TLD

In the context of home/personal use, permission has never been denied; just ask Microsoft down to the CD makers. Using the certainly principle, permission is thus assumed. To Freestyle: the 3rd party does not own the song itself, just the CD; thus he has no authority to share the CD. The RIAA says what it has to say, but the owners of the material do not follow such a standard.

I have never seen such permission questioned, thus it is granted. Apply the concept of certainty.

You "doubt" without any reason to do so; again over-complicating. What the industry is targeting is exactly what enables one to determine the line to draw re copying - short of explicit wording in the copyright. "Convenience" applies only to the owner and the owner's home; it cannot extend to others.

You make this far too complex. You don't have to ask that: "convenience" is not what the industry is going after; they just want to stop copying where it could replace further sales, and it cannot be assumed that you will buy 2 copies for your home just so you can play in 2 rooms of your own home!!!

Agree totally. That is the line to draw.

That is rationalization. He's a different person isn't he? Note that there have been several suggestions here on how to tweek the law and/or evade certain aspects of it. The law is clear and it generally does not matter whether a CD or other product has all the restrictive messages on it. More importantly is the moral question: should you copy material that belongs to someone else? Would you want others to copy a product of yours?

You forgot the priniciple from your first statement: the CD is to have 1 owner, 1 simultaneous user. So you certainly cannot keep the music and sell it, new or used. Don't rationalize that you are harming yourself by removing it from your computer. Enforcement is not the primary issue, morality is. Is it moral to violate any rational law just because you can't be caught? I always ask an Ebay seller if he is retaining music or any s/w after selling it; some are honest and I don't buy it if he says yes, and I still don't if I suspect he is being immoral. Of course - same principle. Your action to buy is independent of the seller's action to sell.

Justice requires judging: man judging and evaluating other men according to the things they do and say. Ethics sets the criteria for such judging. Thus, Objectivist ethics requires objective judging. The resulting evaluation leads to a conclusion about a person and a determination of what he is worth - and what he "deserves." That will determine his "just deserts."

Obj. or atheism refutes the notion of a god due to a metaphysical contradiction (discussed). It does not prove there is no god - can't prove a negative. The notion is not arbitrary; it is fundamentally unsound.

No, it is accepted because any belief to the contrary contradicts fundamental Epistemological principles.

I can't believe that someone who calls himself an Objectivist would ask such a question; and that no one else has pointed that out (as far as I have seen). Free will or determinism = Obj. vs. Sub. If you really understand Obj, you could study any particular individual and determine where he philosophically made errors that led him to be a subjectivist.

This kind of dialog is what causes such threads to be closed down. Ex-BE: you started off talking about (what looked like) a goal to solve major problems in Korea, and noted that it related to a future career. In the context of this thread, I appropriately assumed that you saw helping Koreans as a selfish act. But I attempted to show that your goal was too lofty and unrealistic - as are Obama's. After accusing me of over-judging you, you then talked about "little successes" which fell fall short of the "goal." Then you said that your first statement was not a goal - just a thought. Then you showed impatience and made more accusations; I stopped posting. Then Jake similarly attempted to show you that your goal/thought was unrealistic. Perhaps he was less tactful about that than I was (no offense Jake), but his basic points were correct. But you took him wrong and accused him of belittling Koreans (vs. their leaders); and you took strong offense at the mistaken notion that he was saying he knew more about Korea than you. He partially reacted to the fact that you had already over-reacted to my "polite" answer, and that you were missing the message we were trying to convey. You never really explained why you made your first statement and what it had to do with the tread's topic. But now no one is likely listening to you.

As I understand it: VE represents a collection of normative ethical philosophies that place an emphasis on being rather than doing. Morality stems from the identity and/or character of the individual, rather than being a reflection of the actions (or consequences) of the individual. It comes as a result of intrinsic (not objective) virtues.

I certainly did not compare you with him, just the goal. Now you say that was not your career goal; but it sounded like it was. Was it just an idea to see how selfish it could be perceived or not (given the thread)? You seem a bit sensitive to specific words and reactive instead of recognizing my attempt to be helpful. I won't add anything further unless on a more philosophical point.

That was not emotional at all. The evidence suggests that your goal is too lofty. I was trying to get to to consider being less idealistic. Your goal as stated was far from "little." But if you would be satisfied with simply getting N Korea to say they would talk with the South without any expected outcome leading to that goal, or getting an agreement from the UN to speak harshly with N Korea, then just realize that there is a high probability that that will end up being your sacrifice. I assume you are very young and have time to think about what is truly realistic in the political arena. Then you have to determine your motive for getting into that arena and avoid the altruistic path.

And who would you have to influence/educate? The N Koreans who listen to no one. You sound like Obama: "I want to negotiate (with success) with the leaders of Iran et al"; when, in fact, that is impossible given the values and goals of those leaders. Politics is dirty business and seldom breaks through moral barriers. Such a goal is near impossible to achieve. Unless you documented a clear path to that end that could be seen as a potential success, than it would be a sacrifice to attempt it.

Quote: "I would say the theme is morality vs. totalitarianism." You must have meant the morality of totalitarianism; Morality and politics are not in conflict.

scottd I find it interesting that no one has said if you simply cannot achieve happiness in your life knowing that those kids are suffering, then by all means, GO. But make sure your values are in proper order... Yes, it's all about values. The only question to ask in order to answer this thread's question is: do you value someone enough that helping them is not a sacrifice?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." "Creator" is someone, here a god. "Created" is the action of creating. This should have simply read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal, with certain inalienable Rights: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Why chew it up anymore. But knowing what the Founders believed and that the meaning is essentially the same, it should not be necessary to change it - any more than removing "in god we trust" from currency.

Who can tell with the kind of Q&A that goes on in some of these threads.

No one should be mocked for that. Nor should Alan Greenspan be put in the same sentence with Ayn Rand.

(Meta = metaphysical) It has been covered either here or other related threads: primacy of consciousness over existence. Go to the Lexicon: www.aynrandlexicon.com

We are certain because of no evidence of a god. More fundamentally, because of the false Meta. premise discussed.... "No conclusive evidence" suggests some evidence. Note that an atheist believes in no god primarily because of the philosophical contradictions. He does not hold that belief because he can prove there is no god.

Possible to Probable to Certain: may, likely, will happen; see the dictionary. Yes - certain. You used the key word - "all." It takes more reading to truly understand abstractions like this.