Mr. Wynand

*** Mod's note: Merged into earlier topic. - sn *** I've been trying to understand exactly what net neutrality is, but every explanation is vague. I know it would bring regulation to the internet, but what kind?

I haven't studied him much, but he seems like someone that shouldn't be overlooked. I don't think he's ever said anything philosophically inconsistent, (except about God, but c'mon everyone did back then). And He was a runaway slave that educated himself. Sounds like an Ayn Rand hero. What do you think?

What do you think of him?

Personally I have taken unemployment benefits for months, but recently I got a job which satisfies my material wants. Even with this job, I still qualified for the benefits. Even though I am justified in taking the money, I really don't see the point, especially when I can be happy with solely the sweat of my brow. I may be wrong in my reasoning but I don't think that taking the "free" money will give me any dignity. If a dignified person is someone who values and respects himself, where does his self-value and self-respect originate? It can only be from himself, and taking wealth (that you earned but you must be unemployed to receive) isn't a way that you can build yourself into who you would like to be, at least financially and career wise.

Is it moral to take unemployment insurance?

But to what extent should the government prevent criminals from acquiring firearms? Should they have forced registration, so they can track the illegal use of guns, or just a simple background check that they wouldn't be allowed to keep record of? Or maybe something else?

Let's suppose that you knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon from your own personal collection I.e. You are not a professional gun dealer, and that felon commits a crime with the purchased gun. Should you be liable in any way? Does a felon have a right to defend himself, or has he forfeited that right by being a felon? Should the government be involved in the transaction of firearms? I think that is the real question. (and by felon I mean a convicted violent criminal)

Objectivists hold that government financing should be voluntary. However, voluntary taxation is the last step in creating a free nation. I believe it was Ayn Rand who came up without the idea of having a voluntary enforcement fee be the option of every transaction, so that if paid, the government would enforce the contract and if not, they simply would not. She also mentioned a lottery to help pay for government functions. I see no problem with private protection agencies that only react in self defense to their clients' individual rights. Hiring such an agency to respond to a direct threat on your life is acceptable. If I am not mistaken, I believe that we already have a loose system of private courts. When two people have a dispute, they may go to a mediator, who gives his legal opinion on the case which is not legally binding, or an arbitrator, whose decision is actually legally binding. You would have to ask a lawyer how this works exactly. I remember hearing something about it in a business course. I believe that this is also in line with Objectivist principles.

The following is a string of my thought. Keep in mind I did not edit at all, and I know little on the subject. Let me know what you think: If a child is "out of control", then does any kind of uncontrollable behavior mean it is okay to medicate him? In what situations are drugs okay? In which are they not? Does having something wrong with you constitute the use of drugs? What is the principle behind the use of drugs? If a child is merely a nuisance, or is the test if he is a constant threat to the life, liberty, and property of himself or others? A "normal" child will not make the same intentional or negligent mistake more than a few times, but a "problem" child will act without remorse for his injurious actions. Therefore, is it moral too make medication to the misfit, like prison for the criminal?

I've always been fond of the story (not sure if it's true) of Reagan and Gorbechev. The Russian Premiere was criticizing America as a communist would, and Reagan responded by saying something like "How many people die trying to get into your country? Oh, that's right! They die trying to get out!"

Thank you. You've all been helpful. I think that I have to explain to him what a logical argument actually means and entails. I always have a hard time with this because I am not well versed in philosophy. Any suggestions?

My friend recently said that he would die for anyone out of love. I tried to explain the nature of love, that it is conditional and that it means to value above all others. I tried to say that his statement was a contradiction, because if love means to value above all else, then how can you value everyone above everyone else? I tried to explain that your life is your highest value because it is the source of values. I'd prefer not to state what he said as a response. Just think of what an evil Ayn Rand character would say, mainly dangerous rationalizations. The more I tried to explain the more rationalizations he used. Are there any arguments I haven't used? And is it even worth it to continue arguing?

What a terrible article. It reminds me of how the Communist Manifesto pretended to be sophisticated, but it was just really boring. It amounts to a professor calling a young student "naive" as if that will defeat him.

Are they legitimate?

Sorry to bring up this question. It probably is mentioned in a million other threads, but should it be illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?

Good points and yes it is.

Okay that makes sense. Group free speech wouldn't be moral if people who didn't agree were forced into the same group. But that has to do with the morality of force, not the morality of the right to free speech. As when we talk about the poor quality of public schools, we don't talk about how we can make them better, we talk about how they can be discontinued.

Notice that MLK doesn't go into specifics when he has a "good" quote. This is what the "libertarian socialist" or "democratic socialist" believes: that man should be free to do what he wishes as long as he isn't "greedy" and that "greed" should be regulated by the government. They think that what they deem to be "excess" is the reason for all ills in the world. Much like the "gray" area that somehow happily allows the combination of individualism and collectivism. George Orwell is the same kind of paradox.

Does a group such as a union or corporation deserve the same right to free speech as an individual? If a worker is forced to join a union if he works in any given industry, isn't it the equivalent of theft if the union uses his union dues to fund a commercial?

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal was very helpful for solidifying my most important arguments against statism. I agree Economics in One Lesson was eyeopening as well.

Does China have a relatively free market? My step dad said he went there and said economic freedom was rampant. He said anything could be bought: snakes, prostitutes, etc. The only thing the government didn't tolerate, he said, was illegal drugs. And of course the people have no political freedom.

Is it economically capitalist, and politically fascist? What is the deal?

Thank you. That helps a lot.

Energy prices, I hear, are way higher than they used to be, and many blame the Enron fiasco. I expect that government is somehow responsible for this. How is it?