AndrewRyan

It's not vigilantism, it defense of property.

--It's evolutionarily advantagous to have the parental/child bond. --Those terms are used to describe famial relationships. They don't mean much past that. --I actually do not love most of my family as they are more like strangers. I feel no unconditional love for someone because we share similiar genetic material. --see above --They would be strangers, and I'd have no reason to seek them out. --Children carry on a name only. You can't live forever through your children. They just carry on a name and a memory. I hope you don't consider any of these answers to be rude or flip. This topic has been discussed A LOT with rl friends, family members, and a therapist so the answers are fresh in my mind.

I would like to see more Libertarians integrate into the Republican party. Then again, look what happened with Ron Paul.

Congratulations!

I happened to see a poll on the O'Reilly Factor that showed that most Americans prefer Capitalism over socialism. It's from FNC so take it with a grain of salt. This, and the spike in AS sales, makes me hope maybe Americans are starting to come around.

You have my attention. As for symbols, after thinking for awhile, I really don't think Objectivism needs one. Isn't "Who's John Galt?" iconic enough?

These seem like cheesey psa's. I could hardly pay attention since the speaker looked like he was bathed in light.

That would make for an amusing joke.

A fetus is not yet a human being. A fetus does not have rights because it is a developemental stage of human developement. If you are seriously argueing that a fetus has rights for that reason, why don't you extend that right to eggs and sperm as well? So using spermacide or the pill is murder as well correct? Your argument is flawed because you are equating life with human life. They are not the same thing.

This is a topic and post from another forum. I just wanted to post to see how I could improve my arguments. OP: "well....I think piracy in some contexts is fine and in others not so much with downloading video games I think it's fine if it's older video games that would be difficult to play legally, but downloading new video games that you can easily obtain (just have to spend a little money for) I don't think is right, but even then there are a few exceptions (best example would be Spore, because of the DRM EA put in it I think it was karma that it got downloaded so much) with downloading movies I generally don't think you should do it because most movies are easily found (and not really all that expensive) and I defiantly don't think you should try to download a movie that's already in theaters, but there's exceptions also, for example I've downloaded a few movies that I couldn't rent on Netflix, but didn't want to pay full price to buy off of Amazon and lastly with music well what I do is this, I pay for Rhapsody, but whatever music Rhapsody doesn't have I get elsewhere, that seems fine to me one thing though is I think corporations that complain about piracy drastically hurting their sales are full of shit (the music industry, the movie industry etc etc), while piracy may hurt some sales I think they blow it how of proportion (waaaaaaay out of proportion)" ME: "Me personally I like to go around taking 5 dollar bills out of people's wallets. I figure $5 wont hurt them all that badly. Besides, they probably make a lot more money than what I'm taking." So my question, is there an argument that would be more effective than sarcasm? BTW, this forum is pretty hostile to objectivist ideas.

According to google, it's not a word.

I don't think China would take too kindly to N. Korea being blown off the map.

I have that John Galt shirt. In relation to this thread though, I see far too many people with dollar signs on their jewelry or clothing that are clearly not objectivists. You can be sure that anyone with anything reading "Who is John Galt?" is most likely one of three things: a) an objectivist, a libertarian c) a Ron Paul supporter

Unreasonable politicians....surely you jest?? Bush doesn't see Islam as evil b/c he is a religious man, albeit a different religion. As for Japan, they appear to be doing just fine for a nation that had Western values forced on them.

I think the 1st ammendment only applies to US domestic policy. It would be a good idea to write your Congressmen and Senators to complain though.

LOL UN resolutions. Hopefully it will be ignored like most of what the UN does.

I have met several of those people, and I could convince all but one to read the bible. The one that refused to read the bible , but insisted he believed in the christian god was a very funny case. The conversation went like this: me: You're telling me you believe in a supreme god with no reasoning behind it, but you wont believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or aliens? him: None of those things have proof though. I have the Bible (points to his bible). me: Have you read that f@*&ing book? him: No, I don't need to read it to know it's the word of God. me: him: :some rediculous face there isn't a smiley for: me: Do you know all the stories? Do you believe those? him: Well no, those don't make sense. me: But it's the word of "God" so they must be true. him: You're just trying to cause trouble. You need help. Leave me alone. me:

"The only way you are qualified to make this argument is if you are willing to rebel against your own government."-The Wrath I am willing to rebel against my government. I haven't because the government hasn't presented me with a situation where I would not be able to live my life yet.

Well that certainly make things clearer for me. Thank you for pointing out my errors.

"If I own a widget, Smith wants to buy the widget because it's crucial to his goal of building a veblitzer, but instead I elect to sell it to Jones, does my action interfere with Smith's right to build a veblitzer? What definition of "interfere" are you assuming that would say that this is not "interfering"?" To the first question, no it does not. Smith should offer more money, attempt to purchase the widget from Jones, or build one himself. I'm not violating Smith's rights by exercising my property rights and doing whatever I want with my property. It would only be interfering if I somehow prevented him from buying another widget through fraud or force. "So do you take "a right" to be primary and force is defined as "anything that violates a right"? We had that discussion here recently." Individual rights are primary to other concerns, and yes force is anything that violates a right. "But that implies that Rand was mistaken when she said "All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative" and "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws." " I'm not sure how anything I wrote implies Ayn Rand was mistaken. I agree with both those statements, and my statement "I can then conclude that laws in an LFC system are NOT force or coercion as they do not violate rights" doe not contradict either of Rand's statements.

We could say since these people do not respect their right to life, or other's right to life they themselves have no right to live. A defense of your rights is never a "sacrifice." Arguing that a person doesn't have a responsibility to defend their life is making the argument that people are not responsible for the their rights or the choices they make.

I was debating with myself how best to solve JeffS' confusion on this subject when I came to the realization of what force/coercion is. I thought about what rights are, and i know rights are anything that I can freely do WITHOUT interfering in another individuals rights. For example, I have a right to live, as my existence does not prevent another individual from existing. I conclude that an initiation of force/coercion is anything that violates a RIGHT. I can then conclude that laws in an LFC system are NOT force or coercion as they do not violate rights. Then, I reasoned that no matter how much a person claims the existence of laws constitutes force/coercion is irrelevant. This argument is irrelevant because no LFC law violates any individuals right. Claiming that this argument is the same as the "if you have nothing to hide" argument is false. Individuals do have privacy rights and government spying in the form of a law would constitute as exercising force/coercion against an individual's rights. The only conclusion is that laws in an LFC system are not an initiation of force/coercion. To continue claiming that they are is to say that murder/mugging/fraud/theft/rape/what have you are all rights. As I mentioned those cannot be rights as an individual cannot murder/mug/fraud/steal/rape/what have you WITHOUT violating another individual's rights.

Which is why I said "it depends." I do not believe murder and self defense are the same thing. I do know however, several people that believe killing is murder regardless of the circumstance.

You would be surprised how many states have tried or are trying to secede since the Civil War. There is a movement in Texas to secede and there is also a movement in northern Michigan to secede.

I meant correct on the first assumption, that I believe religion to be evil. As for murder it depends on what you mean. Premeditated murder or murder in passion is never correct. However murder used as self-defense is just. Retaliatory murder (capital punishment) would be just IF we lived under objective law and IF the jury could know 100% as to a persons guilt.