Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Oakes

Regulars
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Oakes

  1. Err, speaking of "being absurd," what kind of baby touches him/herself sexually? Where did this even come from? In other words, there really isn't any difference between hiring a professional to massage you and hiring a prostitute to screw you. Do you really believe this?
  2. Moose, I think anybody who understands Objectivism sees why this law is wrong, but I find it extremely libertarian to choose to raise hell about these laws in particular - laws that suppress irrational (albeit not objectively illegal) behavior. Why spend your time and energy defending the right of losers to get stoned and the right of anti-American fanatics to burn the symbol of freedom? Why not spend your time challenging the gross injustice of anti-trust laws, the progressive "education" dumbing down our children, and the weak-kneed appeasement of terrorists in Guantanamo? I'll consider it "high time for a revolution" when protesting these absurdities is made illegal.
  3. I agree with Felipe, and I feel like I need to make an addendum to my last post. Pornography as such is not intrinsically immoral, but viewing hard core pornography like the kind Felipe alluded to ("hardcore sexual videos where strangers engage in indiscriminate orgies") is absolutely immoral, and does lead down a slippery slope to prostitution and promiscuity. Viewing pornographic mediums where the morality of the person is implied or can be imagined is healthy, keeping in mind that this is only fantasy. To me this is a very Objectivist way of looking at things: It doesn't sacrifice the body to the mind (like the intrinsicist view that shuns sex) or the mind to the body (like the subjectivist view that devalues sex to the mere wriggling of flesh); it integrates mind and body.
  4. Oakes

    Please Help Vote

    I might end up doing that, but I figure this is worth trying. That AS review is aggravating to say the least.
  5. Oakes

    Please Help Vote

    I posted this on the Speichers' board too, and I hope you guys can help out: Every once in a while I search "Atlas Shrugged" on amazon and the first review I find is one by an apparently misguided person who accuses Objectivism of making her "wish death on 90% of the world population." I decided to write a brief review of the novel (not, I might add, of Objectivism), to counter such slander. Problem is, I believe it will sink into oblivion like the rest of the reviews unless it becomes a spotlight review, which I think only happens when you get lots of votes. By the way, the negative review I am speaking of is titled: "I OVERCAME MY ADDICTION TO OBJECTIVISM!" The review I wrote is titled: "A Sense of Life Worth Becoming Addicted To". direct link *click* Am I wasting my time?
  6. I'm not sure what you mean by "institutionalisation." Do you mean that Objectivism shouldn't be precisely defined, but should instead be allowed to be edited with the ebb and flow of society? or that Objectivism shouldn't be furthered by large organizations like the Ayn Rand Institute, but should instead remain restricted to the individual advocacy of bloggers and forum members? I can't comment from personal experience, but I think James Valliant made some great insights into the effect that the Brandens' had on "Rand's circle" in this Prodos radio show: http://www.prodos.com/archive073jamesvalliant01.html
  7. It should go without saying that getting momentary pleasure out of something does not indicate its morality. If that was so, Objectivist ethics would be akin to hedonism. The question in this thread is ultimately: What are the long-term consequences in man's life when he truncates mind from body? By the way, I may be late in saying this (or I may be repeating it), but I really don't care if there are people on this forum who think pornography and (consequently) prostitution are moral. But as a matter of honesty, I hope you aren't going around proclaiming this as the Objectivist view, since this clearly isn't true.
  8. I've only skimmed these posts, but who is suggesting forcing people to buy contract insurance? AisA stated: "I realize a transaction fee sounds a lot like a sales tax. But it would be voluntary, not coercive." You may choose to buy contract insurance if you wish, so that if someone defaults on the contract they signed with you, you may file a civil suit against them. You can do this even without such insurance, but you'd have to pay the court fees. I discussed this topic with the Speichers here: Sales Tax Justification?
  9. Morality is a matter of choice. If you are forced to do something immoral, you cannot properly be held responsible.
  10. Dr. Michael Hurd wrote a piece called Libertarianism: The Pursuit of No Government that I think essentialized the problem. Without an explicit philosophy based on reason, they can only pursue a negative value - the absense of Big Government. This leads to all the particular problems already outlined: they don't get taken seriously and thus never win important elections, they oppose an aggressive and uncompromising foreign policy (apparently government is always bad), many cannot agree on what "liberty" means (thus the anti-abortion "Libertarians for Life" and anarchist libertarians), etc. Also, Paul Hsieh drew a great analogy between libertarianism and the medical field, which I also highly recommend.
  11. I haven't read this entire thread but it seems like people believe that private donations will be the only (or even the main) source of government funding. I've been toying with the idea of "charging the bad guys," that is, making criminals pay for their apprehension and imprisonment, making enemy governments pay for the cost of going to war with them, and making the loser of court cases pay the court costs. Those three cover police, military, and courts, respectively. Of course, there may be occaisons where the "bad guy" cannot pay, in which case other funding methods can be employed. The Speichers brought up the fact that this often happens in civil cases, so a capitalist government may offer voluntary contract insurance to cover that possibility. At any rate, I think "charging the bad guys" could cover a substantial portion of the costs of running a government.
  12. I realize you are making that distinction, and that's what troubles me. You're essentially saying that you don't judge the actions of others unless they are initiations of force. This is completely at odds with Objectivism. When the virtue of justice tells you to not to reward the bad, it isn't just talking about those who initiate force; it's talking about those who are immoral. So I ask my question again: Since you've indicated that selling webspace to those you know will use it illegally would help them commit their crime, why can't you also admit that selling drugs to those you know will use it immorally would help them commit their moral crime? I'm confused by what you meant here so I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that helping someone do something illegal should be immoral, but not illegal?
  13. I didn’t mean to suggest that it was the only factor, but I draw the line when you (mis)use a substance to alter your consciousness. I’ve never heard of marijuana being used for any other reason to get high, so I’m not convinced that you can use it recreationally as you would alcohol or cigarettes. Read my answer to manavmehta above. What is it with you people trying to redefine a moral breach to mean initiating force? Morality is not just about vice, it’s also about virtue - namely, indepedence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. I’m talking about situations where it is obvious. If you want to evade the obvious and pretend that you “do not know how the buyer will use the product,” go ahead and sell some joints.
  14. This is a horribly dishonest representation of my position. I say "dishonest" because we've been talking for too long for this to be a careless mistake. The context here is not someone who wants to steal from another because he's hungry, but someone who is impoverished by the government and is accepting a handout as his only means of survival given the circumstances. I'm not defending welfare, I'm condemning it for the grotesque cannibalism it foists on innocent people. This will be my last post on this thread.
  15. Is there another reason I am missing? Presumably because they don’t have alcohol in them. You just got finished saying that selling someone a product they will use immorally is not helping them be immoral, yet you wouldn’t knowingly sell webspace to a pervert because that would help him hurt children. Maybe you can explain this seeming contradiction. Since the only illegal actions under a rational government are initiations of force, there absolutely is something wrong with performing an illegal action.
  16. But this is exactly what you don't seem to be doing. You've declared that it is immoral to accept a handout (beyond what was taken from you, I believe), and referenced the right to property to justify it. The principle of not stealing is a rule of conduct in normal conditions, yet you extend it to emergency situtions as well. You're not doing any differentiating.
  17. The two aren't similar at all. Anything you sell can be used immorally; the question is whether you are selling it to people you know will use it immorally. Those who sell joints on the street sell exclusively (as far as I know) to those who want to use it for non-medical uses; McDonalds sells food to a large variety of people. I find it hard to imagine that you really believe this. You think it's okay to sell an item to someone you know will use it immorally. How does this measure up to the virtue of justice, whereby you are to reward those who do good and punish those who do bad? Have you inverted this principle? Additionally, one might wonder whether you would extend this to include selling items to people you know will use it illegally. Is it okay to sell webspace and camera equipment to child pornographers?
  18. But it is moral to use marijuana medically, so #1 is met. Does that make a pot-seller moral? If we include #2 as a criteria, it would not be moral, because people seeking marijuana's medicinal value (a rational reason) presumably do not buy it covertly on the streets. I've never smoked a cigarette, much less pot, and I never plan to. However, I find it hard to imagine that one can "recreationally" use marijuana the same way one recreationally drinks. One drinks or smokes a cigarette for the taste; one uses marijuana to get high.
  19. What is the purpose of morality if there are situations in which it is okay to violate it?
  20. Sorry I meant to write "the alternative is for C to suffer/die (at the hands of the gov't) or B to have his property violated."
  21. How is the hypothetical any different in principle? If the government creates conditions where citizen C cannot live without accepting wealth the gov't stole from taxpayer B, the alternative is for B to suffer/die (at the hands of the gov't) or C to have his property violated. The moral dilemma is irreconcilable.
  22. When a camp guard cuts off all your meals, and tells you that you must steal food from a fellow inmate if you wish to live, should you violate his right to property or should you acquiesce and voluntarily die? This is an unreconcilable dilemma that morality cannot objectively sort out. Like I said, welfare states make societies cannibalize themselves, and in such a system there is no way you can respect others' rights and expect to live. This brings up a periphery discussion over the limits of free speech. You may advocate an initiation of force, but if you are advocating immediate crimes (so there is no time for others to respond and argue) or if you are working directly for a group that is committing crimes, you are initiating force. Under your example or CF's, I can't tell if these prerequisites are being met.
  23. Again, if the government forces you into a situation where life is impossible without acceptable stolen wealth, you have a right to accept it, but this does not imply that you, by your nature, have a right to someone else's wealth. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I am not saying that our government may currently punish or jail those who support its own crimes. That of course is ridiculous. We all recognize that the government is currently not abiding by Objective Law; I was speaking of a rational government. But this does not mean that we may become vigilantes and take the law into our own hands; as long as we have a representative government allowing free speech, the only thing we can currently do is morally condemn those who support our government's crimes.
  24. I believe our argument essentially boils down to linguistic confusion. You never have a right to medicare, but assuming the two prerequisites I gave, you have a right to accept medicare. Does that clear things up? I agree that if you support theft, you are guilty of theft yourself and forfeit your rights. However, the extent to which you forfeit your rights depends on your crime: if you steal two AA batteries, the government may not confiscate everything you own as punishment. The punishment must fit the crime. Objectivism states that the right to retaliatory force (other than for immediate emergencies) are delegated to the government, so your deduction is a false one: no Objectivist may steal from another citizen, whether or not the citizen initiated force. If a person forfeits his right to liberty, to whom does his liberty belong? To both questions the answer is the same: the government (assuming, of course, that you committed a crime).
  25. I may not have properly defined "survival." By that word I don't just mean meager existence, but survival as a human being. Of course, this is not quantifiable in any way, which may upset Eric It is a case-by-case judgement. I have no problem with this - assuming the 19-year-old needed the funds to go through college, and that need was through no fault of his own (you said he was living morally). I can see a problem with trying to judge whether your need was caused by the government, which is another reason why the judgement has to be on a case-by-case basis. Are you suggesting that by accepting medicare I am implying that I have a "right" to it? It would follow then, that all willing recipients of handouts are welfare-statists. I don't think I would be implying that at all, because it isn't a matter of choice; either I accept it or I suffer (assuming, again, the two prerequisites I've already given). When a death camp prisoner is forced to kill a fellow inmate, he doesn't imply that he has a right to do it, because it wasn't his choice.
×
×
  • Create New...