Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Markoso

Regulars
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Markoso

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    Hmmm, hopefully I'll fill more in later, but for now, I'm but an aspiring engineer.
  • School or University
    CSU Chico
  • Occupation
    Computer\Network Engineering

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chico
  • Interests
    Computers, networking, philosophy, reading, music, and randomness.
  1. To be brief, seeing as they were in bootcamp, this really can't be qualified as a punishment, though it could be construed as a bit favoritist (though it's more likely just a case of there not being an alternate event for those who were Muslim/etc). When I did basic, we had absolutely no freetime, except for Sundays, which were church day. You had the option of either attending a service (there were services for a reasonable number of faiths) or hanging out back at the barracks. Of course, in basic, you're never JUST hanging out, so that actually translated to waxing floors/polishing boot
  2. Honestly, while I am first and foremost inclined to call BS on this type of provision, I am forced to wonder if this is even enforceable. I mean, jeez, what would the burden of proof even be? Edit: Took a bit of time to educate myself on the matter, and Odden is probably right in that nothing is functionally changed. The only (probable) difference is that now, if you happen to get auditted for "substance over form" abuses, it'll include additional? criminal penalties.
  3. Honestly, my personal recommendation is to just pick a school and start chugging through individual authors. I honestly don't know of any books that give a good thorough treatment to western philosophy as a whole, at least no moreso than you would acquire from reading through wikipedia. Though it can be daunting, between Empiricism, Pragmatism (Philosophical context, not as described in the lexicon), Rationalism, and a whole host of others I'm probably forgetting, you have much to choose from, and a lot of places your investigations can take you. Right now I'm inclined to give special treat
  4. Though I am admittedly biased against walmart, this article honestly put a smile on my face. Good stuff.
  5. Though I've seen some hate for "Mises the philosopher" here, I'd say he addresses it quite succicintly in "Human Action". I'd have to hunt out the exact quote though.
  6. This is for Jake really, as I think this is a question that has be asked here to ascertain just where you stand. Would you disagree with me saying that mass civil disobedience is an attack on the rule of law? Edit: There was a quote in here too, but I quoted the wrong person
  7. Thank you for taking the time to write a summation of the arguements spinning around here. I assure you that your work does not go unappreciated
  8. I'm pretty much in agreeance with the points made here. However, Mexico's current situation is a precarious one, and that precarious situation extends to all states currently on its border. The question is, whether the situation surrounding Mexico, the border, and the cartels hopping back and forth across the borders justifies the type of action that Arizona has taken. As both QuoVadis and I have touched on, there are some serious happenings going on in that area far beyond the normal shenanigans associated with the welfare state. Serious enough to warrant some type of action IMO, even tho
  9. To bring us a bit more ontopic, after reading the threadnaught this has become, I'm seeing a distinct pattern forming, with those such as Maximus and QuoVadis referencing a problem they perceive with things as they are now, and a great many quoting portions of the relevant principles at them (however, though the principles are relevant, they don't quite provide guidance through this particular problem). So first and foremost, I propose we try and define what/if there is a central problem here, specifically, in the concrete example of Arizona. I think by concentrating here, our application/de
  10. Upon this point I agree It's simply a matter of limiting the requirements to those that directly relate to a Governments proper function in protecting the rights of it's citizenry (and the corollary of actually enforcing those laws, amongst them cases in which offenders would seek to escape punishment by crossing borders, etc).
  11. I would based up this say then that QuoVadis erred in calling that particular scenario intervention. I would have characterized it as a right and proper defensive action (building of fortifications). In any case, as fun as arguing semantics are (though precision is quite paramount), with that particular distinction made, would you classify those activities as a defensive action, as I have?
  12. I assure you, I am well aware of this particular definition of borders (I'm not exactly new to Objectivism here, so when I say an open border, I assure you I mean it in the most benign possible sense). What I suppose I am is in some level of disagreement with this stance, as there are a great many situations where countries are placed next to incredibly hostile neighbors (not to say the concrete situation of America is such, but we're debating principles as so many have already stated). I assume we're all familiar with the idea that a country that doesn't respect the rights of it's people is
  13. As I am currently strapped for time, I'll have to defer a longer reply for now. But from a principled standpoint, I was under the impression that a sovereign nation can and should define its borders. If those advocating the most open interpretation of open borders would be willing to comment on the implications for the borders of sovereign nations, I would vastly appreciate it. Now then, as to the specifics of immigration, I understand it that a person should be free to move to any country of their choosing, as this is their personal prerogative. However, this freedom doesn't extend to c
  14. I assure you, there's still some thinking going on around here. Perhaps be a tad less....polemic less time. In any case, I wouldn't say the fundamental philosophy contradicts the principles of objectivism (at least not as I interpret this bill). For more, see the far superior post above this one.
  15. Well, as to the first of your questions, I'm sure we can agree that there is a duty on the part of the police forces to protect the citizenry. From there, while I would never venture to say that all illegal immigrants are criminals in disguise, I WOULD be so bold as to venture that there are enough instances of criminality to warrant some type of action. Further, while it's easy to dismiss certain...accusations as fearmongering (it usually is fearmongering tbh), there are kernels of truth to be found within a lot of what's said. There IS cross border gang violence: http://www.ticklethewi
×
×
  • Create New...