kanjmai

I mulled on this for a little bit; I don't know if this is a good response, but this is what I came up with: It is contradictory to value life-negating action if you still choose to live. All action, even life-negating action, is only possible by virtue of the fact that you are alive. To participate in life-negating action is to go against your life; to go against your life is to go against all virtues and values that are made possible by it; life-negating action is such a virtue; therefore, to value life-negating action is to devalue life-negating action. Does that make sense? Essentially, you are destroying the "virtue" of life-negating action merely by practicing it. Logically, it makes no sense to practice any life-negating actions when life remains your fundamental choice. Therefore, I don't see how a person can remain slightly on the side of death while at the same being slightly on the side of life. It has to be one or the other.

The "reality" is that there will be no fundamental difference between the two presidencies. I don't see how McCain's quasi-fascism is at all superior to Obama's quasi-socialism. Both are doing a terrible disservice to the free market. The only difference is that McCain is still trying to pay the market weak lip-service. The economy is going to continue to tank no matter who becomes president because both are going to continue to meddle in the market.

Giving capitalism weak lip service does not equal believing in capitalism. If McCain believed in capitalism- he would not have voted for the bailout bill, he would not have blamed the economic situation on "greedy Wall Street," if he was a capitalist he would be blaming the crisis on fiat currency and a managed economy. Did you watch any of the debates? Do you recall how he responded when he was called an advocate of deregulation? Well, he certainly didn't give the capitalist response by shouting, "Damn right I advocate deregulation!" Besides, you seem to forget that Marxism is not the only enemy of Objectivism. Objectivism denies irrationality and any philosophies or ideologies that spring from it. That includes religion. And there is no doubt that, if elected, McCain will become chummy with the religious right.

I think the more important question is.... how did a society that still had a sizable portion of social mystics manage to turn to laissez-faire capitalism in the first place? It would require an intellectual revolution among the people in order for such a society to be established.

Sounds like a typical altruists' trap. Call him out on what he's trying to do. He's trying to undercut your beliefs by appealing to your emotions. If you say it is OK to steal the medicine (which is obviously wrong), he's going to attack you for contradicting Objectivist principles. If you say it is not OK to steal the medicine, then he's probably going to attack by calling you immoral, or say "OMG you'd let your own son die! Monster!" This is highly anti-intellectual. Give him the true Objectivist response; it is wrong to claim the property of another individual. If he thinks your wrong, ask him to prove the alternative. To accept any form of punishment is to make the concession that you are wrong. You cannot make an action morally permissible merely because you are prepared to face the punishment for it. And the purpose of the criminal justice system is to punish those who initiate forceful aggression, not to vindicate them.

To deprive someone is to rob them or make them give up something by way of force. How does the scenario of laying off an employee fit with this word? Furthermore, do you believe it is wrong for one person to deprive another person of something?

What exactly is your employer depriving you of?

I have to admit, I liked Palin's response to Biden on foreign policy: "Your plan is a white flag of surrender."

No kidding. Washington is operating on the premise that the 'free market' (as if there currently is one) is at fault for this mess. Nobody has thought to question whether or not the premise is even true. Not even the Republicans are questioning it. You know, I didn't really like Ron Paul. But he definately scored some points in my book when he said this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ticytEUvVhQ

I hear they also have a very offensive odor. What the hell was God thinking?

I'd like to see creationists explain the durian.

Either you're joking or you're seriously making this statement.

"You learn about the strength of his mind. But more importantly, you learn about the quality of his heart." -Biden Sometimes I swear the people who write these speeches use the villains of Atlas Shrugged as models.

All I can say is that if this nation were principled enough to have a total laissez-faire society free of compulsory taxation, corruption such as that would not exist. The corrupt politicians in your scenario would find it more practical to have compulsory taxation. This is why a philosophical revolution is paramount to the long-term survival of a free society. EDIT: Consider this. The premise of the scenario (a laissez-faire society) contradicts the argument being used. It is a laissez-faire society... Well, if the government is granting favors to the highest bidder, then it is NOT a laissez-faire society.

Remember what Ayn Rand talks about in the “Ethics of Emergencies”. Individuals, unless in the face of proof that they are worthless, represent a potential value. We should regard all individuals as innocent until proven guilty, all representing a potential value. Assuming your only options were losing ten million dollars or saving a man’s life, you would have to consider the consequences of each choice in regards to your fundamental goal. Personally, I would think given the facts of the scenario you provided, it would be best if I saved the man’s life. Considering that I have a financial cache of “hundreds of millions of dollars”, a loss of ten million dollars, while great, is something that I could get over. It won’t have a crippling effect on my life. On the other hand, by saving a man’s life, I can gain a different type of value through his friendship. The Objectivist Ethics denies the existence of any intrinsic value.