L-C

Dan, what about necessity? Should we use more force than is necessary to secure our safety in a non-sacrificial way? What if, for example, the similar results could be reached with a higher CIA budget instead of torture. How do you weigh that cost against the spectre of putting that kind of tool in the hands of the government?

Aishwarya Rai.

He confuses "is" with "has to be".

I think the state of emergency is inherent in the concept of defense (else the force used would be retaliatory or pre-emptive), so I'd say we're arguing the same point.

Equal? Such vermin should be exterminated on the spot.

It's not about how much the "capitalist" has given, but how much he has left. Anything above nothing is too much.

More than dishonest. Lying and scamming. I would say they're making YOU live a lie, through lying.

Only retaliatory and pre-emptive force are delegated to the government, not defensive.

She meant that as far as she's concerned (and don't overlook that critical part of it), existence will cease to be at the point of death. As far as she's concerned, the world ends. It does not in any imply the existence of a spirit. There's no way to "look" at the world from "death" and miss it, even if you rightfully want to avoid death when you're alive. It's gone.

If it weren't for welfare, people on welfare would be self-sufficient without welfare. Do you see how? As for your second question: Yes. Thomas only reclaimed what was rightfully his to begin with. He did not have a say in the creation of this system. It did not help him. The potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars (even millions, I don't know what he makes) he'd have without taxes would've helped him.

Many people would have been able to find jobs if it weren't for welfare. As you know, welfare destroys jobs. The system here in Sweden also discourages finding work. It is not allowed to accept a part-time job and recieve only half of the welfare check. It's all or nothing. Therefore, because part-time jobs can't support your living (due to taxes, which are used to fund...?) you have to go full welfare. Voter factory.

Now we're talking.

Which I never did.

From your first link: "Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine." There you go. His paying for his own care would not cause any harm, but quite the opposite. Yet the government would forcibly prevent this. Egalitarianism. Equal share for everyone, even if net destruction of human lives is the price. I've said it numerous times before and I'll say it again: altruism is not ultimately about redistribution, but annihilation. Hell, in many cases it's not even partially about redistribution. Swedish schools will actively deny gifted children competent education in the name of equality, even when they themselves would benefit from increased production and thus tax revenue. Pure nihilism.

Straw man, I never said rest creates material value by itself. I said it's inconsequential whether or not it's productive per that standard.

Force is peace, trade is war, A is not A.

Without any details regarding these people, the rhetorical question is thus: Will one person live or die? Also, D'kian and kainscalia, I find your replies mocking. If you think the dilemma is absurd, then dismiss it and explain why. Rewriting it is tantamount to spam.

Again, moot point. Tomayto, tomahto. Nothing at all changes because we define rest to be this or that.

You get more of what you sponsor. As a consumer, and as a country. Bargaining with savages signals acceptance of their actions and their nature. Edit: That does not mean people should expect the support of their government if they willingly travel to places such as NK. That is idiotic.

One would then wonder to what end Capitalism was immoral when it was constructive, and in what manner Marxism was humane when it failed. Altruism: the morality, not primarily of redistribution but of destruction.

It's still a moot point. You can't be productive without rest, so it doesn't matter whether resting has the adjective "productive" attached to it. It's part of the same cycle.

And helping the poor isn't what enables helping the poor. It is not and cannot be the central purpose.

There might still be unions for standardized work contracts and such. But they would be disallowed the use of force to intimidate or sabotage the efforts of employers and/or non-union members.

Translation device: Force force force force force force force. Repeat for socialists and every other kind of non-Objectivist.

I oppose the government's actions against Vick; I don't support Vick.