StrictlyLogical

Saying I can be forced to pay money by being out-voted is a collectivist bate and switch tactic.  Morality is not subject to mathematics or any form of aggregate.  It's the old two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch analogy.    
 
The U.S. document, especially it's history is a poor analogy actually.  While it is a great document in context to when it was created, not to mention it's historical place in history, it is also flawed from the perspective of moral philosophy.  How it has evolved through amendments, especially how it has been interpreted, is a sad testament that documents the corruption of Western thinking.  One only needs to read the different judicial opinions of SCOTUS regarding Obamacare to see this.  
 
We already know that Taxes are immoral.  This is not an ideal floating in the sky but a fact proven objectively, which means integrated from real data and confirmed through reason.  The question from here is how to make it happen, not how we cannot do it despite the truth.
 
Its as if we are saying mankind is not good enough to be free so how do we minimize the force.  Might as well concede to the religious left axis at that point since we just handed them them the high ground.  

If that was directed at me, by corruption I mean bad choices.  That is about as fundamental as I can take the concept. 
 
How do we determine choices?  Philosophy, by conscious choice or unconscious choice, both through evading facts. 
 
An morality of the Government merely affects the choices given, not how we choose from those choices or the standard we use to judge.  

I'd like to get a 1 million foot integrated view from a few of you people, both determinists and non-determinists. 
 
 
Let me start with the labels for the errors of which we are all familiar with, without going into the explanation:  we all know about the errors of:
 
possibility, probability, certainty
rationalism
requirement for omnipotent "proof", mystic revelation
mysticism
denial of induction
denial of the senses, false definition of "direct perception" etc.
skepticism
 
We all know that it takes a contextual, comprehensive integrated view of all of your knowledge to properly assess and reason why these are mistakes.
 
 
We can conclude of some of the following:
 
an arbitrary claim is incoherent and forms no part of cognition
agnosticism as to the nonexistence of God or the devil is an error
to deny the senses is insanity, etc
 
Given all the above sorts of all encompassing philosophical issues requiring the WIDEST kinds of integration.
 
 
With the totality of all your knowledge about reality as it is, material, biological, psychological, your choices, your life, photons and billiard balls, joy and pain, all of it...  which of the following is MOST consistent with all of it (the way you can honestly say "there is no God", "senses are valid" etc.are the most consistent with the totality of your knowledge):
 
a) Free will DOES exist, the universe does not obey determinism
Free will DOES NOT exist, the universe obeys determinism
c) From all of the evidence one MUST BE AGNOSTIC as to whether will is actually free and as to whether the universe is deterministic or not.

Therefore if we managed to time warp the entire world back five years, I expect you'd say that every single person would do exactly the same things -- leading up to this moment, and the exact words I'm "choosing" to construct this very sentence. Thus, if five years ago someone had said, "Everything that will be five years from now is already determined, and no one has the power to change it," I guess we'd have to say that this was basically correct.

And standing here, now, looking ahead five years into the future -- though none of us can predict what it will be -- we must, by this same rationale, say that there is one particular path ahead, and no individual has the power to deviate from that path. Just as galaxies form and dissolve mechanistically, or dominoes are struck and fall, so too are the "choices" of men.

That hardly is determinism.

Armed robbery is wrong, DA and Crow.
 
It doesn't matter what you call it.  It doesn't matter how you divvy up the loot afterward, it doesn't matter how you choose your victims and it doesn't matter how fairly you sacrifice them; it's still wrong.
Both of you know that, already.  You can insist it's inevitable until the last of us starts decomposing; it won't make it so, whether you successfully justify it to yourselves or not.
 
The world you're talking about isn't this one; it's the world of the dark ages.  If you truly didn't believe that a better one was possible then you would not feel compelled to say so.  And the only thing that can prevent something better from becoming actual; the only thing that can pull us back into the dark ages is our submission to our own fear.
 
No, taxation is not inevitable; not so long as people like us exist.
 
That's all I have to say about it.

Eiuol:
 
 
Is the "situation" of the universe, as it will be 10 days from now, currently "written" in the totality of the present "situation" of the universe at this moment?
 
I.e. is everything fated to be one singular particular way 10 days from now based on the totality of everything as it is now?
 
 
If you believe anything in the future is truly contingent, i.e. metaphysically could happen one way or another (and correct me if I am using could when I should use would??) not that we cannot predict it because of any lack of knowledge, but that objectively the future IS NOT completely written in the present, then you would not be a determinist.  
 
If you claim the universe 10 days from now is already defined by the universe currently, all of the people, all of their thoughts and choices, and that the future universe will simply arise from the current universe following the inexorable path of single valued causation and identity... then you are a determinist.
 
 
Determinism is inconsistent with the Objectivist view of man's possession of volition.

Right. Good. Yes.

What I want you to understand is that, in the Peikoff quote I'd provided initially, when he says "he could have chosen otherwise," he does not mean what you mean with respect to this "could/would" distinction. What he means is that the human actor was empowered in the moment of decision, and given the singular input to produce from among more than one possible outputs. Which is to say that the human actor has an ability which the computer lacks, which is not merely "more depth," or a more complicated function, but is the ability to respond to the same context, the same input, with a variable response (not to say "random," which is a typical point of confusion). Human action is not a function, with one and only one output for every input, or set of inputs, or context.

Or at least, not in the Objectivist view. To clarify Peikoff's stance on this account, this is from a lecture per the Lexicon:
 
By "under the circumstances," he means given the input, or given the context (which, yes, here means "everything else").

If you give our computer 3, you will get back 7. It can not do otherwise, given that input -- not alone "would not," but "could not." However, if you give a human being 3, you may get back 7... or you may get back some other number. The human can (i.e. is empowered to; has the ability to) do something that the computer cannot do. The difference between them is that the human being gets to choose. The computer has no choice, no volition, no free will, per its nature, but a human being is unlike a computer in this way, and does.

Okay. Let's take on a scenario.

Suppose a young man walks into a liquor store with the intent to rob it. He has a gun. His face is hidden.

But then it strikes him that "he doesn't have to do this." He can still walk out of the store. He hasn't taken the gun out yet, and he's scared, and he knows that this is morally wrong. He has a decision to make.

Suppose he decides to go through with it and robs the store.

You would say that given the context of that moment, robbing the store was the only possible choice he could make? The robbery is the 'A' which results from the prior 'C'?

When we look back at that "moment of decision" -- at that "choice" -- you would therefore say that he could not have decided not to rob the store? (Not given the particular context with which he was faced, that is.)

If this is your case, then what would you mean by "free will" or by "volition"? (For I take it you don't repudiate those terms in themselves, whatever you would have them represent conceptually.)

If he was incapable of following but one path, then what differentiates him from a domino tipping over due to the wind, or a computer program following its routine?

And if he was powerless to do anything other than rob the store, then upon what grounds would we hold him morally responsible for this "decision" (which I hold cannot truly be a decision in any meaningful sense)? For when you say that "people form beliefs about C to get to A," how can we avoid the further observation -- by the nature of your argument -- that the formation of every single belief is itself the only possible result given some particular context? That is to say, from birth (and actually from well before that), we are perpetually on rails, making the only "choices" possible to us, given the context of every succeeding moment.

By this view, I think I'm forced to conclude that human action is as morally significant as a hurricane: many factors conspire to produce the only outcome they can, for good or ill. C leads to A, and it could not have been any other way.
 
I agree that people act for definite reasons. If the young man decides to rob, he will have reasons for having done so. If he decides not to rob, he will likewise have reasons for not having done so.
 
Are we agreed, then, that your views on determinism (or "causality as it relates to human action," if we must) do not reflect Objectivism? If they are "not very different," then they are different?

I think it matters to the discussion whether you're arguing for determinism or against it. I think we should strive to be as clear as possible in our arguments, and that the proper use of such labels is an important part of this.
 
What do you mean by this modifier "broadly speaking"? In what broad sense could you "do otherwise," and in what more narrow sense could you not?

Aren't you saying that if a man chooses Door A (to adopt the bare bones example I'd introduced in #27), that, given the conditions at the time (meaning: the context), that he could not have done anything other than choose Door A?

Aren't you saying, in light of your post #24, that context C leads to choice A, without exception?

If that is your contention -- and I believe that it is -- then what do you mean that a man "could do otherwise, broadly speaking"? If he could do otherwise -- if your "broadly speaking" has actual meaning, and pertains to actual situations -- then couldn't context C lead to choice B?

I do not see how your arguments allow a man to "do otherwise, broadly speaking." In fact, that's the very thing I think you're saying that a man cannot do.
 
I think there is conflict with the quote, and with the meaning of the quote, and with the Objectivist view of free will more generally.

Not to preclude you from answering the question(s) I've posed -- because I'd still like your answer -- but I think that you believe that Context C will lead to choice A, without exception, while the "broad" sense in which a person could do otherwise is, given some other context, a man could make some other choice.

But it is true of all things that, given a different context, different results would follow, and it collapses any sensible distinction between "the metaphysical and the man-made."

You're saying that you have "the capacity to choose differently" if the context is different (e.g. you remember what you had for breakfast). But the domino that falls towards the north has "the capacity to fall differently" if the wind changes. That's not the point. Given the wind, the domino must fall in one, and only one, direction. It cannot do otherwise. This is determinism.

If you believe that, given the wind (i.e. the context), a man must fall in one, and only one, direction -- that there is only one choice that he is capable of making in any particular context -- then you are a determinist.

Eiuol, with respect, I was not asking you to restate your argument. I understand your argument. I constructed a very similar argument when I took tenth grade physics. (Which, to clarify, is not intended as a put down; I'm only trying to emphasize that your position is very familiar to me, and has been for a very long time.)

Instead, I was asking you whether you recognize that your argument stands opposed to the quote from Leonard Peikoff I'd provided. And I ask, not for the purpose of accusing or implicating, or anything else, except that one of the features of this longstanding debate which frustrates me is that the proponents of determinism are seemingly very reluctant to recognize that they are arguing for it, or to call it by name. I don't mind that people argue for determinism (though I think they're mistaken), but I'd like to see a spade called a spade. I think that discourse generally requires such honesty.

So really, I'd like to know. Do you understand that your position is contra the position expressed in that quote? Or do you truly believe that there is no conflict between this quote and what you're proposing? I'll provide it here again, for convenience, and then I will sincerely hope for an answer:
 

Thanks all for your various answers. 
 
As with a great many other things "going silent" can be in a person's rational self interest in the proper context (no surprise there)... although I would have loved to see a silent reader pipe up about this, the more active members have expressed this valid truth.
 
As for being outnumbered, it is all too apparently true.  It is sad, but it is essentially a "metaphysical" truth ... during my lifetime anyway.
 
Thinking is hard work, keep it up.
 
Cheers!

I see two aspects in your question, and I'm not sure which one is your focus: Objectivists talking to the world; or, Objectivists discussing intellectual topics with each other? [i'm using "Objectivists" in it's broadest meaning. Think of it as "Ayn Rand fans", if you will]
 
Talking to the world: It's really hard to convince people past a certain age. A chance meeting with someone who seems to take ideas seriously is one thing, but how to address larger numbers? One could pursue it as a career -- via a think tank or a place like ARI or IJ. I suppose if you're a brave soul, you could hang out some place where thoughtful opposition argue their position, and see if they will let you challenge them. That commitment of time won't work for most people.
 
My attitude is that some man-made aspects of reality might as well be metaphysical for my context of action, across my life. If I see a possible shift toward positive or negative, it is like predicting good or bad weather. 
 
People living in the U.S. have a lot of opportunities to have an interesting and fulfilling life. Sure it could be much better if only.... XYZ. But, if XYZ is not going to change during my lifetime, it might as well be metaphysical. If I was going to be a software-programmer, or a doctor, or a businessman, or a musician, or a cook, or an author in my ideal world, chances are I can be so in this real world too. Some careers may be nixed completely due to high levels of government involvement; but, there are still a lot of good options left. One can choose well, even while not choosing the hypothetical ideal. Perhaps taxes are a pain, but if my father and grandfather could be happy with less material wealth than I own, I know I can be so too... even if I deserve more.
 
 I think most Objectivists end up somewhere around this conclusion. So, they focus on what they want to do with their lives, within the context they find around them and judge to be relatively permanent across their life-time.
 
 
Talking to each other: Objectivists are at various stages of integrating their philosophy. They might be really early, with lots of questions. Or they might be past asking all the most frequent questions. The forums grew rapidly when they were new, and as people were checking them out. Since philosophy is just the background knowledge about life, at some point one moves on to focus on the nitty-gritty of living life and trying to make the most of it. At that point, discussions and interactions about specific values seem more important than another discussion on abstract philosophy (or, whether it is moral to bomb downtown Tehran). Some might still have an interest in discussing application of philosophy to current events. But, others might find it more interesting to discuss topics relating to their career, or to a hobby. In an area like that, one will usually encounter rationality from non-Objectivists who think straight about that topic, and who can teach you a thing or two, even if it would be pointless arguing with them about  philosophy.
 
Forums also played a social role. Many prior members migrated to Facebook etc. and lots of the initial friendships had started on forums.  Some still have philosophical discussions of FB, but there is also specialization. A few might be interested in economics, another set on paleo-diets, another on a certain type of exercise regime, another set on medicine, some with interests on some particular country. If people are pretty much past questioning their philosophy, is there much value in hanging out and discussing it? Worse, is there any point arguing the same point that someone argued a year ago, to your satisfaction? I think this is an optional value to some people who enjoy it, but definitely not to most. 
 
Compared to FB, forums are a much better format to discuss intellectual issues in depth. Long-form seems to be shrinking; but I think there must be enough people who miss it. I think there is probably a space that is not being filled by either today's forums or by FB: a space for Objectivists who are interested in slightly more long-form intellectual exchange, but have no interest in re-hashing the nitty gritty of their philosophy either with newbies or with opposing voices. 
 

Recall the beneficiary of morality is a self-sovereign individual and the standard is life.  Having a kid depends greatly on the context of the individual.
 
"Natalism" is very much like the important issues of
 
"own-a-vehicle-ism", "get married-ism", and "live-in-an-apartment-ism" 

Rand challenged her haters' fundamentals and pulled their moral high ground out from under them.

Ok, so where does it end, as per the philosophy of aleph_1? Sperm has the potential to fertilize an egg and become a person too. An amoeba has the potential to eventually evolve into an intelligent life form too. In fact pretty much all atoms and molecules on Earth have the potential to form a human, or for that matter some other kind of intelligent life form, at some point. Do they have rights?

Potential for rationality is fine.
 
Abortion is fine also.
 
 
Non objectivists do not understand the law of identity... a thing is what it is not what you try to pretend it to be.
 
A person is an isolated unity a single living entity.   A baby is a person who has potential for rationality.  A pregnant woman is a woman with extra tissues having different DNA.  NOT two people.  Unless and until there is separation, no part attached to the woman has rights as a separate entity.
 
Animals have no potential for rationality... they cannot have ethics and cannot be moral so they cannot participate in a moral society with rights.
 
A is A.

Could you explain what you meant by:
 
"She mistakenly supposed that all magnitude structures in the world or in consciousness possess the suit of traits making ratio measurement appropriate to them, but that we have ordinal measurement to make do when we have not yet learned to apply ratio measurement to a domain (such as to value relations and to states of consciousness). That mistake is easily remedied, and does not undermine her measurement-omission way of analyzing concepts: There are magnitude structures in reality to which these various forms of measurement are appropriate, including structures for which ordinal measurement is appropriate, but ratio measurement is not."

In the phrase "Man's life", "Man" means an individual human being, not a species or race. You should equate "man" here, with "each man".
 
In the phrase "man's survival qua man" is not so much an appeal to man as "different" from anything else, so much as it is a re-affirmation of the law of identity: that a man's survival in any context depends upon a man's nature, a man IS what he is: you cannot ignore any of what a man is i.e. Man qua Man includes ALL he is, including the unique ability and requirement (to flourish)to be rational.
 
(Do not confuse the above identification "qua man" with only that which is uniquely human as such would mean a kind of denial of the totality of what each man is, you must embrace the unique whole of the nature of a man to determine what constitutes his survival and what serves it).
 
THAT determines good and evil for that man.  Remember although this is NOT subjectivism, the beneficiary of morality IS the individual, it is a morality of rational SELF interest.

HD:
 
Perhaps "conservative use" of force when the effects/outcome and the justness of that outcome cannot be prejudged or predicted with sufficient certainty is what you are looking for. 
 
and by "conservative" I mean a level of force up to but no more than what is absolutely necessary given what IS known.

Pride reflects something about the self otherwise it is merely admiration.  I can be proud of a friend because of the connection I have and the possible role I play in who they are and what they achieve, I cannot be proud in how beautiful Saturn looks.
 
Obviously, one can be proud about what one has done, what choices one has made, what one has become, what one possesses, etc. insofar as all of these are in some way caused by the one or reflect what the nature of the one is.
 
Ancestry is a little different because the connection is not the one causing something but the presence of something in the one.  The one shares the same genes, the one has the same "blood", physical, or mental or spiritual traits (to the extent they can be inherited biologically or are a result of lineage or culture of the family).  So pride in ancestry is a pride in that bit of the self that is connected to or directly resulting from those ancestors.  It can also be pride in a potential not yet exhibited but possibly latent.
 
There is also the obvious fact that a person has a literal connection to their ancestors over space and time and causality, which connection is unavoidable.
 
 
I do not know what "deserve" to be proud means.  A person either is or is not proud, and is or is not correct/rational in having that pride or lack thereof.  The concept of "desert" implies a reward... or hints at justice, as though it were intrinsically unfair for a person to erroneously feel pride...I am not certain the concept "deserve" is applicable here.
 
 
Insofar as a person believes he has traits of his ancestors he can be proud of what they have done, but this comes at a price, if he himself has achieved less, he will be shameful of himself for not achieving what he has potential to achieve.  Conversely, a person may feel shame if he believes he has vices inherited from his ancestors, but to the extent he has controlled or vanquished them, he can feel pride in himself.
 
I think this is similar to the following: If a person is born with great  agility and smarts and yet chooses to let his body go and never uses his mind, that person could feel proud of what they were, and possibly what they are or could be but feel shame in what they have not done.  Conversely a person who is was never very agile or smart but who has achieved greatness by pushing their abilities should feel pride. 
 
 
Your ancestors are like a starting point... the root, base, origin of you and your life... feel pride but must be kept in context and perspective : 
 
it is not the end of the story.

Your colleagues are either themselves irrational, or they believe "people" in general are.
 
Ideas are not to be feared on the premise that life requires them.  Ideas are only feared by those who see them as a threat to their ability to evade reality.
 
Entrenched thinking would be an abdication of the mind if it means evasion or irrationality. To the extent new information or new argument or new ideas require a process of chewing and understanding to fully integrate any potential useful substance, any rejection of that process in favor of simply holding on to past, i.e. entrenched information, ideas, or argument is a failure of the cognitive rational process.
 
This is to be distinguished from purported "new" ideas which in fact have already been dealt with by the thinker, implicitly or explicitly, at which point the thinker may dismiss the purportedly "new" out of hand.
 
 
The best way to "overcome" an emotional response to anything is to ignore it, emotions are not tools of cognition or guides to action.

The real issue is whether my keeping what I earned is justified or not regardless of any effect on the growth of the economy. The answer is yes, regardless of whether it does or does not slow down the growth of the economy by some metric. Don't fight them on their terms. You will lose if you play their game. The cause of equality or whether inequality has any effect on the economy is not the issue.

True immortality, as far as we know, is in reality absolutely impossible.
 
 
The entire universe is dying a slow death of entropy.  According to current physics, a true "eternity" of operation is impossible, it would require an infinitely replenishing energy source to balance the losses all living processes, movement, thought, etc. require. No such a source exists or is theorized to exist, everything will die, and come to a cold, static, end.
 
That said, since any technology offering "immortality" would at most extend life, I would likely take it to the extent it actually extends my life (rather than end it : which would be the case if someone offered to make an exact replica based on me, then kill me, and let the replica live thinking it were me).
 
The last billions of millennia where we fight against the forces of entropy to eek out the last heat and energies of the universe to support our very thoughts, may be the most productive and rewarding of our very long lives.

Please keep us updated!  
 
Perhaps your life as an independent personal trainer may, if you work hard and once you get a reputation and some high paying clients, earn you the same "lots of money" you currently earn, and then you might have something to spend it on (and some left over time as well)

Where is the position outside the outermost positions?
What was the time before time began?
What caused causation?
 
All of the above are utterly meaningless questions, as they ask for something in an impossible context. 
 
What kind of blue is the part of that thing which is not blue?
 
 
As for a "first cause" such a thing is meaningless to discuss.
 
Entities exist.  Entities act.  Acts, and change are caused by entities.  Things change their form.  No particular thing comes from nothing... nothing is not a thing that can create anything.
 
Causation, time and space are part of existence.  They are IN existence, anything outside of existence is INEXISTANT.   
 
To say something created creation, something other than causation caused causation is incomprehensible incoherent and frankly insane. 
 
To look for anything outside of space or before time is to look for something outside of existence which is also incomprehensible incoherent and frankly insane.
 
 
It may be that time does not stretch back infinitely, this means only that time (a relationship between entities) only went back so far.  Either all that is always was, or all that is was for only a finite time... and although an "end" of time (in any direction) seems strange, all that feeling means is that it is meaningless to ask what was there before "after and before" existed.