TLD

'DataPacRat' That is why I added the caveat about wiggle room for that classic dilemma. When there /are/ third choices, in which it's possible to survive without violating anyone else's rights, then of course that would be the preferred option.[/code] There is no real "wiggle room": an emergency is obvious. But all subjectivists who do not understand principles tend to re-define terms to create such WR by evading their options. [code]I believe some previous posters in this thread disagreed with the point about whether the standard is all lives, or one's own life, so I trust that you won't mind that I won't take your word on that issue being settled. SO take Rand's word for it - it's true. Think about how you would define right from wrong if we subjectively compared the value of different lives and rights. I'm used to being called weird by ordinary folk; I find it amusing that I'm so far off the charts that even Objectivists (who, regardless of the merits of the philosophy, aren't exactly mainstream in present society) consider my situation to be an edge case. Once you are comfortable with all Obj. principles, you will be comfortable with how you lead your life. Presented properly to others, you will be admired for what you stand for even if others can't agree with you.

'DataPacRat' If you had to choose between stealing a loaf of bread or starving (with no wiggling about for third choices), is theft moral? That Gordian knot of a puzzle was solved by somebody who said that survival is a /pre-/moral choice. That is, that issues of survival are not questions of morality or ethics, but of how to define what one's moral/ethical system is in the first place. ... and there's that insight I was hoping for. Most Objectivists I've talked to treat health care as an issue about government funding, and thus about taxation, and thus about rights, and thus about politics, and thus about a subset of ethics... while I treat it as a survival issue, of making the difference between life and death, and thus a pre-moral issue.[/code] I see that you are treading a fine line here. It is in emergency situations - where human survival is impossible and where one's primary goal is to simply get past a disaster - that standard morality does not apply; but that does not cover the broad category of survival as you discuss it. E.g. stealing because you are hungry is not moral, simply because there are rational choices (like earn the bread). [code]Yes, I believe that, to me, my life is more important than your rights. And that, to you, your life is more important than my rights. As long as the issue is of survival vs rights, survival trumps rights. (Things get a lot stickier when it's a question of one person's survival vs another's, or one's rights vs another's, but, again, that's a whole nother topic.) The standard of value is life - all men's life; one is not more important than another. In virtually all cases in life, survival does not compete with rights.

Interesting: I thought this thread began with the question of taxation....

'DataPacRat' http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Taxation.html certainly seems to indicate that that is the Objectivist position. I could also refer you to the forum in which the earlier conversation took place, and that position was stated as being the Objectivist one, if you wish.[/code] Again, theoretically yes. But that also says that "taxation is not necessary to pool our resources" and that is not true. Govt. forcing taxes to be paid for essential services if justified until all else is done to make us a completely free society. I don't see any Obj. position per se on this issue. Context cannot be dropped.

'Jake_Ellison' Your claim was that Ayn Rand wasn't against taxation, except in the one context of an ideal society. I presented quotes that prove she was against all violations of rights, in all contexts, and taxation is undoubtedly a violation of rights, as she defined it. That is Ayn Rand's position, and the Objectivist position.[/code] One can theoretically be against taxation; but like I just said, given no choice in our society, Govt. must provide essential services via taxation. You assume that is a violation when it is not in this context. [code]If your opinion is that it's wrong, then you need to specify that when answering questions on this board. I have no desire to argue that point with you (because there are no new arguments, I've heard them all), only the question of what Ayn Rand's position is. I never said taxation is right in principle. But the services in this context do not represent a violation. Show a quote that contradicts that. The act of taxing people is wrong, and the alternative is to not tax them, not to expect them to pay voluntarily before you stop taxing them. This is an example of applying principles where they don't apply. E.g. try paying for the essential services without taxation and see where you end up. It would be irrational not to collect taxes for them. Rational taxation is a contradiction in terms. Objectivism does have a fundamental distinction between rational and irrational human interactions: all human interactions which rely on the initiation of force are irrational (they literally disregard a man's rational faculty). A claim that men should be taxed until they volunteer to pay is by definition irrational. Taxation, like all initiation of force, dismisses the rational faculty of the person producing the wealth obtained: it is irrational. No distinction? You just made one! And you contradicted Rand: she said taxation is the last thing Govt. can remove..., thus rational now. Since Govt. has a proper monopoly on the use of force, such use cannot always be irrational.

'EC' Having any portion of your money stolen by the government most certainly is a violation of one's rights.[/code] You can't ignore my entire argument and continue to call it "stolen." [code]Nobody is saying that they wouldn't pay for their protection by the government just that it should only be voluntary. Yet it is not possible in our system. You are putting the cart before the horse. This is just completely wrong. That's like saying 150 years ago that crops have always been harvested using slave labor; the whole agricultural system is run using slave labor; men need the fruits of agriculture; therefore we can't call slave labor immoral. It's a complete non sequitur. Bad analogy: Govt. has a right to provide essential services at our cost; it just happens that it is not able to do so without taxation (unless in the unattainable context). There is no right to enslave. [i]You[/i] are now missing the point here. [i]All[/i] taxes are irrationally imposed because they are immoral. Why are all taxes immoral? Because they violate property rights. [i]Any[/i] violation of an individuals property rights for [i]any[/i] reason at [i]any[/i] time [b]is[/b] [i]immoral[/i]. Immoral only in that unattainable context. Today, they don't violate rights. Morality requires choices, and that choice does not exist.

Jake_Ellison No, it would be a free society if the government stopped initiating force against citizens.[/code] Yes; but I said that there is an alternative to taxation "If there was a totally free society and if people would volunteer to pay for all services." Since that has never been the case.... [code]Are you saying it's not a violation of rigths if I take half your money? Your discussion of rights does not apply as I presented the situation. Of course - in your ex. - that would be a violation. But Govt. taxing for essential services for our protection should not be a moral issue. I am as strong a proponent of indiv. rights as anyone; but I can't say - as an anarchist would - that I have a right to not pay for said protections. The article discussing "Government Financing in a Fully Free Society" says that eliminating taxes is the last step in becoming totally free. And "The Nature of Government" notes that Govt. holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force and must provide the essential services we have discussed. Since it is not possible to do so without taxation in our society, one cannot call such taxes immoral. Furthermore, we need a fundamental distinction between those taxes and all others that are irrationally imposed.

But you are missing a point: the Rand statement was contextual, not a fundamental truism. I have not seen it stated that all taxation is immoral out of that context.

Rand stated that position clearly in "Government Financing in a Free Society:" [i]In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary.[/i] Here there is a distinction regarding the presence of coercion. I'm concluding when you say "Taxation for our protection - as the only practical means of paying for protection - cannot also be considered force," you are making a false statement.[/code] Agreed - [u]If[/u] there was a totally free society and if people would volunteer to pay for all services. The current context is that Govt. must fund certain services and, as such, is not initiating force - we have no choice and those services are for our protection. And in this context, it is not an "Obj. position" that all taxation is immoral.

What says all taxation is immoral? Where is there stated such an Objectivist position? Your last statement is clearly not what I said, just what you conclude from your first assumption.

A: Too hard an interpretation. Taxation for our protection - as the only practical means of paying for protection - cannot also be considered force. That would be an anarchist position; i.e. any central Govt. is force. B: Too loose. The fundamental ways of protecting all - military, police, courts - are proper functions of Govt. Any other "program" could be employed by individuals or businesses and does not require, and cannot be the responsibility of, Govt. If you don't stick to fundamentals and allow such pragmatic expansion of Govt., then there is no line to draw.

Of course; that does not negate what I said re "harm."

Or if you have reason to believe that the person will harm the lives of others.... It is about LIFE, not just your life. Enable a person to harm others - with any knowledge that he intends to do so - is a violation of rights. Same for selling a product that is harmful or selling to people who will cause harm with it. "Given that you do not ... want to know the intentions of the people you sell the product too" (in original questions) says something about one's negative motives in selling the product.

No one said that. It is unethical to sell knowing they are going to use something destructively; you would be an accomplice.

You missed the word "knowingly."

In that context, absolutely not. You are suggesting fraud and/or evil behavior. Because you don't use it - no issue. Knowingly destructive use - no. Without knowledge of the need of the buyer and/or failing to reveal the negatives to the buyer - no. Now, do you have an example where you believed otherwise?

More simply, I would say that a rational person is one who holds and applies rational principles, thus acts consistently rationally (except for errors of judgment or occasional misunderstanding of the principles). It is quantifiable in that sense: "1 time" or "half the time" suggests non-rational.

This is the same as asking if non-objectivists can be moral? Understand that an Objectivist is one who explicitly accepts and lives the principles of Objectivism. That does not imply that all non-Obj.s fail to live all such principles. It is a matter of logic....

One's first responsibility is too himself - to be as rational as possible and live his life as full and happy as possible. After that, you can simply talk to others about differences in behaviors, right and wrong, and attempt to help them become more rational. I have influenced a lot of people to think more about their actions. Free will will always enable change; only the truly immoral ones will dismiss your attempts and learn nothing. Fundamentals are not determined by the majority's behavior. That's like saying that if most people murder, shouldn't that be what we should expect from others - and even from oneself (as if you can't objectively know right from wrong and act accordingly). (I actually knew someone who believed that anyone is capable of murder; and he clearly based that on a subjectivist view of reality.)

Those who are primarily irrational cannot be truly happy. But, yes, they can survive. Happiness requires the achievement of one’s values. It cannot be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Rationality is the most fundamental virtue: it means "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action." JeffS: "If most people are not rational, then there is no hope, and no point in trying to live a rational life." PBK is absolutely right on this and on his advice to study these concepts more. If you consistently hold onto Obj. principles, the worst result will be some degree of alienation from the irrational majority. SO you have to choose between living a reasoned/moral life or having more "friends." That does not say that your friends have to all be Objectivists: one cannot expect others to choose to study philosophy and understand moral concepts as you might. But an Obj. does need to eliminate those "friends" who remain significantly irrational after your attempts to help them understand moral principles.

Your distinction is acknowledged. However, I can see a situation where the loss of a loved one is so great that one would find life of too little value without the other person, leading to suicide. Where one believes that he will suffer more by staying alive than by dying (just as in a poor medical condition), then dying could not be viewed as a sacrifice. In the example presented here, I would certainly hope that someone would provide the necessary support/therapy to show such a person why life is still of value.

Your quote should be read in context with the entire article. By saying "life without the loved person could be unbearable", she simply means that that one values that person enough to make risking his life for that person a selfish act rather than a sacrifice. No, it does not require (nor should) that person to be of greater value.... The fact that one's grief might later fade (as suggested by Whynot) does not enter the equation when focusing on that risk. And no Whynot, it is not anti-Objectivist if it is a selfish act.

In both cases, he is giving up his life for the same basic reason - life being unbearable without her. He would not be sacrificing if she is of equal value to him. Sacrificing for a selfish reason is a contradiction in terms.

Important clarification! I never said "harder"...because "Freer." Because Govt. does a poor job of protecting rights (where it does recognize them), it is then easier for people to "abuse." Rights are inalienable - people have them whether or not Govt. chooses to recognize them. Where Govt. does not recognize them - where greater control over the individual, one is less free to "abuse." That has nothing to do with how rights are defined. And that says nothing about the merits of Capitalism. I never said he was; I was quoting liberals. Careful how you read others. It is not "whatever" - words are important. I said "enable" because people are more able to "abuse" in a freer system (as above). As always, discussion goes way beyond the original questions/thoughts. So I will end my part here.

Back to your original statement: "The difference between Capitalism and other altruistic based political system (and why it is superior) is that Capitalism doesn't do anything, while all other system acts artificially to drag men down." I was merely noting that that was not an appropriate distinction. Liberals criticize Capitalism for leaving people freer - because of what people can do in a freer system when Govt. cannot protect rights appropriately. E.g. "Madoff is the product of Capitalism." One can always be moral, but one can't always get away with being immoral. So I would not say Capitalism "enables" more morality, it simply rewards it. It does enable more immorality where one chooses it. E.g. try to commit a crime in Singapore and see where you get!