The Lonely Rationalist

Huh? So, according to you, it's an actual individual with rights after 5-6 months, but we can still kill it if it's severely handicapped? Does that give us moral justification for killing severely handicapped people that are actually out of the womb?

I'd say you should read The Fountainhead before WTL. In my opinion, The Fountainhead is the greatest of Ayn Rand's fiction (Though Atlas Shrugged is BARELY behind it). I didn't really feel the same feeling of elation while reading WTL as I did AS and The Fountainhead.

Out of curiosity, why is a DUI not an accident? Wasn't the driver unaware that he would hit another car? I'm not being smarmy, I'd really like to know why.

Isn't that a false dichotomy? When we lock someone up in prison, we are both punishing them and protecting society. To be clear, are you saying that inflicting suffering one someone who deserves it isn't justice? If so, what do you think justice is? Be careful. If we base the legal system around what is a deterrent and what isn't, we're in for a world of hurt. The left loves to say how prison isn't a deterrent against bad behavior (In an attempt to get more funding for social programs) and they constantly cite statistical examples in an attempt to prove this. If we go down that road we'd have to base sentences of criminals not on justice, but on the latest scientific study showing if something deters crime. I agree with you on this point. Not because I believe that the point of the judicial system is merely "The protection of society," but because I believe that the law should be based on intent. A psychopath who had no idea what he was doing shouldn't be sentenced to death or prison because his goal was not to hurt anyone. It's kind of like blaming a rock for falling on a person's head. However, for a man to be declared mentally insane, he needs to be objectively examined by professional pyschologists before he gets off. This also applies to when he is released: The people judging his psychological well-being better make damn sure he won't kill again when he gets out.

Umm...Okay then. In a capitalist society, the government has nothing to do with healthcare. The doctors and the hospitals set their own rates, and insurance companies do the same. You pay and you get healthcare. You are only responsible for yourself, not for others.

It was NOT a fraud, it was a copy. And the mere fact that his birth was mentioned in a paper in Hawaii is proof enough that he was born in America.

Because an omnipotent God who can create a whole new planet with a snap of his fingers is going to be SO pissed when he finds out we raised our earth's temperature 2 degrees.

Admittedly, I don't know. I was just replying to what the previous poster said.

I'm afraid Schiff won't be winning anytime soon. (Admitted) Atheists are practically unelectable and Chris Dodd routinely draws 65% of the vote in his district.

Don't worry about it. I think most people believe that definition of skepticism. I know I did.

I'm going to assume you don't know what skepticism really is. I used to think it meant not believing things as soon as you hear them. Because I held this false definition, I used to call myself a skeptic. However, what skepticism really is is a philosophy that teaches that mankind can not really ever know anything. A skeptic would say that because man is fallible, he can never truly know he is correct about anything. This is obviously contradictory to Objectivism. However, if you already knew the true definition of skepticism and accepted it, let me know.

You realize Objectivism is opposed to skepticism, right? Also, sorry for this blunt answer, but who cares? It's just another organization claiming to be champions of reason while attacking it.

You kind of answer your own question here. Mankind's population would never get this great due to sickness (And the fact that people are almost assuredly going to stop having kids when they realize their house can only be 50 sq.ft. before it touches their neighbor's wall). Please don't! It was a BS book written in 1968 that predicted millions would die from overpopulation in the 1970's and '80's. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

Ever heard of The Population Bomb? Overpopulation would never be a problem in a free society. When you say "every action taken by man infringes upon his fellow man," the only thing I can see you meaning is that when one man gets health care, another doesn't get it, or when one man gets food, another does not get it. This is only a problem in a socialist society or one with a mixed economy. In a capitalist society, all men would only be responsible for themselves, so one man paying for health care or food would hardly infringe another person's rights. By the way, we're kind of in the same boat. I'm a high school student myself, though I've read all Ayn Rand's fiction books, VOS, C:TUI, The Romantic Manifesto, Philosohy: Who Needs It? and a bunch of others (I'm reading OPAR right now).

An act of force is NOT frowned upon in Objectivism. We are not pacifists. It's the initiation of force that we oppose. In fact, his podcasts are now organized here on the forums. Try Podcast 21 for starters (Though he's discussed it in many others as well). Just go here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...=17019&st=0 The problem here is that you have to weigh technological benifits with enviromental damage. If a man was pouring toxic waste on your property, he could be tried for violating your property rights. But if we start assuming that one is "assaulting" all mankind by putting chemicals into the air, where do we stop? Do we ban fire because it puts smoke in the air? Do we ban cars because they pollute the air? My view is somewhat summed up by Leonard's Peikoff quote in (I believe) Episode 25: 'I'd rather live 70 years with watery eyes than 20 years without them." By the way, if anyone disagrees with my view, please tell me. I'm still learning myself.

Welcome! What books of Ayn Rand have you read?

The federal government that exists today would never allow a state to secede, no matter what the state's motivation. Really, the quickest(And most fun/unrealistic) way to enjoy freedom would be to start some sort of Galt's Gulch-esque community that was incredibly exclusive. Of course, to do this, one would probably have to be extrordinarily wealthy, intelligent, and have a lot of free time to plan this (Not to mention the incredible difficulty of finding prospective members to join).

But we must act on the expediency of the moment! We don't have time for principles! Seriously, though, on the plus side, Obama's plan gets less popular by the day. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...surance_company

But we must act on the expediency of the moment! We don't have time for principles! Seriously, though, on the plus side, Obama's public plan is now opposed 35-50%.

My God, that's beautiful!

Unless you're a multi-billionaire who's going to get the support of the people of said country (Zimbabwe?), good luck with that.

Here's my favorite one: Sarah Palin did it! http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/...-al-sharptons-r

What? Why the hell would they do that? And I don't think "Most" Libertarians do that.

Do you have any ideas as to what basis the government would decide how many units to give out to each company? Or does it still need to be figured out?

Let me try to make a clearer example: It is discovered that chemical XYZ is harmful in large amounts. Now let's assume the government sets the cap at 1000 polluting units for chemical XYZ, and gives Company A 200 units. Before the law was enacted, Company A used 300 units per year. Now what's to stop an individual form forming a Company B, getting their units, but barely producing anything and instead making their profits by selling their extra units to company A? Or, for that matter, in Companies C, D, and E, all of whom already existed, from stopping production and instead making their profits by selling their extra units to Company A? It seems like such a scenario would be like an extra tax on productive businesses and a reward for non-productive companies. I hope that's clear.