L-C

I doubt a bad society would be made better by such actions. Living in Sweden, where people get psychiatric "care" for 6 years after robbing someone of their life, I do certainly understand the sentiment. But the solution is to boycott the country, which I just might do in the future.

But then you formally finish the relationship before going elsewhere. Makes no sense to me. You're lying about your commitment to the relationship, even if you confess afterward. Even a one-night-stand isn't as quick and accidental as slipping on a banana peel. It's a backhanded declaration that the relationship is over, and that you spit on your partner instead of respectfully ending it.

Ditto. The difference is that that experiment can be enjoyed and then terminated as one pleases, so to speak. Not so if one is suddenly afflicted by cancer, premature aging and psychological problems because the newfangled "solution" to the problem of sleeping didn't quite get everything right.

Then, freedom as what? Productive, successful people or savages?

But since it'd be better for the sake of those who pay if everyone's rights are upheld, that will still be the policy. In practice I doubt there would be any problems for people to make the requisite payments. Production in laissez-faire is much higher, and with the amount of people who can stay alive on today's unfathomably high taxes, the single digit fee should be no problem.

Interesting point, David. Often, rights forfeiture it is invoked as a counter to pacifists who refuse to acknowledge the (fundamental) difference between assault and defense, assailant and victim.

I just don't see anything that can be forgiven. Not necessarily in the sense that it's too bad to be forgiven (though that works as well), but in that cheating is not a mistake, it's a declaration.

Don't let the bastards win.

Good one. I remember years ago when I took the political compass test and ended up in the lower right corner (advocate of both economic and "social" freedom). There were no politicians there. Crickets and tumbleweed.

Please treat the word "taxation" with the disdain it deserves. "Voluntary taxation" is a self-contradiction. The protection of one's rights must not be contingent on any form of payment. Posters above have explained why.

"Democracy" is only acceptable if it isn't a democracy to begin with. The most important issue up for vote must be nearly inconsequential.

Like softwareNerd, I'd say it can be a concern but it doesn't have to. Be conscious about anything you don't want to merely be run and screened by your autopilot alone.

I wouldn't tamper with this too early, tempting as it might be. Even if some discovery comes along that seems to eliminate the need for sleep, it could have devastating consequences in the future, much akin to genetic engineering. I personally believe sleep is vastly underrated in today's world. It's not just "rest", they way one allows one's muscles to recover after a gym session. It is the rest of the brain, by far the most complex organ in existence. It serves to reinvigorate the entire body, including the functions of the brain, both physiologically and psychologically. Apart from physical issues like cancer and such, you could somewhat compare the prospect of being awake all the time to living for a hundred thousand years. Ramifications?

Or that they change the direction of the development of their character. This is unusual. As for myself, though I'm not sure, I lean toward not forgiving. This isn't a quick slipup. The kind of continous choice cheating requires makes it an unforgivable betrayal. Yes, a dishonest way of ending the relationship.

Jeffrey, is it possible that they were too unsuspecting of future generations of officials? Too naively "good-natured"? Obviously they lacked the knowledge necessary to craft an airproof constitution, but even given their context as it was at the time, they could've used some healthy suspicion.

Isn't cheating lying in itself? After all, they could've broken up and only then choose to sleep with someone else.

Agreed. Debates regarding the existence of free will are usually rigged.

Grames mentioned the standard used for Kant. "10) Words have "true" meanings that are only available to superior Objectivist philosophers...." Don't forget that many words are anti-concepts and therefore invalid. In addition to this, many words have been deliberately misdefined into tools of philosophical war, meant to confuse, obstruct and equivocate. A good example is the word "justice" in Swedish, which has been conflated with "fair", which in turn has been conflated with "equal". Thus justice = equal. How does this fit in with egalitarianism, collectivism etc? Indeed.

And I agree so long as it doesn't apply to the lifelong consequences of surgery. Haircut, clothes, even ideology can all be changed without permanent damage. A circumcision, not so much. And yes, it really is comparable - if not generously - to all sorts of invasive procedures like tattoos, nicked earlobes, streched necks or whatever arbitrary ritual you could think of. Jonathan: I'll dig into statistics when I can find the time. It's 02:51 AM here at the moment.

And your reason for going through with the procedure is because you feel like it, and that that is important enough to rob the child of his choice? Because there's no medical reason to do it, and even if there were, it could be chosen by the patient himself before it becomes an issue.

Religionists are often full of themselves as the alleged sole providers of morality.

I would ask if you're being deliberately dense and condescending, but instead I'll let this one slip and calmly explain that none of those things are even remotely lifelong in their effect. Full power over them is retained as soon as the individual gets to choose. Circumcision is lifelong. And infinitely less necessary than well-groomed hair and nails. Jake seems to advocate a carte blanche for parents to do whatever they want to their children, with the burden of proof on any accuser. That should be the case for most things regarding the parent-child relationship. Food? Yes. Clothes? Sure. Ideas? Definately. The permanent effects of surgery? Nein.

Because it is unnecessary surgery, and you want to replace choice with force even though there is no need to circumcise someone, especially before they are able to choose. Who are you to force this viewpoint on anyone? Someone who will have to live with your (or their parents') choice for the rest of their life, when there is no need to rob them of the choice regarding their own body.

It is completely beside the point whether the foreskin is useless or not. If you are to remove it from someone who can't protest, prove that it must be done. You don't have a default right to remove bodyparts from people, whether they are vestigial or not. The urgent need to do so must be positively demonstrated, since the effects are lifelong. There is no need to backstab people with this kind of thing before they are old enough to choose for themselves, especially since procedure is unnecessary. Fact: if circumcision is so good, it can be chosen well in advance of any "problems" caused by an intact foreskin (hint: there are none). I would never consent to it. Not then, not now. Why should I have been subjected to having been forced into it, and not be able to undo it even as an adult?

I haven't mentioned religion. Unnecessary surgery against on a person without choice = bad. It is up to you to prove that circumcision is so urgently necessary that you are justified in forcing it upon a child. It is not.