A is A
-
Posts
448 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by A is A
-
-
You're getting off topic. The original question was "Basically my question is if no force is exercised why should government be limited, if i decide that it is in my rational self-interest to fund a basic education for children who otherwise couldn't afford it (and enough others also decide this) would it become a justified function of government?"
My answer above stands to this question, and Crow's and Eluol's response to me is out of context of addressing the question. I was not formulating a theory of the functions of government.
-
A government that only provides a "system of laws to protect individual rights" and doesn't have, say, an army and a police force and courts etc. etc, isn't going to protect anybody's individual rights...
I'm not sure if you're referring to what Crow said about what he said I said, but if either of you are going to attempt to cite something I said, please cite it accurately. Nowhere did I say or imply "only".
-
Are you implying that armies and police and courts will be formed without laws? I didn't raise the issue so it's not my responsibility to provide evidence of it or any detail for it.
-
Turns out it is very easy to know you're not in the Matrix. Not everything has a green tint to it.
-
I am the only one who will not die. My intention is to make history and become immortal.
-
It's been a long time since I've read something that fits the term "floating abstraction" as well as what CWilliams is talking about. Apparently, all voters have to do is "vote" for the government to "provide a service" and it magically happens. I think he has been reading too much Rothbard. A government does not provide a service. It provides a system of laws to protect individual rights. Using his scenario, the govt. would have to pass a law creating his system of schools (or whatever other "service" he deems some group wants), and such law would have to be applied to everyone, as any objective law would. So his suggestion is outright contradictory: his voluntary service immediately becomes coercive.
CWilliams asserts "a Government's purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens" without providing any evidence as to why this is so or how it achieves its purpose, as if providing services is all that a government does, as if providing other voluntary services could possibly be within the purview of government action.
-
It means that service providers cannot prioritize their content based upon their own standards and which content gets delivered first, fastest, at what price. It means that individual companies are not allowed to engage in contractual agreements with their customers.
-
From this quote from Ayn Rand:
"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man."
What does man mean in this context such as it is.
Ethics is, after all, a set of hierarchical decision points that let us choose the least undesirable choice where all choices are undesirable.
I'll appreciate all points of view.
"Qua" is Latin for "in the capacity of" so "qua man" means, for Objectivism, pertaining to the capacity of man as a rational being. Since reason is his means of survival, the standard of good and evil in ethics pertains to actions and ideas that which enable man to live as a rational human being.
Objectivism strongly disagrees with your view of ethics. It rejects utilitarianism completely.
-
Oh, that's interesting, thanks.
Still, it seems like he should have tried to make his case through the legal system first, no?
You want him to use the legal system to fight against a government project?
-
Well?
Also, how do you explain the difference between the Temple and Cortlandt? The Temple was defaced and he seemed unfazed; Cortlandt was defaced and he dynamited it.
The temple was private property, Cortlandt was public property.
-
And no, it doesn't beg the question. There might be 10 people who have motives to commit the same crime.
-
So, if 10 people see you hold a gun on a person, your fingerprints are on the gun, there's a camera overhead that has pictures of you pointing the gun at someone, and you have that person's money in your pocket, it's only an accident?
-
Humans do not inherently act to attain pleasure. Just look around the world.
-
There may be cases where knowing the motive is important, such as in self-defense cases where one person is dead and the other is alive.
-
AisA, that seems like a strange statement. Why would motive not be required in establishing guilt? Clearly it doesn't apply to accidents. Your post implies, though, that motive doesn't matter for saying someone is guilty of murder. Do you mean something else?
The only thing need to prove guilt is that the person committed the crime. Why he did it is irrelevant for guilt, although knowing motive certainly helps in putting the crime in context. But, unless the defendent himself actually testifies, you'll probably never know his true motive.
-
I don't believe motive is a necessary condition to establish guilt in a trial.
-
Does anyone know who developed this as a standard of proof for establishing guilt?
I've tried Google searching, but I cannot link those three up to any historical figure.
I don't think these are the standards for proof. They are simply factors that require explanation. If I hire a killer, then I have only motive.
-
What was the example?
-
The grouping depends upon the cognitive purpose. For example, you might have 1 yellow jar, 1 brown jar, and one brown pouch. In which case you're attempting for form the concept brown.
-
Except for a few corrections, yes. The "grouping' of the two pouches is not an automatic process. Perceiving the pouch's similarities and differences from the jar is the automatic process.
Measurement omission does not consist of forgetting the measurements. The measurements are just not specified, with the implication that they may exist in any amount and must exist in some specific amount.
When forming the concept container, you'd need a third object that is not a container, something to serve a difference (as a foil or counter) in function from the jar and pouch which are similar in function.
-
Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. I fail to see how that's inconsistent with it being artificial. I used the concept just fine.
But, even if there is an inconsistency, you make no attempt at showing that it exists.
We're debating whether life can be artificial, and your big argument in favor of your position is that using the phrase "artificial life" is a stolen concept because if something is alive, it's not artificial.
I'm sorry for using words with precise meaning. You may resume your metaphorical discussion without me.
-
But existence is everything, there is not "something else" to distinguish it from. Concept formation requires a comparison by Rand's theory. I agree with the point being made, that our awareness is how we conceptualize existence, but awareness isn't so simple as what you see in front of you. That's how a baby would do it - so some babies fail at object permanency. To make existence into a full-on concept needs a comparison to something besides itself, which is still not possible to do well by simply closing your eyes. Keep in mind the appendix quote in question was published posthumously unedited by Rand in a Q&A, so if pressed, she may have improved her answer.
If you can't grasp the difference between being aware of something and not being aware of it, then there's not point in arguing. As Rand explained, the concept 'existence' is grasped by a specific method. Go reread what she said because your argument is answered by what she says. If you want to present her statements and offer arguements against that, I'd be open to discussing that. But comparing an adults level of knowledge to a baby's is not going to get you an answer.
And awareness IS what you see in front of you.
-
What does that have to do with living, though? In other words: So what?
So, then you tell me what artificial has to do with intelligence.
-
If I agreed, you wouldn't say I lacked knowledge. The only evidence you provided that I lack knowledge is, well, nothing at all, so the only evidence I have is my disagreement. It is patronizing to provide no reasons. I wanted to be more precise than "what you see", otherwise, I'd have to question that the sun exists since it's night time. Existence needs to conceptualize what you don't see, too.
I guess I relied on the evidence of your own statement in comparison to what what I said to be clear.
You said, "But when you block my view of something, I know it exists." That is irrelevant to the point being made. The issue was perceiving what exists and how to distinguish that perception from what could be referred to as not perceiving existence. If your eyes are open, you see the object of perception, and can conceptualize the concept existence in the manner that Rand describes in ITOE. If your eyes are closed, you do not see the object and hence you would be unable to conceptualize existence without your perception. Thus, the concept existence is distinguished from "something else", which is what the point was about. Your awareness vs. your lack of awareness. When you are aware, you are aware of existence.
Examples of Perceptual Data
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
Here's another example. The images is entirely made up of dots. Your brain integrates the dots to perceive a face.