AllMenAreIslands

Interesting. A dislike of money, you say? That is why you are having such a hard time with the subject matter, Doug. It's as if you were talking about farming but you loathed any and all machinery developed to make farming more efficient and more doable. Money is a tool. It is of little use to those who don't first establish and define for themselves a hierarchical system of values. Until you know what you value in life, you'll be hard-pressed to get up each day, let alone decide how to apportion the very limited resource that is your time on Earth. Having reached this part of the thread (and I acknowledge there are still another 5 or 6 pages to go), what I've gotten from Doug's replies to the various posts is that he figures that anyone who has amassed a great fortune should rationally want to decide to "help others," rather than continue making more money in his chosen profession or indeed in a brand new profession. And if such people don't spontaneously decide their life's pleasure consists in handing out their wealth to strangers in need, then something must be wrong with Objectivism for not telling them that that's what their goals OUGHT to become, at some point or other in the grand scheme of things. Why? Why is handing out money to "the needy/less fortunate" something you consider to be of value? Just from reading the posts made by the half-way point of the thread I was reminded that capitalistic endeavours actually cause more good to be done in the world than straightforward charity. So why is charity such a big deal to you?

Interesting post, Jack. The conclusion I've come to is that sexuality is both determined and open to choice. What I mean is, each individual starts out with a starting sexuality position or orientation, be it homo, hetero, bi or even asexual. Accepting one's starting point is just the beginning. The spectrum of possibilities exists for all individuals. For many the starting position is enough. Others decide explore some or all of it. The choice to do so is up to each individual. One's first job with respect to sexuality is to come to terms with one's starting point. From the various evidence I've seen, people do have a sexual orientation that is just "there." Whether it can be said to be genetic or early childhood experiences doesn't really matter since both are out of the control of the individual, at least by the point when he or she discovers which orientation they've gotten. The ability to take control of one's sexuality can't really get underway until the starting point is revealed. I think if one is unhappy "being gay" one can become bi-sexual, but one is never going to erase that original starting point. Edited to add for the record I do not consider consensual sexual experiences to be immoral, whether they involve a man & a woman, two men, two women or even more than two of either or both genders.

Hi, Scrib! Good to see you're still here! If I may throw in two cents, I think the best ways to make it clear you're celebrating the relationships rather than the religion are subtle ones. Rather than telling them over & over that it's not about the religion, you can show it in a number of ways. Obviously not going to church at the various times when you used to is one way. Another way is to select non-religious Christmas cards, preferably blank ones in which you can write your own heartfelt individualized messages to each person. I'll be interested to hear how this Christmas unfolded for you & yours.

Hi DougW and welcome to the forum. I selected the paragraph quoted above to comment on several items: (1) the idea that low price is what "saves lives." It's often not the price tag that is the real impediment, but the concern about being a guinea pig, or about spending ANY amount of money on a relatively untested substance. No matter how much testing is done prior to release, a new drug is likely to have adverse side effects that won't materialize until a vast swath of the population has ingested it and discovered them. Such side effects may be rare, but overcoming the fear that one will draw the unlucky lottery ticket means price alone isn't going to be the determining factor (within reason of course.) (2) the idea that extracting as much money as possible by charging what the market will bear is directly responsible for killing "many." Again, it is people's stubbornness against trying the new drug which will be more likely to cause their deaths, going on the assumption that the drug DOES work and WOULD work for all individuals who take it. Charging "market" rates also means having the wherewithal to deal with people who experience side effects. In addition, in respect of points 1 and 2 - people who are earning a living and who value their own lives enough to pay for a life-saving drug will do so. Why is it that so many of this kind of example always omit the fact that those without the means to purchase reasonably priced health care products are also unwilling to do anything to support their own lives? (3) the idea implicit in this kind of example that it is evil to earn huge profits, especially when alleviating human suffering or disease? This approach stems directly from the altruist concept that morality consists of sacrificing one's rights in the name of ministering to someone else's "need." Were rational selfishness prevailing, the vast majority of individuals would see it as in their own self-interest for drug companies to earn large profits (providing the drug in question actually gets the job done of course.) To resent the company and/or begrudge them the profits is to desire the unearned - to want to take the fruits of the labors of scientists & businessmen, use them to one's own profit but not be required to pay anything for them. One should not begrudge the drug company owner his profits. Whether he plows the money back into the company or not, the good thing that is the health-giving, life-saving drug is here. Remember, too, that there are two sides to every trade. Even with zero gov't b.s. & intervention, a man who develops a drug that can save millions of lives usually has invested years of his life into the project. The potential customer has the right to refuse to pay the price asked, but a smart businessman tries to price his product so that the majority of people CAN afford it. Why should that situation be interfered with in order to benefit the kind of people who won't shift themselves to support their own lives?

I'd like to know how anyone is still fooling himself that the FDIC is part of the solution.

What a sham. Just take the FDIC out back and shoot it already. Put it out of our misery. Useless crock.

As long as individuals are free NOT to join the union in order to work in a given industry or for a given employer - that is, as long as membership in the union is completely voluntary AND the union has no special rights & dispensations granted to it by law permitting it to initiate force in any way - some people may see a value in joining a union. It should be akin to joining any other voluntarily organized and formed professional group.

When the other option is "death," we'll go with the Libertards, who have been saying they think that Individual Rights and Freedoms and Boundaries, Responsibilities and Rewards {all of which are necessary and when "others" usurp for themselves the right to dictate to me and any else of us who declined to contribute to a proffered act of defense against intrusion: the government may not initiate the use of force. Its use of the retaliatory powers vested in it to use force in retaliation against its initiation render it passive, a responder, not an Initiator. Only Individual Men may initiate the process of launching a retaliatory statement of defence and claims for costs as they arise. It begins cheaply enough. With the cost of some paper, a $25 fee to register the document - and that's how we raise honest funds. People who value a potential relationship enough to register its existence, to put the government on notice of its existence and establish a defence fund from the get-go. The cost of paying a fee to register the existence of a complex trade agreement between Two Intelligent Humans (which comprise all thinking individuals who signed up to become an Individual. $25 please. In gold. Send it care of First Nations v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Torontario. I'm saying it's time to claim back that portion of Canada that belongs to those who have always valued the Individual. An Indian. * * * The deal with the Queen, so they have told is that when the case came back to Court, it was time to re-tell the story of how the Treaty was really signed. Indians were in the quest of discovering how Individuality actually worked, and we had earned a number of the first letters of the word Individual. Earning Individualhood and a chance at an island in the suns' reach, was of paramount importance. It turned out that Altruism had saved them, so the story seems to unfold. But no. A voice awoken. The men of the King who first imposed this syystem on us used force on our forebears to take from them what was theirs. That a Treaty was signed indicates that a peiod of many generations would pass before it would again come before the Court, to be decided its fate, with the World's future hanging in the balance. An individual human girlwoman of the northern Hemisphere with southern exposure x 1 + 3. Politics results as soon as you cohabit, man wit woman. As soon as you have groups of generations working well together, with things getting better and better until there is reached a point at which continuing the same path will prove disastrous. A change need be made. And it happens that whomever wants to leave is wished a safe journey. What we want is to achieve optimum freedom. That entails the recognition that the banning of coercion or "the initiation of force" is the achievement of retaliation, the only permissible use.

Did you misunderstand my post? The syllogism at that link is a good way of putting it into simpler language. *If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now. *Something exists now. *Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed. Since there never could be a time that absolutely nothing existed, "when did the Universe begin" or "how did it begin" are improper questions to ask.

Yes, the Earth's resources are technically limited. But practically speaking, we have just begun to scratch the literal surface of the planet. As has been mentioned by other posters, the free market is capable of ensuring that there is capital to exploit "more difficult to reach" deposits as well as help drive research & innovation to find new ways to satisfy old desires. There is no real fear of running out of anything; there is only the manufactured hysteria driven by the desire of those who desire the unearned. If you wish to invest your time & resources in "sustainability" that should be your prerogative. It should be the prerogative of those who don't see the point of composting, recycling and all kinds of "footprint reduction schemes" to carry on doing what they are doing. One more thing: while you don't mention it in your long posts, you must be fully aware that government intervention is currently being used to enforce the sustainability scenarios. Without legislation forcing us to sort garbage, recycle, stop using this and start using that -- would or could any of these "green" industries actually flourish on their own merits? Why do they need the government crutch? What does that tell you about them? People are quick to spot a bargain, you know. If these green products made honest sense, they wouldn't need to be chaperoned into our lives by government fiat & legislative strong-arm tactics.

I will join this shortly.

Postulating theories about things which can exist, but for which there is as yet little or even no evidence, is quite a different activity from postulating theories about the axiomatically impossible. One cannot properly theorize about the origin/beginning of the Universe because such an event cannot exist. *** The meaning of the term "Universe" has gone through a series of reference points- Earth, Solar System, Galaxy, etc. But that does not mean the Universe itself changed. Rather, our knowledge and understanding of it changed.

Applause!! Lovely poem, Dan. Thanks for posting it here.

Maybe someone alerted them to the fact that just because we suddenly noticed its existence, does not mean it hasn't always been there, and they shut the hell up.

Impartial = Unbiased, treating or affecting all equally Objective = Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices Zachary, I think you may be making an error in your thinking. A judge viewing the facts as presented by both sides isn't going to REMAIN impartial in the sense of continuing to treat both sides equally all the way to the end. It stands to reason that to do so would be grossly unfair. After reviewing the evidence, a judge acting rationally is going to find the facts and decide the issues. He or she will almost always decide in favor of one or other of the parties. A 50-50 split is rare; usually one side or the other has made an error or misinterpreted a contractual provision or just is in the wrong. A just decision is one that is objectively supported by the evidence. By what standard do you assert that "man is imperfect?" War is not profitable to mankind - it is destructive. What do you mean by this???? As for the BEST protection, it is rationality and the embrace of rational self-interest. What must be discarded immediately is the shaky foundation of altruism which serves only those who seek to sacrifice others.

Hmm. Well, a military is either voluntarily funded or it is not. There should be no need to qualify with quotes or without. In fact, putting the word "voluntary" in quotes is much worse, since it implies that people will be given a choice AND THEN they'll be taxed anyway. If you are going to use the term, at least put the word "taxation" into quotes, so as to signify that it's not a real tax. This is preferable to insinuating that the costs are not really voluntary, which is what you are saying when you put quotes around that word "voluntary."

Hi Zachary. I quoted just this opening statement, after your eye-opening quotation re the relationship between war and the state (which I may discuss later.) What I want to take issue with here is your assertion that the limitation of the state is intended to achieve the ideal of "nothingness." It is not. There must always be the structure of government. The laws, and a means to settle honest disputes between and among men. Even if there came a day when ALL the peoples of the world could live in harmony and the need for massive armed forces to engage in war activity were reduced to zero, men are not omniscient. The ideal government/state is one that has very little to do, certainly but that does not mean that people would not require the mechanism to deal with honest disputes and disagreements. The justice system is a cornerstone of the ideal government. Having a police force to enforce judgments and orders of the courts is also necessary. Maintaining a "skeleton staff" army/navy is the ideal, on account of there being no need to engage in war. This is looking very far into the future. Perhaps even hundreds or thousands of years. Since it is not likely to come to pass soon, free countries need armed forces to deal with unfree countries, who are intent on invading or starting wars. One thing I will say to Axiomatic: I reject the terminology of "voluntary taxation" (or wherever you want to put the quote marks. Taxation means coercive financing. While proper government does have to be paid for, its costs should be shouldered voluntarily by those to whom it matters. Ideally everyone would want to chip in, but one of the best ways to prevent a government from over-stepping the boundaries is by compelling it to raise funds from voluntary contributors for its projects and activities. In that way it must "sell" the project to the populace, convincing them with reason & sound argument as to why they should help pay. When the population is free to choose whether or not to fund a given war, military action, or what-have-you, the likelihood of bad wars is reduced.

Hi Kira, thank you for telling us about your novel. I hope it is published soon. I look forward to checking out your website.

Perhaps we should say "allegedly cause a whole host of problems." It seems to me that people have become even more stupid and irrational ever since women stopped drinking & smoking during pregnancy.

Wow. So close and yet... so far. Actually, birth is the PERFECT place. It's an elegant and highly satisfactory dividing line between entity with no rights and individual human with rights. That the infant's level of dependency on others has changed very little does not detract from the fact that its level of dependency HAS changed. Birth happens when the fetus has finished growing and is ready to be born. The idea that there needs to be a set number of months, days, weeks & hours at which every human fetus is declared a human individual with rights is absurd. There are very good reasons for a woman to wish to retain the right to terminate a pregnancy in its late stages. One of them is to terminate an ectopic pregnancy. Another is if the fetus is developing abnormally or with genetic defects and she does not wish to take on the onerous and lifelong responsibility of raising such a child, it is and ought to be her right to terminate the pregnancy. You people who prattle about the rights of fetuses make me sick. It's a charade of caring, a masquerade, an act. Quit your posturing. You don't give a good goddam about living human adults, whose lives you are perfectly willing to destroy and throttle in your insane obsession with dictating to others how we may live our lives.

Concise answer: No, assuming you're speaking of more initiation of force by government. There is no justification for any initiation of force by anyone against others. In this particular case (in respect of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide), follow your suggestion through to the logical conclusion. Would you kill yourself to save the planet? That is what is being asked of people now. Now, let's step back and agree that you have accepted that you may not initiate force or incite the government to initiate force on your behalf in order to "change the climate." What can you do, indeed what can anyone do? Having decided that you take issue with a particular company's methods of production, you can boycott the products that company makes. You can put efforts into telling others why they should do the same. Voting with your wallet is the proper way to send your message that you dislike the company's methods of production. If you are correct in your assessment, others will join you and the message will get through. Heh, even if you are wrong others may well join you. The company can decide whether it values your business or not, whether it thinks you raise a valid issue or not. Trying to go back in time to more primitive methods of production, when done at the point of a gun by government, is in my view worse than whatever pollutants may be being produced. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; ask yourself why so much effort is being poured into convincing people to agree to control and/or reduce the amount of it we expel. For all their noise about making it a "greener world," the eco-tards seem contradictory in this arena. Did I miss something?

Here are a few that may not have been mentioned yet, which I've enjoyed watching several times: The African Queen, starring Humphrey Bogart & Katherine Hepburn. War picture made in 1951. As the online blurb describes it, "In Africa during WW1, a gin-swilling riverboat owner/captain is persuaded by a strait-laced missionary to use his boat to attack an enemy warship." The main characters' relationship and its development is central to the movie's enjoyability, but I also enjoy all the obstacles they overcome to achieve their goal. This is one of the few Hepburn movies I really like. Very much worth seeing if you never have. Withnail & I, starring Richard E. Grant, Paul McGann and Richard Griffiths, made in 1987. Two out of work actors in 1969 London finagle a weekend in the country at an uncle's cottage. Hilarious movie, fabulous soundtrack. One of my all time favorites. Produced by George Harrison's company Handmade Films. All The President's Men. Robert Redford & Dustin Hoffman. Still enjoying watching the sleuthing of the two reporters as they broke the story of Watergate. Highly rewatchable film. Blues Brothers, John Belushi & Dan Akroyd. Love the music, love Belushi. Still hilarious even though the plot revolves around getting the money to pay the taxes on the guys' orphanage. Hunt for Red October, another great Sean Connery, and I like Alec Baldwin in this. Russia/US cold war/submarine movie. Beetlejuice. Funniest movie about the afterlife, ever! Alec Baldwin & Geena Davis star as a recently deceased couple who seek help on dealing with their situation. The Handbook for the Recently Deceased reads like stereo instructions! I second the recommendations for: Chocolat Pirates of the Caribbean (the whole set) Braveheart (love this movie. Depicts good reasons for fighting for freedom) Rear Window (sleuthing story starring James Stewart and Grace Kelly is so rewatchable.) Twelve Angry Men (terrific jury room story. Get the original version but the remake is also quite good) I also enjoyed and have rewatched The Fountainhead and We The Living a number of times, and recommend them. There are loads more - I'll add when I've more time.

Altruism. The government routinely claims to be doing what it's doing for "the sake of others." It doesn't matter whether actual good is achieved - the claim can and is routinely made. That is how it gets away with daylight robbery. On the other hand, the thief's actions cannot be portrayed as altruistic. He is what is routinely referred to as "behaving selfishly."

The next time someone says something like that to me, I shall respond, "Because I am willing to work for it and I earn it. Why don't you want to do the same?"

In the New York Times July 18 Comparing the Health Care Bills This is going to cause even more bankruptcies and businesses going overseas. It's insane. These aren't people, they're barbarians.