman accepting the horse -- both are aware of what such a decision entails. Now, suppose the woman accepts the horse, because presumably she likes the looks of it, and feels like going for a ride at the moment (sorry, I had to ). In doing so, she understands that should the horse act up and start trampling around in the house, she'll get rid of it. She makes this choice in full knowledge of the possible consequences. The man, having no interest in ever dealing with this horse again, makes that intention clear by his actions (analagous to using birth control). You are switching in mid-argument to saying that because the man was causally necessary for the gifting of the horse to occur, that he is therefore responsible. But he is not causally sufficient, because the woman had to accept the horse by her own choice. To equate sex with assault or theft, you would be saying the horse ran into the house uninvited. This is not the case. The woman took the horse, the man didn't want it any more, and she never said a word about giving it back to him later on. Hence, the horse is all hers. If her stable is broken, that's her problem. Biology isn't fair, as you pointed out.

If I understand Sophia's position, it is this: 1. If a man chooses to have sex with a woman, and that action results in conception, he is causally responsible and morally obligated to care for the resulting child, even if he doesn't want the fetus to be born. 2. If a woman chooses to have sex with a man, and that action results in conception, she is causally responsible but NOT morally obligated to care for the resulting child, because she has the choice to abort a fetus she doesn't want to be born. This is clearly a double standard, in which a man is obligated to care for an unwanted child but a woman is not. I've noticed one other tendency on Sophia's part, which is a failure to fully recognize that bringing a fetus to term is a choice made by the mother. It does not go Sex->Baby, but rather Sex->Zygote->Fetus->long-time-to-think-about-it->Baby. Hence the idea that the decision to have sex is equivalent to the decision to have a child is false. It may have been true a millenium ago, but not with modern medicine. Now, the choice to have sex in no way means the choice to become a parent -- that choice is made at any point up until birth. Lastly, the idea that people should be responsible about sex is a straw man -- nobody is advocating that people have sex without regard to consequences. It is irrelevant whether the couple was being "responsible" or not. The essential here is whether a man and a woman have equal choice in the matter of the child being born, and what this implies for the obligation (or lack thereof) of each party.

There is no such thing as the "right" to have your stock portfolio increase in value, or to be free from risk. By buying shares, you are accepting the risk of having the price go down in the future, i.e. of others being less willing to buy your shares from you later on. If the willingness of buyers disappears, there is nobody to indict on charges of theft -- you simply have to deal with this fact of reality. To hammer the point again, a stock's price is the result of an aggregate of free decisions and judgements by buyers and sellers in the market, and if the price goes down, tough luck. If Mark Cuban manages to convince everyone that shares of company XYZ are worthless, then you have the right to convince them that Cuban is full of crap. Otherwise, buy as many shares as you can, and reap your profit at the expense of all those apparently weak-willed, fame-awed sellers.

It's odd that you refer to yourself as an Objectivist because you have evidently never read or at least understood one of Ayn Rand's most important essays, "Man's Rights". In it, she clearly explains the definition of force in relation to the violation of individual rights -- namely, that such force means physical compulsion. There is no such thing as the "force" of fame because that renders the word meaningless. Fame is perhaps a means of persuasion, but persuasion involves people free to make decisions according to their own judgement. Mark Cuban can try all he wants to convince me that a certain stock is bad, but until he lays a finger on me, he has no means to make me sell except by my own free decision.

It is absurd to label as theft any tactics having to do with the stock market. Theft requires that a thief use force to expropriate some value from a victim. There IS NO force in a market where shares are being freely traded -- buyers purchase shares of their own free will, sellers sell shares of their own free will. Please point to the fact of reality in which Cuban, or any other person buying and selling stocks, has stolen a dime from anyone, and who is this victim? To clarify a bit more, look at what happens if Mark Cuban shorts a stock and then declares his negative appraisal of that stock. Let's even say he so declares specifically to exploit social factors to push the price down further, for profit. Now, what has to occur for Cuban to make his profit? He needs to buy discounted shares from people WILLING to offer him such shares at the newly discounted price. He forces nobody. They are under no illusion, no fraud. Even if Cuban thought "dump and pump" is a successful long term strategy, which it clearly is not, he would be fully within his rights to do so.

I'm no expert on public speaking, but it seems pretty straightforward that the way you deliver a speech depends on the context. For example, it may be necessary to memorize a talk which is designed to be interactive, but to do so is not an advantage when delivering a speech like ARI speakers do, in which they read relatively long quotes from external works. Plus, the lectures given by ARI speakers are just that -- lectures. They don't ask the audience questions or get input along the way. I personally find this better suited to packing more content into a clearer presentation. And for me, the stress of giving an hour long lecture would be enough, let alone having to memorize every one of the many thousands of words that make it up. Do you think that having a written speech is really that detrimental to such lectures?

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this story and read the actual details. The BP Prudhoe Bay oil field is being shut down for a period of several days, cutting 8% of U.S. crude production and at least partly causing a $1 rise in world oil prices. What could cause BP to take this action? Why, an "oil spill", of course. But let's read what this spill consists of: That 200 gallons of oil on the ground at an oil field in the middle of nowhere should require "containment" and a "clean-up effort" is absurd enough, let alone shutting down the entire field. What's worse is the company's statement: These are the kind of statements that make me feel like the destruction caused to industry by environmentalism is well-deserved. The man is practically asking for more.

No, that is not true. Being found guilty is a judgement made by human beings, whereas BEING guilty is a fact of reality. Hence being found guilty does not necessarily mean you are guilty. It is not true that a falling tree makes a sound if and only if it is found to make a sound (i.e., by a human listener). The tree either makes a sound, or it does not. I either committed an objectively defined crime X, or I did not. Antitrust is non-objective because a "conspiracy, in restraint of trade" (Sherman Antitrust Act) is something you cannot objectively define; at the very least, it IS not objectively defined. There is no pointing at a fact of reality and saying "that action, right there, is a conspiracy in restraint of trade". There is only a judge or jury deciding what they think that woozy phrase means, and making a subjective determination on the basis of whatever whim they happen to have. Most importantly, there is no way for a businessman to consider a particular action and ask himself, "will this be a 'conspiracy in restraint of trade"? There is no way to answer that, because it amounts to asking, "what will the judge or jury decide in the future based on their woozy understanding of this phrase and their particular whims of the moment?"

One other point to remember is what it actually means to say the Wal-Mart is "crushing" the competition. It means that people are *freely* choosing to walk past mom and pop and head to the blue box. Meanwhile, mom and pop are breathing just as well as they ever breathed in the past, but people are walking past their store. I also saw this documentary, and I remember it being absolutely horrible about evading the nature of competition. If you didn't force yourself to step back and remember competition reduces to the voluntary decisions of individuals, you would start to think Wal-Mart was using baseball bats and Molotovs. The whole thing relies on foggy thinking (or non-thinking).

At OCON, (if I remember correctly) Dr. Brook and John Allison were both sitting at the table when somebody asked about Founders College. Dr. Brook responded that ARI had nothing to do with it and I don't recall John Allison saying anything about it. If Founders was indeed officially backed by BB&T, I would have expected him to at least comment. Of course, if BB&T was backing the project it would make sense, given their extensive involvement in academia.

The concepts of goal and value are closely related, but I don't think they are quite interchangable. Consider an example: 1. My goal is save enough money to buy a car in 6 months. 2. I value money and cars. In this example, a goal is of a state of affairs toward which one strives. A value, on the other hand, is that which one acts to gain or keep. Goal seems to be a wider concept, in that it is a purpose or objective that can involve several values simultaneously. It wouldn't make sense to substitute "value" in place of "goal" in (1) -- "I value that state of affairs when I have enough money to buy a car in 6 months." Using 'goal' is much more natural.

Another possibility is to edit in Word for spell checking, then copy and paste into notepad, then copy and paste from notepad to the browser. The idea being that notepad would sanitize the encoding for you.