Sergio

Ah OK. So would laws change over time in an Objectivist system, or would they be set in stone from the beginning? I would imagne that unchanging laws wold be less corruptable, but may cause problems in the future. One would have to design a very elegant and timeless set of laws.

America was once a far more principled small government nation than it is now, but there were some fatal flaws in the system. Hans Herman Hoppe has said that if the government has a monopoly on the court system, then there is a conflict of interest. In any dispute between the government and an individual, the government court will tend to rule in the government's favour, and the same applies in other areas such as law or executive functions. Is there something about an Objectivist government that would be inherently more stable?

The idea of free will vs determinism confuses me, i have never understood its importance (any help would be great). I have noticed that determinists tend to have bad philosophies, while free will advocates tend to have rational philosophies, but i don't understand the connection. Would there be any bad philosophical consequences if everything was predetermined? I have always wondered why people are so passionate about free will vs determinist debates. I think that the present is an accumulation of past events, and that we are pushed towards the future by past events, rather than pulled towards a predetermined future. I also beleive that people make independant decisions, but in a different sense. Are there any empirical examples of matter behaving in an unpredictable way? If matter didn't behave in predictable ways, our bodies would be unstable and chaotic, instead of being relatively stable over time. Or do you mean free will in some other sense?

Ironically, social ostracism is the very tool that makes non-violent forms of law enforcement viable. For anyone else reading this, I do understand objectivism. My interest is revealing some of the contradictions within some people's conclusions. Methodology is more important than end conclusions, every time. If people are just parroting back Rand's conclusions in new bizarre contexts (like nuking Tehran), it is essential to point out if they are not supported by the methodologies that objectivism is based on.

I know this tactic. When one person talks about morality, you switch to documenting facts. It is a non-sequitur. I think it is immoral, regardless of whether it has always existed. Please be careful about switching the debate like that, as it can get people really angry. The contraversial part is that people's definition of 'war' involves turning the self into a collective concept encompassing everyone in a nation, and that any murders of innocent people are being whitewashed as 'part of the enemy collective'. In that case I am not sure what happened. I am saying that it is immoral for people to kill innocent civillians, even in war time. In the same way that murder is immoral, and manslaughter is immorally negligent. In all of these cases, there should be some sort of punishment for this criminal behaviour. I never 'wished away' the existence of civillian casualties. I am only saying that to the extent that crimes can be punished, killing innocent civillians in war should be punished. LOL a couple of people have pulled out the "Pacifist" label without cause. The only time it is moral to use violence is in self defense, and solely against the people who are aggressing against you or your property. This is non-aggression, not pacifism. So if you live in America in your own home, and your government turns fascist-imperialist without your consent, then other nations are justified in killing you? Is this a universal principle? I just don't see how one man can be responsivle for the actions of another. Was John Galt responsible for the actions of the American leaders in Atlas Shrugged, just because he had stayed in America? How do you know? You countered my comment with an ad-hominem and some assertions. LOL! Really? My view is simply that if you wanted to destroy the Japanese Imperialist government, then fine, but be sure to punish people who kill civillians. I am not an anarchist, i support private property. Instead, I am in favour of privatising all governemnt functions and seeing the benefits of free market competition in the services of arbitration, contracts, security and military contractors. It's this whole "Whatever is necessary" idea that i find so nebulous and bloodthirsty. Thank you, I will read through those posts more fully.

Non Sequitur. Your post doesn't address my arguments. I used the words 'fascistic imperialism', which does not require political executions or one party rule. You can have democratic fascistic imperialism which treats some political opponents as 'enemy combatants' and strips them of the right to a fair trial. If Americans are superior because of the system's respect for individual rights, then this superiority cannot be used to justify violating the rights of peoplein other countries. That would be a contradiction, because the Americans would be using their own superiority as a justification for destroying the very thing that made them superior in the first place. I have been very unimpressed with the standard of debate so far, so much twisting, evasion, nitpicking, and haughiness and too little real substance. It seems like people are emotionally invested in their positions, at the expense of the truth. Their motive of posting is more "to win" than to find the truth. Not good enough. Out of curiosity, would you have a moral problem if the US government specifically targeted only innocent civillians in its wars, as a way of destroying the tax base of the enemy nation? If it worked better than other tactics, would you support it? Do you support a method of war that depended purely on violating the rights of individuals in other nations? If the torturer makes a mistake and hurts an innocent person, he ought to face consequences, no? Or can you just blame the murderer for the torturer's mistake?

Non Sequitur. In a way some of these statements support my view. None of these statements contradict what was said - I do spot a number of logical jumps and assertions in what she said, but in any case it doesn't affect whether or not people should be punished for civillian casualties. Rand's starting point supports me: "The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob." If she says anyything that contradicts this statement, then she is contradicting herself or making logical jumps without demonstrating all of her steps in between. Perhaps you have some quotes by her that better support your position?

The war was started by the US, and what you are calling a 'warzone' was in fact other peoples' homes until the US decided to bring a war over there. I don't mean to be hostile. I have heard that the war was started by 9/11, however the terrorists almost all came from Saudi Arabia, and no war was waged against the Saudis. I have no problem with removing the Taliban from power because they were a tyrannical government, but killing or arresting people without knowing their guilt is unacceptable. Due process is absolutely necessary, especially when someone when you have arrested someone and have the time to make a rational decision. Imagine yourself in their place - imagine if China had invaded your country, declared your city a 'warzone' and arrested innocent people. And even if some of these people were arrested on the battlefield - what does that prove, other than the fact that people are defending their homes from violent invaders? How do you 'know' that they are evil, anti-freedom hate filled villains, when they have not been given the trial they need to defend themselves? A rational man could by justified for resisting foreign invaders if they were damaging property and killing innocent people. The US has surrendered the moral high ground on this one long ago.

and I'm sorry, but these are not logical arguments. I made the claims that America is both fascistic and imperialist. I can back this up with facts that you are probably already familiar with. 1) Is America Fascist? Fascism is characterized by a unique kind of government-business partnership: Ayn Rand wrote, "Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership ... the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens." "Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal." Ayn Rand has spoken before about the transition of America towards Fascism, and that was 40 years ago, so none of this should be contraversial. The US government allows men to have some private ownership of property, but the government regulates and controls what people can do with their property. This is the economic definition of fascism. We live in the age of the looters in Atlas Shrugged. That was the end of the road of a mixed economy: a fascist dictatorship. You can learn more about Fascism from the Mises institute, the intellectuals who created the economic foundation for Ayn Rand's ideas. Rand has praised Ludwig von Mises's work as a systematic refutation of every single argument ever put forth by collectivists. 2) Is America Imperialist? Check out the wikipedia article on Empire: "An empire is a State with politico-military dominion of populations who are culturally and ethnically distinct from the imperial (ruling) ethnic group and its culture [3] — unlike a federation, an extensive State voluntarily composed of autonomous states and peoples. As a State, an empire might be either territorial or a hegemony, wherein the empire’s sphere of influence dominates the lesser state(s) via divide and conquer tactics, i.e. “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, (cf. superpower, hyperpower)." "An imperial political structure is established and maintained two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force (direct, physical action to compel the emperor’s goals), and (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals). The former provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet limits further expansion, because it absorbs military forces to fixed garrisons. The latter provides less tribute and indirect control, but avails military forces for further expansion." America has invaded or controlled numerous nations in its history, both openly and indirectly. In many cases, the purpose is for corporations with 'special connections' to get a monopoly license for extracting resources in some 3rd world nation. The corporation uses the US government to keep the 3rd world governments in line, and to make sure that their monopoly license continues indefinitely. In echange, they do favours for the politicians and ruling class, as characterised in Atlas Shrugged. In other cases, the purpose is to spend vast sums of taxpayer dollars for the benefit of looters in military corporations at home. Sometimes, the US props up other nations such as Israel, Iran (before), Iraq (before and again), and Afghanistan, and uses these puppet nations to extend US influence in key areas. Finally, the US establishes many military bases around the world to maintain an upper hand, so that this entire system can remain unchallenged. So when I said that America is a fascistic empire, don't just dismiss my arguments.

LOL! Making a list of assertions does not pass for a logical argument. Just wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

If you torture someone, and it turns out after-the-fact that they were guilty of directly initiating force (or setting up a bomb etc), then I suppose that torture would be ok (if torture actually works better than alternatives). However, if you torture an innocent man, you should absolutely be punished - severely. This creates an in-built deterrant to torture, because of the consequences of being wrong. At the same time, if the torture is to prevent millions of people from dying, then the torturer might be willing to take the risk. One thing is clear: initating force against innocent people is wrong, and should be punished, regardless of what nationality you are./ None of this "Americans are superior and other people don't have rights" nonsense.

Glad to see some curioisity, but I am probably a Sergio-ite lol. Perhaps you are one too. The philosopher that I agree with most is Stefan Molyneux on www.freedomainradio.com. In my approach to thinking, i use logic and reason, and I reject logical fallacies. I also subject my ideas to empiricism: theories should be attached to reality. I am strongly opposed to any form of religion, mysticism or wishy-washy 'agnosticism'. Economically, I advocate pure free market capitalism that respects individual and property rights. Psychologically, I advocate self esteem, empathy, ambition and moral courage. People should be honest and open about their feelings, and should not repress emotions. Regarding second-handers, I think that the only people who's opinions matter are those whom we value, such as close friends, loved ones or collegues. Artistically, I prefer heroic or natural or beautiful art, usually with some kind of consistent principle running through it. I am opposed to postmodernism and ugliness of any form. My favorite books are the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. My political ideas can be reduced to one line: It is immoral to initiate physical force, and people who break this rule should face some sort of consequences. I advocate the basic methodology of objectivism, but I do not agree with some of its contradictory conclusions. For example, in an free society, it would be immoral and irrational to prevent a man like Rearden from competing with government services. Dispute resolution, security, insurance and military contractors are all fields that can and should be open for men like Rearden to compete in the free market. I am close to being an objectivist - or rather, what objectivism would be if people were loyal to it's methodology rather than all of Rand's final conclusions.

How do you know? You have not defined a rational system of values by which civillians in other nations are any less valuable than people in your own nation. Are your principles universally applicable, or are you just making stuff up? And, once again, what is up with all of these collectivist labels? You know what I am talking about. Isn't this a forum dedicated to individualist principles?

America is a fascistic empire that pays lip-service to the ideas of capitalism. Fascism and imperialism are what America Stands for. If you were speaking from some pure capitalist free society, then you might have a point, but you are talking about America here: a generic mixed economy with the biggest government the world has ever seen. Have you ever spoken to middle eastern people? I have spoken to a great many of them, and the thing that pisses them off the most about America is the imperialism, not Britney Spears or Coca Cola or Freedom or Christianity. If America was a free market society with a non-interventionist foreign policy and no foreign aid, only a few crackpots would hate them. The major threat to a free natrion comes from being so successful that other governments are proven to be useless by comparison, thus giving other leaders an incentive to destroy this beacon of liberty and blame the failure on freedom. But that is not what is happening today: America has not been a beacon of liberty for a very, very long time.

I think I have made all of the points that I could ever make on this topic, plugged any holes in my argument, and explained myself in enough different ways. I am pretty sure that any questions can be answered by reading my previous posts.

Gags, i just had an idea: Imagine an evil dictator who has millions of slaves working for him. He uses their labour to pay for a big military and he begins threatening the US. Is it morally justifiable to kill all of the slaves in order bankrupt the dictator and neutralize his threats?

The fact that some people are creating threats does not justify initating force against those who are not. Otherwise, that would be collective punishment, which is definitely immoral. You can lump threats in with immoral behaviour. What do you mean by 'nation" or "country"? The reason I ask is that John Galt destroyed the nation in order to ssee it rebuilt again, and he did it without initiating force. Would you advocate eliminating John Galt as a threat? Why does the idea of a country or nation have inherent value? What makes far more sense is punishing any initiation of force against individuals, and being damn careful that you punish the right people. If you screw up and jail the wrong persion (or bomb them in this case), then you should be punished. Well, sure - but 'participating in a moral climate that sanctions evil' does not justify initiating force. Only if he is the one who harms them. One of my arguments has been that you can reduce this logic to absurdity. According to this logic, there is no limit to the number of innocent people that you can kill, so long as you kill at least one guilty man, and when you are done with this mass murder, you can blame the guilty man. As a result, this stops being an issue of principles and descends into 'subjectivism' and arbitary whim. How can you calculate how many innocent people are 'acceptable' casualties? Any number above zero is arbitrary and requires comrpomising principles.

That's just an argument from convention. Surely we shouldn't cling to a 10,000 year old institution just for the sake of tradition? Look, i think that wars should only involve individuals who consent to being involved in them. Every other individual has a right to be left alone, because it is immoral to initiate force against individuals, even for poltiical or social goals. Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US then demanded "unconditional surrender", which would strip the government of its veil of legitimacy. Days later, the bombs were dropped. The US governemnt nuked 2 cities because they could. A governemnt doesn't have a self! A nation is merely a collection of individuals in an arbitrarily defined geographical area, and a minority of people in charge. To treat nations as a single organism with a right to self defence means that one nation can justify killing another nation (and everyone in it) for the actions of a minority.

Let's expand your idea of aggressor a bit to mean "Someone acting morally wrong in a threatening way, who may be stopped by imposing something unpleasant on them." If you can get behind that, then combine it with this: "Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles." -From Wiki. Notice that moral justifications are a sufficient motivation for an action to be punishment,. Since every war fought by a ratrional nation must be in response to morally wrong behaviour, and war is definitely "unpleasant or aversive", this is definitely a form of punishment. In this in stance, war is at the very least a form of punishment, and a whole lot of other things too. So, if a rational nation imposes something unpleasant on a group of people (like war) in response to immorality on their part, then they are "punishing them". And if they inflict this punishment indiscriminately against innocent people in the same area, they are engaged in collective punishment.

Do you talk to people like this in real life, or only on anonymous internet forums? The wikipedia article began with a definition of collective punishment, which i quoted in full. The article then gave an example of one form of collective punishment that is commonly practiced by occupying governments. The article lists some other types too. I didn't quote the example because it was not the type i was referring to: the definition was enough. Go ahead and read the article more fully. There are many other kinds of collective punishment than the one you are using. I have to ask, what's this really about? Are my posts provoking anxiety in some way?

That is one of many specific forms of collective punishment. Another is when a mother punishes all of her children for the actions of one. Or when a teacher punishes an entire class for the actions of a few students. Or when a government punishes a large group of people for the actrions of some of its members. That is collective punishment. Some companies do it too aparently: "KEK (Korporata Energjetike e Kosovës - English: Kosovo's Energy Corporation) is a public company, the only one entitled to produce and distribute electricity in Kosovo. KEK collectively punishes communities with lower rate of electricity bills paid. For example: if in a community 45 % of households pay regularly their electricity bills and 55 % do not pay regularly, the entire community (even those who regularly pay) is punished with 3 hours electrical blackouts." Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behaviour of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. And punishment is defined as follows: "Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles." Therefore, if the US government were to punish ALL of Tehran in response to the disobedience and immoral behaviour of the Iran government, then that would definitely qualify as collective punishment.

Oh, I will do it for you. The first time i brought up collective punishment, you brushed aside what I said: In my next post, I demonstrated the collectivist nature of collective punishment. I rejected the idea that nations are collective organisms with the rights of individuals. Nations are not organisms which can retaliate against eachother without regard of the individuals within them: You responded to the first sentence out of context, ignoring the rest, and you said I misunderstood Rand's idea of collectivism. Look, i'd like to rescue the discussion by giving you the benefit of the doubt and addressing you respectfully, not getting into a flame war or hairsplitting. That's no fun. For some reason, i did assume you were for nuking. I had assumed that most people support it after reading through many of the posts in this thread. I have heard Rand advocate something along the lines of collective punishment of Soviet Russia in one of her forum speaches. Someone posted an article which made a pretty appalling case for disregarding civillian casualties in the name of national self defence. If you do not support nuking Tehran under present conditions, then that's great and I am fully with you there. Manhatten? So if a powerful, violent and destructive institution is sanctioned by enough people to avoid being killed or jailed, then they are in the same boat as Iran's government? Is that the principle? The United Nations meets this criteria. They are based in Manhatten, and they are responsible for some really horrible things in the name of "foreign aid" and "peacekeeping". In any case, my point still stands regarding innocent people: Many people in Iran do not sanction their government, in the same way that many people in Manhatten do not sanction the UN. Therefore, collective punishment is immoral in both cases because there are innocent people involved.

Are you familiar with the CIA's history of installing new governments? Ironically, they were even involved with installing a new Iranian government in the past. Another example would be thre CIA's involvement in removing Salvador Allende's government in Chile, in order to install Pinochet.

I apologize if i came across as too abbrasive earier. Now, I think it's always helpful to check with 'reality' when making assertions. For instance, you have called me 'willfully obtuse' (disingenuous?) and claimed that i am inventing definitions, even though i was accurate. I feel like you are trying to tell me to "shut up", but i may be wrong. Now, if you commented because you actually find the idea of collective punishment interesting, I invite you to check out the Wikipedia entries on Collective Punishment and Collective Responsibility. The essence of collective punishment that I was trying to capture is: "Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behaviour of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions..." This Tehran nuking insanity relies on this nasty little idea of collective punishment. It is collective punishment to initiate force against a huge group of people purely because they are in the same general geographical area as some men you feel marginally threatened by.

I appreciate where you are coming from, and i'd like to thank you for putting some real thought into this. I'd like to amend your analogy a bit to make it more relevant to Iran, hopefully you can see what I am getting at: Imagine that you are a gang leader walking down a crowded street, and I am a rival gang leader sitting on a bench looking at you menacingly. I have my hand in my pocket, and I may or may not be hiding a gun. My gang members are standing around me, ready to protect me if someone attacks me at close range. You have a track record for wiping out gangs and seizing their territory. Are you justified in firing a machine gun through the crowd, causing substantial casualties, in order for a chance to kill me? If you do so, who is responsible for the deaths of the innocent people? I would say, you are responsible because you didn't invest the time and resources needed to specifically take me out. You opted for the easy option of wuidespread destruction in the hopes of catchign me in the middle of it. If you had been put in the extra effort to eliminate me with surgical precision, then there would be no casualties. Well, there is a price to be paid for sloppiness and 'mistakes'. Otherwise, we could take this to logical absurdity: imagine if you dropped a nuke on every gang leader in the country, and then washed your hands of responsibility by saying "The gang leader surrounded himself with civillians, so it's his fault". It is very important to avoid arbitary rules when dealing with these sorts of matters. I don't agree with you about the superior value of US soldiers, but that's not my main issue. The men pushing the buttons which cause innocent deaths should be given an incentive to minimize or eliminate 'collateral damage'. That incentive should be "moral and legal responsibility for the innocent people they kill". The US military would have to pay their soldiers a whole lot more to compensate for the risk of a victim's family filing lawsuits against them. This would also give the military an urgent financial incentive to develop technologies which maximize accuracy and minimize accidental deaths. Without these incentives, there will be a 'sloppiness' results in so many unnecessary deaths. Oh my. That was a vicious, bloodthirsty article far worse than anything I expected to see... Do you agree with that article? It blends collectivist and individualist concepts in a way that justifies pure, genocidal evil. I do not say this lightly: no man who has empathy, who values human life, who has a healthy psychology, could truly agree with the content of that article. It treats some human life so cheaply, and elevates the importance of collective lables like 'nation' and 'government'... This is not the sort of thing that should be associated with rationality, objective morals and individualism.