Jake_Ellison

.
I find this argument interesting. The principle of property rights is formulated so that whatever a person produces is his, independent of anyone else's appraisal of its value or benefit. One's purposes, goals, tastes, and existential context contribute to the desirability, the valuation, the fact of and the degree of benefit of what one produces. As they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

When the violation of property rights is defended because someone has decided the creator cannot obtain any benefit from his product, principles are being broken in favor of someone's presumed omniscience as to what the inventor/creator might presently, or in any future scenario, find of use in his own product. Whatever the poster's purposes, this argument is an attack on principles per se.

Mindy

That is the most basic question for anyone who first encounters philosophy. You are asking "What use is philosophy?". My (short) answer is this: The world is an interconnected whole, and so should be our knowledge of it. Attempting to validate pieces of information about reality outside the context of a fully integrated philosophical system, which forms the basis of one's knowledge about everything, is a futile effort. It will either paralyze you, or lead you to accept someone else's conclusions without validating them.

If you're looking for a better answer than that, you're in luck, since Ayn Rand published a whole book on the subject, title Philosophy: Who Needs It?

Here's a quote from the first chapter:



As for whether you (or anyone else asking) should be an Objectivist, the answer is no. Objectivism is a philosophy, not a club. It is not a matter of membership, it is a matter of agreement with a set of ideas. So, "Should I be an Objectivist?" is equivalent to "Should I agree with Objectivism?". If you have to ask, obviously no. You should understand it, and then you'll either agree (and act on what you agree with) or not.

I don't have any familly abroad so no one can sponser me. My phisical condition is too high to serve in technical positions.
Altough I might get a "good" role, Or even commanding role- (some elite units already contacted me)
The thing is that in order to serve in thouse roles you have to sign for auditional years. A double edged sword.
And I am not intrested in that.


There is a certain arrangement that you can do with the army here, (And they contacted me too) which is- to go first to a university in isreal- and than go back to the army for 6 instead of 3 years.
I don't like this option because thats taking my freedoom for 9-10 years instead of just 3, and I am not sure yet what I want to learn.

My parrents don't consider any other option for me than going to the army. They tell me I am "selfish and always care about myself" as if its a bad thing.
Thier morality is altruistic and fucked up so there is no reason to talk to them.

Well, considering the fact that there is no better option for me at the moment I guess I will join the army.

I'll view the army is a challenge and certainly do my best, but as a self standart and not as means to so political/religios/idiological/social cause that I don't identify with, and honestly think is retarded.

If I'll feel that I am not growing and getting value out of it, (in other words- wasting my time) I'll leave and deal with all the troubles that comes with it.

A lot of social workers choose their profession out of a desire to be altruistic. That doesn't make the profession immoral (you can indeed be a social worker for selfish reasons), but it does make those who practice it out of altruism immoral (to the extent their motives are indeed altruistic). There's no way around that fact, altruism isn't moral.

You should try to get to the bottom of what her driving motivation is for pursuing this career. Obviously, she does buy into the false notion that so called non-selfish professions are better than the professions which are unmistakably selfish (like being a businessman), but that doesn't mean she is driven by that notion.

Most people who consider professions like social worker and doctor "better" (because they don't have a strong enough philosophical foundation to explicitly reject the Ethics of the altruist driven culture around them) do nonetheless hold on to their individuality, and are in fact quite selfish. That is how professed altruists become rich and successful, even though their choice of career was supposedly made out of a desire to help others: they may profess that, but in reality they are self centered and career oriented.

So you should figure out (if you haven't already), whether your girlfriend values herself, her career, her happiness, etc., from her actions and past decisions rather than her words. If she does, then she most certainly isn't an altruist, she is a good person who is wrong about her theoretical moral beliefs. If she doesn't, if she actually puts others ahead of those things, in practice, then she is on a path to self destruction, and you should remove yourself from her way.

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/1999w35/msg00046.htm
Here's what I was refering to. It's a short read.

I disagree that one should follow government road rules, in principle at least. Government-controlled roads is an illigitimate arrangement that can yield only convoluted "agreements" with its "customers" over its usage. Which otherwise pro-free-market-roads advocate can decide which rules would otherwise be legit for private roads? How could he tell for sure, and why wouldn't he just be advocating instead the removal of government control?

As far as changing the roads as they are now: how do we change these rules? Not by taking our business elsewhere, but through a lengthy, costly law-changing process that is not likely to yield results due to the state revenue conflict of interest. Not to mention, the results would still be illigitimate by definition: how would we know they were the right free-market rules? The government runs the roads with revenue in mind, from the speed limit to the suspension procedures, not with safety or a customer's interests in mind. Why would someone advocate following these rules with that in mind?

The only (moral) solution is to use one's best judgement concerning safety, while doing one's best not to get caught when that judgement contradicts current laws. I recognize that properly illegal activities happen on the road, such as property and life damage or endangerment, but those should already be covered under separate laws.

My answer to the OP: the reason for your suspension largely determines the morality of your trying to do anything you can to minimize the negative outcome. "Speeding" isn't the same as driving drunk or too asleep to notice anything, isn't the same as a hundred legitimate reasons for not paying a ticket (leading to suspension). A suspension could be acquired due to five cops with nothing better to do than decide that you didn't stop at a stop sign (two points multiplied by six instances: twelve-point suspension), followed by six judges (or six of the same judge) upholding it. You may have actually stopped all of those times, but these particular government employees are dishonest, and the expense of fighting it is too great (time, court costs, uncertain outcome). Do those condemning the OP know something like this happens, frequently? Or how about the countless fees associated with the BMV (more baseless government mandates concerning the roads), not to mention (government-forced) insurance premiums spiking.

I do not see how the OP is wrong for trying to minimize these escalating, dishonest, baseless side effects of government road laws. It IS easy to get caught up in government-bashing when one first discovers its real evils, but I think this is a case of legitimate bashing. The volunteer's attitudes and beliefs are a side-issue to whether one should follow laws which cannot be proven to be right. Do I understand correctly those condemning the OP? That the only proper solution to improper government control and laws is to follow them until they can be changed within the system? What if it is impossible for an individual to change the system for another ten years? Should he just suffer those years? What if it is speculative that the system will ever be changed?

The judge justified the decision with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That's a pretty straight forward argument, and I see nothing wrong with it. I would've made the same exact decision and basic argument.


You haven't named any. I can name a good reason for defining marriage the way this judge defined it. Th concept of marriage is dependent on the concept of sexuality (including sexual orientation). Marriage is a long term commitment between sexual partners.

Defining marriage as a straight partnership either ignores the fact that there are any gays, or ignores the fact that gays do not have straight relationships. Either way, it is not a valid concept.

Only if your definition of marriage ignores the existence of gays. By a definition that acknowledges the existence of people who do not engage in straight sexual partnerships, let alone marriage, but engage in gay sexual partnerships, you are denying some people the rights you are affording straights.

That marriage exists as a fundamental right legally was well demonstrated. But there is plenty of good cause for arguing that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Access to marriage - to a man/woman relationship is NOT restricted along gender lines. Men and women have equal right to enter a man/woman relationship, as do homosexuals.

I personally think marriage itself violates the due process and equal protection rights of singles if only for certain tax and other implications.

So to defend marriage as a fundamental right - while legally proper - also legitimizes marriage along lines of tradition and so forth (which was clearly part of the legal foundation of the right).

This same reasoning bears nothing against defining marriage as a man/woman relationship.

The legal logic is flawed - marriage can be defined as man/woman - and the reason for it not to be is arbitrary - UNLESS there is a higher standard that is appealed to. This higher standard would have to question the legitimacy of state sanctioned marriage. The judge clearly argued the opposite.

Is marriage a man-woman relationship? If you appeal to legislation, tradition, democracy, precedent, and so forth, it is. You cannot, as this judge has, appeal to a historical and established 'right' but then pick and choose which components of that right your sociological worldview prefers. The historical precedent is either legitimate or not.

Both mobs and elites are defeated by rules, and both are served by arbitrary decisions. The idea that two homosexuals would want to enter into a strong sacred relationship is a view. The state has two options: totally allow individuals the right to their views or pick a view and stick to it. Marriage falls in the latter category. It shouldn't, but it does. So you can advocate and vote, but cannot celebrate an arbitrary ruling.

If I was on this court I would recognize that my job is to uphold the law, whether I voted for it or not. Gender roles might be the same in marriage, but that is not strict enough to establish that gender is irrelevant in marriage. If precedent is what I'm obliged to follow, and the law and the constitution, then I would approve of Prop 8. Hell I wouldn't have voted for it!

Again, the law impedes Atilla. When Obamas are in power, their only restraint is the strict law. Judges cannot inject their arbitrary opinion - no matter how seemingly virtuous - into a ruling or else the law is defeated, and Atilla wins.

I will read up on Objectivist anti-originalism. It seems to me most of the concern is over courts that used to implicity defend property rights, but no longer do. This seems more of a constitutional flaw than a judicial flaw, but I will read more.

In any case, I think disagreement on this issue hinges on whether you think the application of due process and equal protection concerning homosexuals and marriage is arbitrary or not. I think it is.

Because marriage is a certain something - defining it is essential to treating it as a 'right'. And the judge chose his preferred definition over the legal one.