L-C

A system where people can make the government initiate force. A variant of the "cracy" general model where you can put X in front of it to determine who makes the government initiate force. Appointment by a committee of Objectivist scholars stemming from a lineage (not genetic) of such with its origins from the country's founding. But in an Objectivist country it probably wouldn't matter much. Only if the populace is Objectivist, which isn't something that should be depended upon.

As a bilingual speaker, I've been proficient in English for years. But only since becoming an Objectivist have I realized how much difference there is between various languages. Not just the words, but the meaning of words, even those who are completely analogous. A good example is the word justice and its Swedish equivalent. Now, we have a word for justice but it's not the same at all. Ours is effectively and most of the time a synonym with equality. Consider the mentality and ideology of the Swedish people and you'll see what this does to the concept of justice. Apart from archaic-sounding tales of "courtroom justice", imagine if the word didn't exist at all, and that the only word you had access to to express it is "fair", as in "The Fairness Doctrine". Interesting, isn't it? Now look at the effects of the fool. How does the Swedish government treat criminals? Victims? Businessmen? Perhaps speakers of other languages have stories like this of their own.

I see democracy as harmful (where it is yet another form of "cracy") or meaningless. A government that has to uphold individual rights doesn't need democracy, since all rights are set in stone and any laws that are added must conform to those. When it comes to electing representatives, I don't see why the number of people who agree on something has any bearing on its legitimacy. A "lineage" of Objectivist scholars who specialize in various political fields would probably be a better idea.

Got any advice that would help with passing my Linear Algebra course? And I agree, discussing religion and the supernatural is a waste of time. Just forget all about it.

Threatening to use, yes. The Soviets wanted to prevail on Earth, however wrong they were. Islamists want to win in death. That's why they'll have to be used, not just waved around.

It's a good thing that you shed your religious beliefs. At most I'd point them to Rand's work and let them fail or succeed. I wouldn't argue about the existence of a god, that debate is already settled for me.

Are you talking "is" or "ought"? If the latter, I use "crime" to mean anything that would make the government use force against you. If crime is only a subset of that category, then place it under the "super class" instead, whatever that's called.

My experiences from every little situation with micro-anarchism (lack of rules in a social setting) have taught me that in the abscence of authority, it's always the peaceful who suffer.

Altruism != charity, so no. It is perfectly possible for charity not to be sacrificial for the one doing it.

Personally I wouldn't waste my time arguing with someone who's so far away from reason as to be religious. At least give me some decent starting material.

Betsy commented on this, Ifat. She said that (quoting from memory) "A good woman is attracted to a man's character". Not that looks don't matter, but not as much as they do to men. Which I think is true. Men go gaga over looks more than women, in my experience. As for myself, how do I put this, I have an "affinity" for attractive faces. It's like a trained supertaster or a highly gifted and tone-sensitive music listener. It matters so much to me that it would do no one justice for me to pursue a woman who won't make me want to stare like an idiot. Would that basic body structure and beauty (not kemptness, which anyone can master) were determined by moral character. Pure fantasy, of course. As it is, it's a genetic lottery and in a way, it's a shame that it so heavily affects my (and that of many others) choice of romantic partner.

The divisor between crime and non-crime is the initiation of force. If no such thing is present, it cannot be a crime. It if it, is must be a crime.

Government has the monopoly on retaliatory (and pre-emptive) force. Important distinction.

This is my view. The corollary of responsibility is choice. Either the man can choose, or he is not responsible. A contract, most commonly marriage, would make his obligation to provide for the child the default.

Government doesn't deal in options. Our government school and healthcare systems are anything but options for non-millionaires.

I would have no problem with the death penalty if it's only used in cases where guilt has been 100% proven and there is zero possibility of error. Which basically means people like Hussein.

This quote by Branden mirrors my own sentiments about the subject: It would be different if the choice were between death and release, but it's not. Life in prison offers virtually the same benefits (especially under a proper legal/prison system in LFC) but without the inevitable horror of execution of innocents. Don't rush to the death penalty as a solution because the current prison system operates on a revolving door principle. The consequence of innocents being executed is a ridiculous price to pay for whatever marginal benefits that would be gained by a murderer being killed rather than locked up forever.

It's interesting having access to two languages. Swedish has no word for "fewest", so instead the progression goes "few, fewer, smallest". The last word being the superlative of both size and number. On the other hand, English as no verb for "doing" a name as in "I *verb* Leonard". Instead you have to be someone, or have a name. There's lots of other differences. A nefarious one is the fact that there's no real equivalent to "justice" in Swedish. The word in question is a de facto synonym with "equality". To imagine it, picture the word justice replaced by fairness, as defined by egalitarianism.

The lie is in the evasion, irrationality and force employed, not the "lie" that was told to protect against them.

Not an invalid sentiment by any means, but the thing I'm describing can be a remarkably isolated trait in some people. Even my dad, who is very honest most of the time does it to some extent , and although not an Objectivist, I consider him a "winner" in life in general.

Among all the things I've noticed since becoming an Objectivist, here's one: The unselfishness of others, particularly friends or family, can get very annoying. Where they'll say yes to things you know they'd rather not do (at the moment), such as visits, favors, events etc. So you end up having to be selfish "for" them, in order to prevent trouble later on as they become bitter because they self-sacrificed, or feel guilty because they didn't. A lot of people don't ever want to you ask for anything for this very reason, since both yes and no are answers that will upset them. Sacrifice - or guilt. Altruism sure is a mess. It's refreshing talking to Objectivists. They'll give you a no when they really can't spare the time whatever the situation concerns, and the honesty between the two of you acts to prevent the resentment that can otherwise build up between "friends" who treat each other with less respect for their respective lives and resources, rather than more.

Not sure what you mean. I was referring to not letting the "bastards" bring you down, even if you're sensitive. The good deserves better than to succumb to its antagonists.

Prosperity is not the motive of altruism.

Does this give the government of the attacked country a carte blanche on the use of force? If they attack us, can we then torture them beyond what might be necessary for our protection, or utilize torture even if another method would do the job?

Justice is the best life for the good and the non-existence of the evil. Sadism is not good.