nimble

i already posted it, but here it is again.

I believe law enforcement agents are armed to protect themselves. They dont just get to kill people on whim. Or even in an act of justice. If they catch the murderer they arent allowed to kill him on the spot. They are only allowed to fire in self defense, and if a court finds that they fired not in self defense, then they get in HUGE trouble. ANd if innocent people die, the state or county almost always gets sued for LARGE sums of money. SO there is accountability. But you raise an interesting point. ALthough i think they are armed more for self defense than for "enforcing" the law.

thats so sad. although i cant say i agree with her on everything either, but is more than often right.

good point, i think that may be the argument from intimidation, but i rarely disagree with Rand, and I am with her on this issue.

hmm, that was an awkward response, i was anticipating a rebuttal. Thank you? I guess?

just the threat of raising interest rates is a potential for disaster.

for a rational individual, i think it might be worse to live without freedom, than to be dead. And retribution isnt always a life for a life. When a criminal steals 15000 from banks, does the justice system charge the criminal 15000 then let him go back out in the streets? I think it is alot more complex than you make it.

yea i mentioned the appeals system. That was the retrials part of my quote.

i believe she felt morally compelled, yet knew the potential dangers. As another point, capital punishment costs more (because of the amount of retrials and special jailing areas involved), why would it even be necessary? If the government would cut back on spending in other areas, prison funding wouldnt even be an issue and we could build more prisons.

i see your point. Most people probably would ask for less freedoms (i dont understand this). But i was merely explaining the francisco theory. Like i said, it isnt necessarily true.

well i never stated this as absolute truth, but obviously he could impose serious damage on the US economy, with one raise of interest rates. Creating an Atlas Shrugged-like catastrophy, which would display the problems with an economic government organization such as the Federal Reserve.

i think it shows that Rand has the same conviction i do. I think it is moral to have capital punishment, i just cant justify its use in a flawed system.

thank you Objectivist...im sure there arent too many more, since only recent (as in the past 50 years) cases have been archived and can be researched again to reveal that DNA evidence dismisses the killer of guilt. But the point is one person has died.

also ive searched for about a total of 10 minutes now, and i have already found over 20 cases where innocent men have been executed. One is WAY TOO MANY. The death of one innocent man is enough to morally demand the stop of the death penalty's practice. To continue it would be to say that, a few sacrifice themselves for "the common good" so that we can keep murderers off the street. I will say this only ONCE more. IT IS MORAL TO HAVE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, however IT IS NOT MORAL TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. Until the system has ABSOLUTELY NO FLAWS then it should not be practiced.

There are lots more than you think. "In a controversial move, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week threw out the death sentences of more than 100 prisoners in Arizona, Idaho, and Montana." This is from 2003. Montana, Arizona, and Idaho dont even have the crime rates that many other states have yet, they have 100 cases to throw out because of mistakes in the court process.

did the state have the duty to kill innocent people, and potentially more than it already has? Also, I think any Objectivist tries to stay clear of the term duty. I never said it was wrong in principle, I just do not see how you can argue its implementation in our system of law. Our system is a joke, and if you disagree, please state that, I have several examples where i can show innocent men being found guilty and exponentially more guilty men being found innocent.

I dont want to put words in his mouth, but i think he meant that, practically the death penalty is flawed and has killed innocent people. But abstractly, it is a moral and just punishment, just we shouldnt use it at this time. Just my interpretation though.

Until DNA evidence is stronger we cannot be certain. Often cases today come down to who has a good lawyer. Which seems very unobjective to me. Also, I dont believe it is the state's job to rehabilitate. They are there for retaliatory punishment. Not to "reinvent" a better member of society. Death penalty is moral, in theory, but not practical at this point of time, because it is FAR WORSE to sentence an innocent man to death than keep criminals in prison. And i think you should see the difference. There have been numerous overturns of death sentences, proving that certainty is not always an option, but when DNA evidence is flawless, I would see no problem with the death penalty.

I am nimble. I have read all of Rand's works except The Virtue of Selfishness, and the Fountainhead ( i just cant force myself to do it, i read 200 pages and it was like all of her other fictional works with less suspense and lamer characters). Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book, but other than that i prefer her non fiction works. I have no political affiliation. As for religion, I am a steadfast atheist. I am attending Albion college in Michigan for a major in Economics and Philosophy. I am glad to be here, but i think most of you are too old and too serious here to appreciate my sense of humor, so ill try to lay off the sarcasm.

It is part of the Republican ideology to be morally conservative, and to enact restrictions on personal freedoms to ensure that morality stays with America. Basically, they legislate morality. Why would any Objectivist support such a cause with their votes? Also, I am not libertarian, but I think that it would be much more along the lines of Objectivist ideology to be libertarian. They prefer retaliatory government actions, so do Objectivists. They prefer laissez faire-capitalism, so do Objectivist. The only difference is libertarians tend to be very reclusive in world affairs, and as I read many of the articles at ARI, I assume most Objectivist prefer an active role in foreign affairs. Neither libertarians or republicans seem to fit the Objectivist ideology just right, so I would think that forming a political party might be the best option. "No income tax" is a good vote incentive. Also. has anyone heard about the case brought before the supreme court, that declares income tax unconstitutional!!!!! Its true i researched it, the amendment was signed by an insufficient number of states, yet still passed into effect. But like usual our government is just beating around the bush, and has yet to accept this very valid court case, which would ruin the country since we are in a deficit as it is. That is most likely the reason this case wont be heard.

greenspan crossed over. He mentions atlas shrugged as one of his favorite books. He also was one of Rand's "followers" if you will. How can anyone who likes atlas shrugged, and knows Thompson's faustian offer to Galt, still work in the position he does? So, it is feasible to say the least that he may have "other plans." Like francisco, he may choose to abandon his principles to the public, but he may be really working toward a goal of destroying the semi-socialist state. In his position, it wouldnt take long to ruin the global economy. That is the theory, whether thats what he is up to is entirely debatable.

I do not find the death penalty morally wrong, once you kill another it would only make sense that you forfeit your right to life as well. however, i would not support the use of it today. I think it is far worse to kill an innocent man than put a guilty one in jail instead of the chair. until there is a 100% infallible way to determine one's guilt or innocence then i will not support the death penalty's use. And as for pro-choice, any attempt of the state to strip one of choice is a clear breach of individual rights.

Here is my favorite poem if you want to know specifics. Sorry if my post bothered you. I just didnt think you wanted to read a 17 page long poem, but here it is: The Wasteland

philosophy is how man SHOULD act, psychology is contained in how he HAS acted with reasons and motives.

I can admire lots of poems, but only a few poets. I prefer aloof poets, and obscure poems. I like my poems to be a unique riddle. Its a good brain exercise. that is why i like alot of moderist era poems. Too bad all of the poets of that era led worthless lives.