JeffS
-
Posts
512 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by JeffS
-
-
I don't see why [children must have the same rights as other men].
I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mesh with what Ms. Rand wrote in the quotes I provided. Not to commit argument from authority, but what am I missing in what she wrote?
However, with children, they literally do not have the right to do some things, except via their parents. We come back to the early example where a very young child may not sign a contract. Now, you may conceptualize that as saying that he can sign it in the sense that his guardian can. However, that does not make the range of actions he may legally do identical with the range of actions his guardian may do. A child may say "I hate this school, I don't want to go there", and his adult guardian may sign a contract with the school anyway. One may conceptualize that as saying that the adult guardian is acting for the child, exerting the child's rights. The fact is that the difference between this and times when an adult acts on his own behalf are substantially different from a legal point of view.Acting as the child's guardian, the adult needs (properly) to evaluate the most advantageous (to the child) path for exercising that child's rights. The child may hate the school, but it's the best school for him to contract with based on his long term goals (as evaluated by the adult). That's the nature of guardianship - the guardian is obligated to make the best decisions possible for their charge, regardless of the whims and wishes of the charge. After all, that is why there's a guardian in the first place - because the charge isn't capable of properly (rationally) exercising his rights.
If the guardian isn't exercising the rights of the child, then whose rights is he exercising? His own? If so, what principle gives rise to this right?
I'm not clear what your position is on whether children, the retarded, the insane, or the otherwise incapable of rational thought have rights. Do they?
-
As long as you believe that human beings with no volitional conciousness also have rigths, though, you will remain confused.
As long as you believe that there is a sort of "contract" between parents and their children, you will remain confused.
I encourage you to read through the thread I posted above. Pay particular attention to RationalBiker's posts beginning approximately around page 20. The logic is clearly laid out there. If you have a counter argument to that logic, I would be more than willing to consider it.
No contract is possible between an existent and a non-existent. Parents cannot come to an agreement with a son who does not exist yet.No contract is possible between a being with volitional conciousness and a being without it. Parents cannot come to an agreement with a small baby.
A baby is an existent. A human baby is an existent with a volitional, rational consciousness.
Imagine I make a robot at home. I know I must keep it in good operating conditions if I want him to go on functioning as a robot. But suppose I get bored and I want to destroy it. Do I have the right to destroy it? Yes! Why? Beacuse it is mine. It is my property. I do not owe any explanation to anyone, including the State.What is different then when we take the case to the severily mentally disabled human being, or the baby?
In the case of the baby, the difference is a volitional, rational consciousness. You're making an assumption that some undefined, some unnamed something values all babies, all retarded people, and all disabled people. I don't think that assumption is valid. As it stands, your assertion seems like a floating abstraction.
I could summarize my proposal like this: Stop focusing on the rights of the disabled, and focus on the rights of the valuers.No problem. Just show me the valuers.
Allow me to restate your argument to verify I understand where you're coming from:
Someone, somewhere values something. Therefore, the state should step in and use force to ensure that something is protected for that someone.
Do I have that right?
Yes, I can. If the presumption is high enough, I can justify it.The State commonly acts on the base of presumptions.
For example, the police normally take people to the court, using force, because the judge thinks there is enough evidence to make a presumption. Later on, in court, the accused may demostrate to be innocent.
You've switched the context. In your example, there is an actual plaintiff - someone, a definable, clearly identified individual must come forth to claim their rights have been abridged. What happens when no one comes to claim their rights have been abridged when Johnny gets tortured? Does the state step in anyway because someone, at some undefined point in time, might come along to demonstrate they value Johnny and their rights have been violated?
The very fact that we are spending so much time writing about insane and retarded and babies shows that we are concerned about their fate.I'm actually writing about them because I want to understand the logical principle underlying the nature of rights. There are so many more things I value more highly than the great mass of insane and retarded individuals that they barely register on my screen. In short, I could care less, but it would be really difficult to do so.
-
Answering your question, Jeff, about who should protect these people, I would answer that those who demostrate to value them the most.What is novel about my approach, I guess, is that it indicates that no one can interfere between a valued object and the people who value it, when there is no ownership involved (i.e. when the right of no owner can be violated). All valuers have a right to pursue what their value. Therefore, to secure this right, the State should "rescue" the existent in danger, placind them in a position where it can be protected by those valuers.
If the state is going to rescue these people, that presumes the state values them. Can the state value anything?
The State would be doing this not to protect the rights of babies or severily mentally disabled people (as they have no rights), but to protect the rights of the valuers out there who want to adopt them.Which presumes there are "valuers out there who want to adopt them." I don't think you can justify the state using force based upon the presumption that there will be someone to come along, eventually, and grant the government sanction for protecting their rights. Either someone is having their rights abridged, and the government needs to step in to protect those rights; or no one is having their rights abridged, and the government needs to do nothing.
No, I think the answer lies in determining whether severely retarded or insane people have rights. I'm convinced babies have rights from birth.
-
I'm not sure I would agree [that children don't have special rights]. I don't know of a principle that says that all beings who have rights must have exactly the same rights. For instance, if we meet some space-alien, its nature may be such that it may be given certain rights, but not others. Rights do not flow from rationality alone. It is impossible to start from "this being is rational" and end up with "this being has rights" or "this being ought to have rights". One needs also to assume a basic context: i.e. the broader question one is trying to answer, which is "how can this being live among these other beings?".
Well, if children are Men, then they must have the same rights as all other men:
"Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another." - Ayn Rand, “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84 (from the ARL)
"There are no 'rights' of special groups, there are no 'rights of farmers, or workers, of businessmen, of employees, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.' There are only the Rights of Man - rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals." Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights", VOS, p. 114-15
If every man did not have the same exact rights as every other man, then conflicts would arise.
However, I spent the better part of yesterday reading through the 26 pages of Minors: Rights and Children and am convinced that if children do have rights, they also have a right to support from their parents. This "special right" is not really special at all - it's merely an extension of their right to life and the fact that their parents voluntarily chose to bring them into existence knowing full well that existence would begin with a period where the child could not fend for itself. This constitutes a sort of contract between parent and child whereby the parent has agreed to provide the child with support; the parent has agreed to be guardian of that child's rights until such time as that child is capable of exercising his rights independently.
This doesn't confer an extra right to the child. It affirms his right to life, if indeed he does have a right to life.
This reasoning applies for someone who is retarded from birth, or insane from birth. The parents, or whomever has voluntarily agreed to be the person's caretaker, would simply be the person's caretaker from cradle to grave (or pass on the responsibility to whomever agrees to the burden). The retarded or insane person still has all rights as any other Man, those rights are simply exercised by a caretaker.
However, it doesn't work for someone who becomes retarded or insane through no fault of anyone else. Assuming this condition is permanent (and barring intervention I don't see how it would not be), the newly retarded or insane person has no claim on the actions of anyone else unless he has previously contracted with another to become the guardian of his rights.
This approach does not work are a means of discovery. It can only be a (somewhat post-hoc) way of conceptualizing what one is discovering (or has discovered). Take #4. Suppose we say that we are going to form the concept "man" in a way that excludes children. It does not follow that children do not have rights. The same for retards: whether we think of them as "retarded men" or as "retards" is not the primary way we figure out if they have rights. Including or excluding them does not change their nature. Suppose we end up with three distinct and non-overlapping concepts, which we call: "adult", "child" and "retard". This proves nothing about their nature. We would still have to examine their nature and decide if the principle "man has rights" has to be expanded to "adults, children and retards have rights". (We might also ask ourselves whether it serves us -- for some purpose -- for these three concepts to be specific instances of some more abstract concept, say "humans"; but, that does not bear solely on the question of rights.) If our discovery shows that they cannot have identical rights, we might ask ourselves whether we need to break the concept "rights" down further, or to create an expanded concept.I hope to post more on the conceptualization aspect. However, I think that the earlier part of this post -- i.e. that we cannot induce rights from rationality alone -- is a key to your underlying question.
That makes sense, but that's what I was trying to do. It wasn't as clear nor as comprehensive as Ms. Rand's explanation, but I tried to begin from the nature of these individuals. What are they? As you pointed out earlier, they are like animals. Children have a rational faculty, but they don't use it. The retarded and the insane, by definition, have no rational faculty (or, at least a rational faculty so damaged as to make it's existence irrelevant). For all intents and purposes, they are simply animals. Yet we don't recognize rights in animals.
Ms. Rand writes:
"The source of rights is man's nature.... the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind - a rational being - that cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.... Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." - VOS, "Mans Rights," various pages
Am I wrong in concluding from this that it is man's nature as a being of volitional, rational abilty that gives rise to his rights? If I am correct in concluding that, then what in the nature of children, the retarded, and the insane gives rise to their rights since they are not beings of volitional, rational ability?
EDIT: Actually, I'll remove children from those who I asserted were "not beings of volitional, rational ability." I understand now that they are. My question still stands for the retarded and the insane.
-
Children are protected by the government, as are we all; but, they're supported by their parents (who brought them into the world) or by their adoptive guardians (who took on the responsibility).
To be clear, our rights are protected by the government (properly formed). If children (or the insane/retarded) have no rights due to their inability to reason, then there is nothing for the government to protect.
I'm not clear on several issues here:
1) Either children/the insane/the retarded are Men or not.
2) If they are, then they are entitled to all natural rights of Men, and no others.
3) If they are not, then they are not entitled to those rights.
4) If they are not Men, then what are they?
Perhaps answering the last is the proper place to start in order to answer them all? As Ms. Rand began by examining the nature of Man in order to form the Objectivist view of rights, we need to examine the nature of children/the insane/the retarded.
The overwhelming difference between Men and these others (for brevity, please), and the lynchpin of Objectivist philosophy on rights, is that Man must live by his reason. These others, by definition, can not reason, and therefore can not live by their reason. They can only live by being "protected" by guardians. Some Man must choose to assume the burden of protecting them and serve as a rational mind.
So, what role does the state have in this? If rights derive from Man's need to live rationally, and we have an entity that can not live rationally, then what rights pertain to that entity? If no rights pertain to that entity, then what would government be protecting?
Furthermore, and I think you would agree (based on your response above), children do not have a "special 'right'" as Hotu Matua asserted.
-
Basically, children/retarded persons do not have rights in the same sense that adults have. They have, though, a special "right" ,the right to be protected.
Protected by whom?
This "right" (please see that I use the word between quote marks) is extended as a courtesy. It is not the result of their current rational capabilities but the result of their human condition and the potential for growth/improvement. It is not whimsical, or based on "intrinsec values", but resulting from the relational values.Rights are not extended as a courtesy.
-
Maybe it will help to remember that the State can only protect the rights between rational parties, because the existence of rights imply the existence of at least two free, self-concious men. Rights are what defends A from B and B from A, if and when both A and B are rational beings.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I think terms need to be more clearly defined. I don't think it's true that the state can only protect the rights between rational parties. If that were true, then the state would have no position if one of the party members were irrational. The initiation of force is irrational. Therefore, if the state can only protect the rights between rational parties, the state would have no position in all cases of initiation of force because at least one of the parties is irrational.
If you clarify your statement by arguing the state can only protect rights between parties capable of rational thought then there's only one problem left to solve - which I think is your original problem: What if a rational person kills a child/insane person/retarded person/irrational person? According to your argument above, none could be convicted of violating a child's right to live since a child is not capable of rational thought, and therefore has no rights to violate.
-
A child who is really not young enough to know that he could hurt someone is like a machine or like an animal, in regard to intent. He cannot have intent. He does not initiate force any more than the bullet does. No purpose would be served by prosecuting the bullet or the gun, and similarly none is served prosecuting such a young child....
Only one thing bothers me about this - your family member is dead, there's a child with access to a gun, the capability to use it, and it's possible someone else might be killed. How does the state protect the rights of those possible others?
However, I think that's a good argument, though it moves the focus from rights to intent. Certainly consideration of intent should then be extended to all defendents, correct? The prosecutor of a grown man should be required to prove intent? If a retarded/insane man is accused of a crime, the prosecutor must also prove intent, correct? If so, then no special protections are afforded the child/retarded/insane and therefore no extra rights. The child/retarded/insane can be considered full rights bearing individuals.
-
That's a lot of questions. I'll focus on this:,... and I'll ask a counter-question: why does the state take cognizance of the age of a very young child? If an extremely young child, just barely able to play with a gun picks it up and shoots someone from my family, should the state prosecute him without cognizance of his age? Whether or not the person who left the gun around is also prosecuted is not the question here. The question is what view should be taken of the human being who pulled the trigger?
Sorry about the number of questions, but I think they're all born from not understanding the underlying principle. I might get there with this question, but reserve my right to still be confused
!My first inclination is to say the state should certainly take his age into consideration. I think I've heard all the arguments for such a position: the child didn't have any understanding of what would happen; his rational mind is still developing; he can be reformed. It would be unfortunate to have prisons full of children, or to see one strapped to an electric chair. However, that doesn't ameliorate the fact that someone's right to live was violated. To whom does the state have an obligation? If the state's only job is to protect the rights of its citizens, then it must prosecute the child as it would prosecute anyone who has so violated another's rights.
What rights does the child have that the state is obligated to protect? Certainly he has the same right to live and not have force initiated upon him. But he initiated the force. Does he have the right to be given a break because of his age; because of his mental acuity? Well then, do we all get a break because of our age or mental acuity? Can I claim irrationality as a defense? When I start going senile in my old age, put on my clown suit, scale the clock tower with my AK-47 and start taking people out, can I claim age as a defense?
It seems to me the answer to these questions must be, "No." If irrationality is a defense then all initiation of force is grounds for leniency since all initiation of force is irrational.
Separately, here is the Rand quote I referred to in an earlier post. Note, it is not from a work she published, not prepared spoken remarks. Rather, this is an answer to a Q&A.I understand this is an off-the-cuff response, but it still bothers me. My understanding of the Objectivist position on rights is that they follow from the nature of man; that they are negative rights in that they require no one to act in order for them to exist. They are not extended as a courtesy. Neither children, retarded people, nor full grown men are entitled to be protected. To assert they are begs the question, "Protected by whom?" Who would then be required to act in order to grant this right to protection? If we grant that all men have the right to be protected, then we open up all sorts of avenues into state control: the government must protect you, so we'll stop you from eating salt; the government must protect you, so we'll force you to go to the doctor; ad infinitum.
Bringing this back to the question, a child playing with a gun has no right, no claim on any other's actions, to ensure that child does not fire the gun and kill someone else. The child has no claim on any other's actions to protect him from his own irrationality. As his parent, it would probably be in my rational self-interest to make sure the child isn't in the position for this ever to occur. However, I'm not obligated to do so. Likewise, the government has no obligation to the child to protect him from his own irrationality, nor from the consequences of his irrationality. The government has an obligation to protect the rights of those whom the child would shoot.
-
I see this distinction being made often, but do not understand what it means. Rights are man-made institution that recognize the nature of man and the requirements of living in a society. If you prefer using the term "recognizing some rights", I'm fine with that.
I think "recognizing some rights" would be better. So then the question is: What rights of the retarded/insane/irrational/etc. should we recognize? But that seems to beg the question: What objective principle allows us to make that determination? Where do we get the right to determine which rights of these individuals we can ignore?
A detail I did not explore in my previous post, is that retarded people are not all equally incapable. There is a gradation of what they can understand and -- correspondingly -- in what rights the law ought to recognize. There are a whole lot of details like that which one could explore.That was my point. How do we define "retarded/insane?" I think it's fairly safe to assume the spectrum is very wide. Legally, that would mean something like, "If you get a 0% on this aptitude test, then the government will recognize these rights, but not these rights. If you score a 10% on this aptitude test, then the government will recognize these rights, but not these rights... etc." But then, that doesn't mesh with your answer that irrational individuals don't deserve extra protection. If an irrational person doesn't deserve extra protection, then presumably a rational person doesn't deserve extra protection. If a rational person doesn't deserve extra protecton, then what rights of the rational individual would the government recognize that it would not recognize in the irrational person? If the person is severely retarded, do they warrant extra protection from the government? If so, and if the government's only job is to protect rights, then what extra rights does the severely retarded person have that warrants that extra protection?
The quality is his insanity. Have you ever dealt with a severely insane person? If so, I cannot understand how you could say that such a person has the ability to look out for himself.I haven't ever dealt with a severely insane person, but I'm also not arguing that such a person has the ability to look out for himself. I'm questioning whether you're arguing government has some special obligation to these people. Whether the government recognizes special rights for them, or whether the government does not recognize certain rights for them that it would recognize in others. If insanity imparts or abriges certain rights, then what else imparts or abriges certain rights? Can being a different color than most people impart or abrige certain rights? If not, what makes the two different?
Or. maybe you're saying some have no ability to look after themselves, but that it is too bad for them; that law should take no cognizance of it. Imagine, for instance, that a person has some type of serious brain disease and starts to hallucinate and imagine all sorts of crazy things. Someone tells him that if he signs over his fortune to him, or some such thing, and he does it in his insanity. Now, are you saying that there is no way to say if such a person is insane or merely stupid (after all people do the same when they join some religious cults)? Or, are you saying that insanity is different from stupidity, but not in the eyes of the law?Certainly, insanity exists - and it has a very wide spectrum, which further confounds the issue. I'm questioning what principle directs the law to take special cognizance of someone's insanity. In other words, can the law state: If you're insane, you have different rights, and are entitled to different protections than a sane person. Suppose an insane person kills my family - does he get special consideration because he's insane? Suppose the insane person has no family, or friends, who is his guardian? Must the state then step in as his guardian so as to protect his rights? What if no one in society wants to deal with this insane person, do rights still apply if living in society becomes an impossibility?
-
Clearly, retarded people cannot have all the rights of regular folk, signing contracts, etc. I'm pretty sure you agree with this. So, the question becomes: should they at least have some rights: like the right against physical violence.
I don't remember Rand addressing it formally. So, it is safe to say that Objectivism does not have a clearly enunciated position on this. However, she was asked about it in a Q&A, and she gave a brief answer. (Q&A answers cannot be given the same weight as published work or a planned speech. So, take this with that caveat.) She said that they are like perpetual children. She offered two reasons for allowing them some limited rights: one, that they might improve; second, as "a courtesy extended to them for being human". [see "Ayn Rand Answers", Ch-1, page 4] So, no, they could not have full human rights.
This line of thought troubles me. Syntax like: "should they at least have some rights...," or, "... allowing them some limited rights... a courtesy extended to them for being human..." imply rights are conferred rather than following from the nature of rights bearing entities. Since I'm positive you mean the latter, and not the former, I'm confused.
Why would a retarded person not have the right to sign a contract? As you pointed out so clearly in your penultimate post, we need to start at the reality of the situation at hand. If I deem a particular retarded person capable of fulfilling a contract, why should I not sign one with him? Why would the government step in to prevent him from signing the contract? Assuming the government did not allow the retarded person to sign the contract, and he subsequently violated the contract, shouldn't the government step in to protect my rights? Likewise, if I breached the contract, shouldn't the government step in to protect the retarded person's rights?
In addition to all of the above, I am personally wary of the law deeming a person insane. I know it has to be done, to protect the insane. As long as the procedures are tight, I'm fine with it being done to protect the insane. If it is also done to declare the insane void of protection, I think that's one less guard against corrupt abuse. (There is a link to my own rights in this argument.)Again, this seems to me to be the beginning of an argument that some have rights different from others dependent upon what "we" choose to confer upon them. What special qualities of the insane require protections not afforded to the sane? If a particular individual is not rational, does he deserve extra protection? Does he deserve special consideration from the government?
-
This is not about what they can do with the laptops. It is about taking pictures of a student, with any equipment: owned, borrowed or stolen.
Why can't the school take pictures of the student? If the student is aware, or has been informed, that such technology exists on the computer, and can be turned on without any warning, then the student agrees to such intrusion when he/she takes the computer.
If I lease my phone line, does that give the phone company the right to wire-tap me without my consent at any point beyond my property line?I would say, "Yes." Why could they not? It is their property. Now, in an Objective society, with an Objective government, we'd have several different companies providing phone service (we already do, really), and they might advertise that they would never allow anyone to wire tap your phone. If your phone company doesn't guarantee wire-tap-free service, then choose another provider.
Just because we are customers doesn't mean we get to decide what a business can do with its property.
Further, as a government-owned entity, the school district ought to be able to do far, far less than a private owner of property.Why? I don't know all the facts, but if the district is forcing students to take these laptops, then I would agree. However, if they're not forced to take them, or have them, then I don't see why the district should be any less entitled to its rights to use its property. (Now, I realize that sounds collective, but as you said, we taxpayers are actually paying for these laptops. So, in reality, I have a right to use my property how I see fit.)
Added: Of course, if all people who are on the other side of the camera are fully aware that the camera can be turned on to spy on them without any warning, I have no problem with it being turned on.That's all I'm arguing.
P.S. Please, don't say the student is not paying for school. Tax payers pay.I only meant that the exchange of value isn't as clear as in the case of my hypothetical where I owned a laptop rental store and someone rented a laptop from me.
-
No. If they were a private entity, they still could not use them to spy on people in their own homes, since that goes well beyond the reasonable expectation of a user. As a government entity, they ought to be even more restricted in showing that anything they do is required to meet their narrow objectives as a school district. In particular, being a government entity, they ought to be held to strict privacy rules and disclosure rules.
There must be some nuance to your argument that I'm missing, sNerd.
Suppose I rent laptop computers. On the rental agreement I state something to the effect of, "Software and hardware technologies are installed on this computer to aid in its retrieval should the machine be stolen. In addition, this software and hardware may be used at the owner's (my) discretion to ensure this computer is not used in any illegal activities."
Are you arguing I wouldn't be able to use the laptop's camera to determine where the computer is, or how it is being used?
I'm not arguing the students knew about the district's ability to do this, though I would be really surprised if the district's lawyers didn't see this coming from a mile away and wrote it into some kind of agreement signed by the parents. If they didn't, then I think a fraud argument could certainly be made (the district represented the laptops as something other than what they really were).
My only argument is that the laptop is the property of the district, and it can do whatever it wants with its property. These students have no rights to laptops which abrogate the rights of the laptops' owner. Especially in this case where the students aren't even exchanging value for the laptops.
What about desktop computers in an office? Should the owner of the business, who owns the computers, be allowed to monitor what his employees are doing with his computers? Does it change anything if the employees are allowed to take the computers home? Does the owner's right to monitor what his employees are doing with his computers go by the wayside if they take them home?
-
Since the laptops belong to the school district, can't they do whatever they want with them?
-
It seems almost unfair to single someone out of the the winning Olympians but I found Lindsey Vonn's gold medal performance yesterday especially inspirering. She handled the pressure of grand expectations well and won despite her recent serous injury (if you watch it closely she was protecting her sore shin throughout the run and reached the finish line on a one ski). What a fighter! (And she has done something similar before on more than one occasion).
Then to see her elation afterwards... awesome moment.
:)Brought tears to my eyes.
As KurtColville just wrote, you could hear how proud she was of her individual effort. She worked hard for something she really wanted, and now has earned, and deserves to enjoy, the fruits of her labor.
I don't know if it's just me, or it's this Olympics, but I'm hearing a lot more of that type of sentiment; athletes mentioning how hard they've worked rather than how lucky they were. The commentators are actually getting in on the act and pointing out how hard these individuals work and the struggles and strife they must go through - the time away from family, the long hours, the constant competition, the constant pressure to perform and succeed with the stress of not knowing whether you will. No one would ever dream of taking away Ms. Vonn's medal, or even taking a little piece of it. Yet the same hard work, struggles and strife are endured by millions of productive individuals who compete in the Reality Olympics every day. Sometimes earning gold, sometimes silver, sometimes nothing at all. Few will be interviewed, fewer still get medals for their accomplishments. Yet most can count on someone taking part of their metal away.
-
I'm in the middle of this game right now, and I'm quite disappointed. The game play is fine (though incredibly difficult on the "hard" level), the graphics are good, the voice acting is good, and the plot is fairly solid - giving a little more information into the world of Rapture and what went wrong.
What I'm really disappointed in is the mischaracterization of Objectivism. Once again it gets equated with hedonism. Andrew Ryan is not portrayed as a successful business man who wanted to establish a "Galt's Gulch" under the sea. He's portrayed as a dictatorial, whim-worshipping hedonist willing to do whatever it takes to get a buck. Unfortunately, the connection to Objectivism is made very clear. There are several references to Objectivist "code words," like "parasite," "moocher," "producers," "individual," etc. Words that people typically equate to Objectivism (at least I do). There is dialogue that gets it right, followed immediately by dialogue which distorts the correct interpretation all to hell.
I'm sorry I can't come up with specific examples right now, but I think anyone familiar with Objectivism would quickly and clearly understand my meaning when they play the game. Those with only a passing understanding of Objectivism would just have their misconceptions confirmed, and those with no understanding of Objectivism would be completely misled.
I hope some Objectivist game reviewer will publish a review which makes clear how divorced from Objectivism this game actually is. The association with Objectivism needs to stop.
As a game, it works - it's fun to play. As a story, it does not. It's extremely frustrating to hear (and read) how the game developer has so completely bastardized what is the greatest advance to philosophy in the past 200 years.
-
I don't know anything about the Pebble mine, but it seems to me that safeguards could be put in place by the companies wishing to develop it that would prevent any harm to downstream concerns. Bristol Bay fisheries, and anyone so affected, should be allowed to sue for any demonstrable damages caused by the development.
-
That's your opinion.
No, it's fact; evidenced by the fact that only one post appears after the point was made, and that post doesn't address the point.
Sorry, I'm not gonna get into the same conversation twice, we'll have to agree to disagree.Fine with me.
-
War is declared when the danger is greater than law enforcement can handle. The idea of soldiers in the middle of a war collecting evidence, to convince a jury of a captured enemy's guilt, is absurd. There's been a detailed discussion on this, here:
And yet my point wasn't addressed there. Many of the people detained at Gitmo are there simply because they were found in Afghanistan or Iraq and someone thought they should be taken in. Since this all started, some 250 of the approximately 750 detainees have been released and repatriated. Once there they were released due to lack of evidence of any crime. Currently, the DoD has segregated some 60 or 70 of the 162 detainees because the DoD believes there's not enough evidence to prove they are enemy combatants and should be repatriated.
Being on a battlefield is not objective evidence of waging war. Wearing a turban is not objective evidence of waging war. Being a Muslim is not objective evidence of waging war. Being a citizen of a particular country is not objective evidence of waging war - especially in this case since no nation is at war with us.
You're passing judgement upon these people without any objective evidence. You're assuming they are enemy combatants. Yes, an enemy captured on the battlefield is not innocent. But you neither know if these individuals are enemies - since the only way of objectively determining that in this war would be if they're shooting at our soldiers, nor do you know if they were captured on the battlefield - unless you want to designate an entire country, which is not at war with us, as the battlefield.
Suppose you are a soldier. You see a guy walking through the mountains of Afghanistan with a gun slung over his back. Does he have any rights?
-
They do not have a right to a trial by jury (or the presumption of innocence, for that matter)
Why not?
-
Something I have problem understanding is that, with cases such as this, it always seems like, well, wait 'till it's too late. Wait 'till someone gets hurt or dies. Now, the FDA might MAKE sure that a company isn't doing harm to any of its customers.
You put the emphasis on the wrong word. The appropriate word to emphasize would be "might." One could argue whether the FDA actually "might" make sure a company isn't doing any harm. But the history of the FDA is replete with approved food and drugs that went on to kill, or harm, tens of thousands of people.
Furthermore, David Odden's reply holds an interesting aside:
And therefore companies do not distribute poison products (outside of China).If regulation were the answer to protecting people, then how does the most heavily regulated market on the planet put out proportionately more dangerous products than all relatively free markets combined?
-
As it turns out, yes. Radio from outer space, imagine that:
That wouldn't be extra-terrestrial. Those dishes point toward the Earth. To pick up extra-terrestrial radio signals, you'd need something pointing away from the Earth. Like:
. -
and generally idiots who listen to terrestrial radio
What are liberals listening to, extra-terrestrial radio?
Guess that explains this: Air America Radio Closes
Not much listener-ship for people with their heads in the clouds, much less above them.
-
Cameron is being stupid. Human beings are not connected to each other or the earth in the way Pandora is interconnected, and cannot become so any more than cat can turn into a dog. Pandora is fiction, there is no basis for regarding it as even possible let alone an ideal to strive for.
Exactly. If we're as connected to each other and the planet as Cameron seems to believe, then why does he need not just fiction, but fantastical fiction in order to make the point?
'Scuse me while I hook up to my dog, since I'm sure he has some important thoughts on this matter.
Broken units, broken men
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
Why would the two not follow? I mean, if All men are mortal, and Aristotle is a Man, then Aristotle must be mortal, right? If All men have equal rights, and children are men, then all children have equal rights, right?
I don't have the "Answers" book (what is this, please?), nor the Objectivism-CD. I should probably get the latter, but have never heard of the former.
What is all this based upon? Why do you think any of it, but specifically why is it appropriate that the law not allow a stranger to walk up to an orphaned 12 year old and kill him or molest him? Should the law allow a parent to sacrifice their dog to the gods?