AllMenAreIslands

I'm just replying to one point. I may return to reply in full later over the weekend. (Must get ready for work in a moment.) Since she did not consent to the sex, the woman retains her rights. But if she does consent to the sex, she loses her rights? What I said earlier stands. I said, QUOTE The effect of all you have said, since you are willing to grant an abortion if the woman did not enjoy the sex because she was raped, but because she did enjoy the sex, i.e., had consensual sex and we are assuming enjoyed it - that woman loses the right to direct the course of her life - is evil. Then you said And my problem with your position stands. Do not assume I'm being cavalier about rape. I would never be, having experienced that horrible act myself. But what I understand is that in your view, the woman only retains the right to direct the course of her life/decide what to do with her body if the sex is forced on her. If she consents to the sex and conceives, the woman loses her right to terminate the pregnancy. How is that moral, just, rational? How about if she (or he) were using protection such as condoms, IUD, birth control pills, or whatever - and that protection failed? Obviously the couple were not intending to conceive/were taking actions to prevent conception. What is your position on that?

When government has the right to confiscate our wealth & income on their whim, to that extent we are slaves. It becomes a matter of degree, but no government is currently refraining from such policies (wealth confiscation.) Very thin line with "pro-active" measures. We need some examples but I can't think of any just yet. Have to come back to this point. Capitalism has it has been tried so far has NOT been pursued on that basis, which is why it didn't last. Close, but no cigar. The fact that both taxation and slavery were included from the beginning should tell you that. So, slavery was fought over and finally removed from the legal set-up, to be replaced with income taxes (making slaves of everyone, not just one race.) Here's an interesting article from the Mises Institute. http://mises.org/story/372

But that is exactly the current situation!!!! Protection is neither implicit nor explicit. "Recognition" of rights is contained in The Constitution and Bill of Rights. The means to abridge rights is at the same time also provided for, i.e., legal permission to abridge those rights via taxation.

Jake, what I'm concerned about is pro-active measures enacted in the name of "preventing crime," but which actually turn out to be just more of the usual government intervention. Proper government intervention would in fact be a police officer coming upon a crime in progress, and preventing it from continuing. I think it's important to define what we mean by "preventing" crime," don't you? Protection and Recognition are two different concepts, Myself.

Re a blockade, I think it would make a great deal more sense if the individual citizens were left to decide that issue. A proper government acts only in retaliation against those who initiate the use of force. Should a foreign government just "step in" and do anything? How about leaving it up to the individual citizens to decide? Why can't you freely trade weapons of mass destruction? I thought that's what they've been doing all these years! Since when is Capitalism based on the protection of individual rights? Capitalism requires a proper foundation that respects individual rights but I thought that was the job of a proper government - to protect individual rights so that people could engage in peaceful production and trade.

No, but that is still a "reaction" by the police to a crime-in-progress. The usual concept of crime-prevention is much more pro-active and tends to involve invasive legislation, or hadn't you noticed? But could you be prosecuted for dealing with a thief (i.e., your question of whether you have a right to deal with a thief or not)? I thought that's where we were going with that point. Part of one's income predictably stolen is a new way to say legalized theft. The systematization of coercion in financial, business and moral matters draws ever closer to 100% slavery. Let's see... definition of slavery. "Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others." The "forced labor" part remains unrealized (although doesn't it seem like something that will be coming along soon), the government's general attitude towards its citizens resembles the attitude of an owner toward slaves. As in, our earnings and wealth are its property to do with as it likes. I do think it's foolhardy to kid ourselves that we're further from 100% slavery rather than drawing closer to it. It might help to wake people up. Rather than congratulate ourselves on how much better we are than Cuba, it's time to start realizing just how SIMILAR to the Communists we have become.

An embargo is yet another intervention by government into the economy. I do not support it. No, actually it does not have that right. The idea that the Law should ban the initiation of force has definitely been mentioned, but so far it's not an actuality. Even if it were in place, it is not the same as preventing crime from being committed; it can only identify that act as illegal and provide for punishment in the event someone goes ahead and commits the offense anyway. And how do you establish that the person you are dealing with is the true owner? In law, it would have to be proven that you had to know you were dealing with a thief. But here again we run into the same problem everywhere. ALL governments everywhere have established themselves as legalized thieves. This is why I said that the US government can't be holding itself higher than other "slave owner" governments. There is SOME difference between the different governments, but on the issue of which ones are misappropriating assets and treating their citizens like slaves, they are ALL guilty.

Okay, you do have a point there and it is a difference worth mentioning. I had forgotten that point, was not being wilfully blind. However, given all of the million other intrusions into people's daily lives both morally & financially, with a lot more on the way thanks to Barack Insane Obama, I won't be surprised if that bit of freedom is also gone soon. It's a nice dream but I do not agree that the US can still be turned around peacefully. Very few people understand the reason for which we should abolish the tax system in its entirety and repeal the mountain of garbage masquerading as a legal system. In addition, those who benefit from the system as it is will put up quite a fight.

Yes. Once a government gets to the point that the US government is now at, where is the real difference between it and the rest of the hoodlums?

Those seeds WERE the norm for all previous forms of government. That's why slavery and taxation were built in from the get-go. Such behavior should have been left behind. Clearly it is not enough to spout a lot of freedom-loving rhetoric if the foundation includes the same old same old (i.e. the right to employ coercion AT ALL.) As for the Sheria Law - I'm sure there are people who think it is evil.

I don't think the US in its present form has the right to advocate the imposition of trade embargoes on anyone. It's just as guilty of violating its citizens' rights. But let's say things changed and suddenly there was a proper government in place. Would it have the right to prohibit trade? I say no. The decision on whom to trade with should be in the hands of the individuals doing the trading.

You can't forget something that you never knew in the first place. America was the most free country there has yet been, but it wasn't the most free possible. The seeds of its current downhill course were planted at the beginning and have always been there. However, because it is the best country so far, the idea is embedded that whatever it does is right. If America employs coercion that somehow means it will achieve results, even though every other previous "great nation" which rose to prosperity yet is no longer a super-power, fell due to the use of coercion.

Thanks also to FQ and Plasmatic for your responses. I will go back to the drawing board and come up with something that addresses your issues while at the same time keeping it as simple as possible.

For example: The Microsoft situation. The word "force" is often misused like this. Because there is only one supplier, or only one reputable supplier of a given item, it is said that users are "forced" to deal with that supplier. It would only be true if the government was deducting a set amount from users' paycheques regardless of whether the user even owned a computer. See for example school taxes which are forced on everyone regardless of whether they have school-age children, or even have children at all. In the Microsoft situation, one has a number of options, such as developing one's own software/hardware, waiting for someone else to develop it, finding a completely different way to get the job done. One is NOT compelled by law to pay Microsoft for the item in question, regardless of whether one even has a computer. THAT would be an example of being forced to deal with Microsoft. Natural disaster. Nature is not another human being. Prohibiting the initiation of force is a law to govern the interactions of human beings, not acts of nature. If your choice of habitat is destroyed by a hurricane, a flood, tornado, etc., you have to either accept it and find somewhere else to live, figure out how to make your home withstand those conditions, or just rebuild the same home and suffer the same consequence. "Forced" to work. Yes, everyone has to work. It is the nature of life that individuals have to perform work in order to live. Every infant must learn how to use his senses, how to recognize sounds and scribbles as language, how to use his mind and his body. And so it continues. Individuals of all ages have to perform "work" of one kind or another, no matter what resources they have at their disposal (e.g., being born into a "rich" family does not make it any easier for an infant to learn how to focus his eyes!)

I agree - a full definition of "initiation of force" is required. How much information is too much information, tho? We have people demanding redress now for those things. What is wrong with grabbing their attention and answering their questions as they think of them? I know my idea here is leaving a lot of information unproffered. The point is to get into people's minds with something attention-grabbing. To make them perk up and ask questions.

In self-defense!

No we don't need to establish the entire philosophy. I do not care if other people become Objectivists. It is not necessary. All that is necessary is that enough people agree to abide by the law banning coercion and the initiation of force. That is ALL that need be achieved here. People who agree to go set up communes may do so as long as they do not use coercion. People who want to carry on believing in God and going to church are free to do so. The point is not to change any belief or establish any political idea except this one - that NO ONE CAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE. If we narrow the focus of the campaign to the most basic requirement that our system needs to flourish, we have a much better chance of succeeding.

Yes, that is part of it, Plasmatic. There is a great deal less baggage attached to the word "individualism." It's unfortunate but nevertheless true that "Capitalism" or "Capitalist Party" would tend to evoke a knee-jerk negative response in people. While WE know that what we mean is "laissez-faire capitalism," a lot of people automatically think of the U.S. and let's face it, their track record is NOT good, overall. They have tainted the word & the concept in too many people's minds. They blew it. Their version has a bad reputation and we aren't going to change people's minds. By focusing on the idea that this NEW political party is about securing Individual Rights, I think we have a better chance of attracting more supporters. All the other parties are "group-oriented," and they have all failed to achieve prosperity & peace. Individualism would be about banning coercion between and among human beings, and securing a peaceful environment in which everyone who abides by rational law can pursue their individual goals. This may be Capitalism ver 2.0, but calling it capitalism unfortunately won't help to achieve it.

I'll stop you right there. "Taxation" is a method of funding that employs coercion, so I would not even use the term "taxation" to describe the kind of funding method that would be proper to a rational government. "Voluntary taxation" is a contradiction in terms.

There we go! You did it! That is exactly what a fetus (or foetus) is. One of the developmental stages of human life. I am agreeing with you and thanking you for finally adding something to the conversation which it was lacking. There are many stages of development of human life. Perhaps you are correct, if I were a cannibal. Let us consider at what point a child ought to acquire safety from being eaten by its parents. Since I've only just allowed that thought into my consciousness, I'll have to think on it a while. Should people have the right to make babies in order to have food? This is a very valid question, as you'll have already noted from my post in response to your previous comment. These are good questions actually. Thought-provoking. Is the line drawn in the wrong place for a lot of things? Perhaps children aged 6 - or 4, or 3 or at whatever age the infant/toddler/child has proven itself possessed of a functioning rational faculty - it's at that age an individual proves he is a human being and not just a piece of human life. Wrong. That was the olden days before people understood and mastered surgery. It is absolutely possible to enjoy sex and not have to have children. I think your attitude is self-defeating. If those who support the freedom not to have abortions would only see that they must join with those who support the freedom to have them... Sex was made to be enjoyable to keep the species going, i.e., to keep people having sex before they figured out how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The ability to solve the problem of unwanted children is much more tidily handled by altering the internal organs so that conception is impossible, instead of having abortions. However, some people don't want to do that. Freedom to direct the course of one's life means just that. At what point ought individuals to acquire their rights to life and why? - good topic. Why NOT older than birth? Would it be different for each individual? Is there another line at which it ought to be drawn? Having and enjoying sex is one of the benefits of modern-day surgery. My desire for sex without the particular consequence of children, yes. I solved the problem eventually by having a tubal ligation. No more pregnancies = no more abortions. Yes, absolutely. Well said. Except for the illogical and irrational parts. I have a right to enjoy my sexuality. And yes, thanks to modern medicine, I may do so without the natural consequences. Absolutely. You mean, you don't expect her to. The fetus doesn't expect anything. You know what that leads to, don't you? People agreeing with each other to call it "rape" - oh, how about a law passed that will permit men to rape their wives, so there can be more incidences of rape and thereby more easy access to abortion? Since it's a rape and all... This serves to hide the true rapes behind the consensual sex. It does nothing more than hide the true crime by making the crime legal. If a pregnancy is unwanted, the woman's right to terminate it exists up to the point of birth. Once that cord is cut, the individual is born and acquires rights. As to whether parents ought to have the right to have babies in order to grow their own food supplement, well, I guess we'll need a new thread for that one. There you go. That's the loophole everyone uses. No, not that simple. This is what I meant by saying that you treat kids as a punishment for having sex. You would punish the person and deny a bodily function to that person by the fact that a child might be conceived. That is intrusion by the State - by government - into the workings of a human being's body. This is why the issue separate entity is brought into it. If that woman doesn't want that child, having Individual Rights means it is her decision on whether to put scarce resources into the growth of that infant. The cost of food, the time lost from work - the bare bones resources needed to sustain her during the maturation of the embryo into a live baby... at the most basic level of survival - where it's just her and her mate and Nature. Having enough food to eat, enough time to gather fuel and food ... in the olden days maybe having a baby meant having food. The moral way for humans to live is to be able to support a child, to have the basics accounted for. In fact, I expect that it was a lot harder to propagate the species in the olden days. You know, caveman days. Back before there was religion and it was just a couple of people wandering around together. It's a known fact that a woman's period will stop if she isn't eating enough. So, it's quite possible that being fertile and able to conceive so easily is a more recent phenomenon, speaking cosmically. The length of time our species struggled to achieve such fertility, and the speed with which we have achieved it is due to becoming ever more true to our natures - i.e., rational. So, what is the rational thing to do here? Should parents have the right to eat their young, if hyperinflation destroys our economy and we are returned to a state of caveman days, living in caves 30 floors up, without electricity and having so little food to eat that people get pregnant to have an occasional meal of protein? Or do you get your way and abortions are banned, but then along comes an OPT guy who says the population on Earth is twice the number it should be and everyone are then forced to have abortions if they conceive a second child? See how easy it is to get from "ban abortions" to "ban second kids and force abortions on disobeyers" ? Freedom to direct the course of YOUR life protects both of us, those who support abortion and those who don't. The right to one's own life is what we BOTH need. The right to be free from coercion is what human beings need. That is what you need to fight for, not for the right to force your views on me. It is a bit of protoplasm. I already explained to you why it cannot have rights. You care only for the rights of those who do not exist, not for the rights of those who do. You refuse to acknowledge that modern medicine has enabled our species to separate procreation and sex. It is not necessary to have a child just because you enjoyed sex. The effect of all you have said, since you are willing to grant an abortion if the woman did not enjoy the sex because she was raped, but because she did enjoy the sex, i.e., had consensual sex and we are assuming enjoyed it - that woman loses the right to direct the course of her life - is evil.

The Individualist Political Party will cause new countries to come into existence. The U.S. and Canada, to the extent their governments need to raise cash, ought to consider selling chunks of land hitherto considered undevelopable, and let a country start up from scratch, in which those who advocate the LFC system can be free to try it properly. I'll write to Mark Burnett and give him first right of refusal, since it's a survival show of another kind.

By ths question I mean, should it be branded in people's minds in connection with the name of a philosophy or rather, in the name of a new political party? Think about it. Every other system of government has been group-oriented. This is the first one to be indivdiual-oriented. The goal of Capitalists, Objectivists, Libertarianists and free-spirited as the Left (i.e., those who left what was demanded be considered right when it was wrong) are of course originally what was life on earth up to now. Now, the Individualists are standing up to be counted, and finding themselves numbering in the thousands here and there, yet poised to put the question to the world, as we are, and I say take a moment to consider the evidence. We have Objectivism - the philosophy that combined the best in each area of human existence comprising ethical, epistemological, methodological, political and aesthetic. The result has to be a new system of political governance in which the needs of the Individual are what is protected by Law. The political party that will get this done needs a new name. Individualism.

A fetus is not a human being. No, we do not have the right to dispose of newborns. It is not abusive to terminate a pregnancy. I do not extend all rights of rational adults to children. A child should not and currently does not have the right to make decisions for himself. Protecting the child's right to life does not follow that all rights accruing to adults accrue to children. You have not read even this page of answers, have you? This question has already been addressed. Not true. Except you ignore the rights of the woman involved if you select any point before birth. Once born, the newborn acquires rights, even though it is still yet unable to exercise its rational faculties. When a fetus is accorded rights, then the woman carrying that fetus loses hers. She becomes a slave to the reproductive function. How is that not a punishment? How is that right??? As has been pointed out many times, accepting the responsibility for one's actions does not mean being forced to take a particular course of action (in this case, have a child.) What about in cases of rape? What about in cases of harm to the woman's health? Are you going to allow these exceptions? Who is to decide if the woman herself does not have the right to decide the course of her life? The point of drawing the line at birth is to ensure that the rights of everyone involved are respected. Living people are not sacrificed to the non-living, whether they are dead or unborn. You advocate the sacrifice of the rights of the woman in favor of the alleged rights of the unborn. No. Okay. The right of the woman to direct the course of her life - to have three children or to have three abortions - rests on the recognition that it is HER RIGHT to HER LIFE and what she wants to do with it. It is not for others to dictate to her, on behalf of the State or on behalf of the unborn. If the law is passed forcing the woman to have an abortion or forcing her not to have an abortion, it is the same thing. Her rights are being sacrificed for the views and opinions of others. There is a rational reason for which a fetus should not have rights. It is an either/or situation. The fetus having rights means the woman does not. Two adults both have rights to their life. The Law of Human Interaction states that neither may initiate the use of force against the other. So, each person can deal with the other only by means of reason, logic, persuasion. If one person cannot convince the other to buy his product, or work with him towards a particular goal, then those two people won't be able to trade. But their rights to direct the course of their respective lives will remain intact. Every fetus has to depend on the voluntary choice of the woman to go through with the pregnancy. Asking both. Is it easy for the anti-abortion side? I think the answer would involve who is paying for the upkeep and care of the fetus. Refer to what Rational Biker just said. You demonstrate the usual failing of one who refuses to acknowledge the rights of the living, or rather, to wipe out the rights of the living in order to grant rights to the non-living. Your view that the creation of a fetus/embryo necessitates that it MUST be born means that the view of the woman involved is of no consequence. Hence, her rights are wiped out.

Thanks for your answers, Thomas. I do hope you find someone who will be your new best friend; perhaps that person is already here, or will show up at this site next week, or at an Objectivist gathering.

Just linguistics, eh? Is the underlying concept the same? I am not sure I agree with you. Does "self-interest" or "self-sustained, self-generated" carry as much baggage as "selfish"? If not, why not? As for your last point (about equivocation), you're probably right. I was groping towards an idea that would represent the next step. There are a lot of questions that people have about Objectivism. What do the answers that people offer at this site, for example, represent? Is the act of taking what Ayn Rand said and trying to explain to the questioners actually part of Objectivism, or is it a step towards the development of the next step in philosophy? As I said in my previous post, I think Individualism would be a great name for a philosophy. It could also be a great name for a political movement. It represents to me the logical next step.