Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Castle

Regulars
  • Posts

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Castle

  1. The posts above pretty accurately explain why its immoral to utilize force to make others pay for such things. I would like to reiterate that the concept of insurance is to protect from events that might happen, not events that are happening or did happen. Asking for insurance against birth defects is essentially asking to be insured against the past. I agree with the above conclusion that benevolence is a factor in solving this problem. Honestly, its very difficult to estimate how much benevolence would fix this issue, because we have no idea of the prosperity and reduced cost that would likely be a feature of a coercion free system. There is every indication that it would make human benevolence easier and cheaper to practice. There is also the issue of responsibility. Many birth defects can be found well before the embryo has progressed to even a questionable level of development. If a parent chooses not to utilize the available technology or is just negligent, why should anyone else be coerced into paying for that decision? If such a decision were religiously motivated, one has to ask why those organizations aren't pulling together to help their members with the consequences of obeying their own strictures? There is also room for a little planning to mitigate this sort of problem, which might be implemented if the "Hey, I'll just ask the government to fix it with guns!" approach. An example would be a cooperative pre-birth insurance pool. People volunteer to pay a certain amount per month or when the pregnancy is discovered. Money is pooled by the cooperative or hospital and used in interest bearing activities. If a defect is discovered before a certain month of gestation the fund pays for the pregnancy to be aborted. If it is found after the fund pays for a predetermined amount of corrective surgery. In the case of a normal gestation and birth the fund keeps the deposits. As most gestations that go to term are normal, capital would be accumulated to assist unlucky depositors. Another potential would be to start "baby funds" as gifts for new marriages or similar events. Surprise pregnancy insurance? Its possible. I'm just listing things off the top of my head, but as I am just one guy it seems likely that the human race can arrive at more innovative solutions to this issue than violence.
  2. This would hinge on the context. The principle that you do not have a duty to tell the truth within certain contexts has been established. The Nazi example being the most extreme, but not singular example. Within the context and information given I think the lie wasn't immoral. First, there is the issue of conscription. Self & group censoring certain opinions is valid within the context of a voluntary organization as a contractual stipulation, but a man isn't obligated to assist a compulsory organization in further violations by reporting all disallowed behavior. There is also the issue of the unpatriotic talker's intent and probable effects of his actions. I haven't seen the movie, but knowing the genre I suspect the relationship between the two soldiers was mutually supportive. Buddies watching each others back. If the guy is just blowing off steam his partner isn't morally obligated to diminish his survival chances and cut his own emotional lifeline on a technical violation. Now if he's deliberately destroying morale in the unit, which will likely end in a failure cascade at the worst possible time with the effect of increasing casualties, that's a different situation. He would be making the situation more dangerous for you.
  3. Yes, they absolutely should do so. However, the arrest of a suspect is a reactive act, not proactive. The criminal initiates the police response by way of his initiation of force. No "sting" operations, no fiat declarations of legality on the basis that everyone "might" be irresponsible, no regulatory agencies setting rules on the assumption that an entire industry is corrupt while setting conveniently low fines for the criminal acts of the extreme minority. Law enforcement should act as a body's immune system. Vigilant, adaptive, but essentially reactive.
  4. I echo the individual's take on rights. Inmates still retain many rights while incarcerated. If they were under absolute control there would be no way prison gangs could form or for inmates to murde, assault, and rape while in prisons. All of those things are consistent and widespread problems within the penal system. Prisoners lose the application of their rights to the extent necessary to punish the specific criminal act and protect the citizenry. At least within a just system anyway. Looking at the current system, I would hypothesize that the justice system isn't going far enough with true crimes. Minor offenses are another story. In many, probably most, cases a minor crime is based in other improper systems. The issue isn't if the justice system is coming down to hard on parking tickets, drug use among adults, and other fiat crimes. The issue is that they shouldn't be coming down at all on these things. Not that mistreatment shouldn't be dealt with, but handling current unjust actions by the justice department is an intermediate step to solving the problem. That would be the premise that the legislative body can declare an action a crime by fiat based on faulty principles. Take the parking ticket example. The owner of the road or parking area can apply fines for certain behaviors he deems undesireable regarding the use of his property. He has no right to enforce them violently, but he does have the right to deny the offender access until they are paid. If the offender refuses to leave or later uses the property without permission he can contact law enforcement to deal with the tresspass. Noone goes to jail unless they flagrantly violate another's rights, and there is no proactive police involvement. The worst a serial parking violator can get is blacklisted from facilities, unless he escalates his behavior to the criminal level. Correct implementation of property rights with stern and impartial enforcement solves a wide range of issues, from minor issues like the parking example to huge ones like polution.
  5. Wow, sickening. I can't believe this guy hasn't been immediately fired. This is a powerful example of why the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.
  6. Not bad at all, imho. I'm not sure I would characterize their position as romantic, more degenerate than anything. Other issues with their position. "We are aware of..." Awareness is not the arbiter of right and wrong or ethical action. You speak of the desire for "connection" and yet assert that your group is the moral authority for all living beings and inanimate objects on the sole basis of what it's members see and understand. Your position is an exemplar of militant "us vs. them" ideology. It is permanently disconnected from the rest of your own species and your only method of attaining the highest value you proclaim is to remove "them" from your awareness. Inevitably it will end in the permanent "disconnecting" of dissenters, meaning producers and innocents, from their own property and lives. People who hate human life always have, and always will, make themselves the moral authority and make someone else the problem to be solved. You will produce a final cure for the "sickness" you see in humanity eventually, some who hold your views already have. The only difference is that the human ash won't be allowed to drift away from the furnaces on the wind, and the bones of your victims will not be buried. The ash you'll use as fertilizer to "care for the land"; the bones flung into the sea to seed a coral reef to house our sea brothers. Then you will turn on each other as you starve out of respect for your equal earth and animal friends. Until someone again makes a tool and humans once again "exploit" the earth for our needs. But then, I tend to wax poetic. Thanks for the opportunity to do so, Greebo. Good luck with the debate.
  7. Thats weird timing I agree. I bank with Suntrust and my charges are up within minutes usually. I wonder why there isn't some sort of established industry standard or contractual guarantee with this, you would think it would be a big selling point since this affects everyone.
  8. It seems like a natural thing to do given the context you describe. You guys seem to have a lot in common and she seems to be interested, so it isn't as though you're forcing anything on her. I wouldn't think of it in the terms of you expressing such things because she might "need" to know them to lead a rational life, but just sharing something you value with someone you care for. You certainly don't have a duty either way in my opinion. I would just share what you feel comfortable sharing and she's interested in. You didn't state it explicitly, but it sounds like you may be concerned with "pushing" certain ideas or readings on her. From what you've written it really doesn't seem like you're that type of person. As the relationship deepens its bound to be discussed, as its a big part of your life. Maybe. You didn't state that you considered yourself an Objectivist and I don't want to apply a label to you. I would just share your values and let things happen naturally. I wouldn't feel bad about pointing her in the right direction if she was expressing an interest.
  9. It seems to me that if my country diverges from the guiding philosophy of my life beyond a certain point it ceases to become "my" country, especially if all outlets to promote change are closed. Patriotism, or love of my country to put it another way, seems to be a derived valuation. In much the same way that love of a person is a response to a values in another person, patriotism is the response to values seen in one's country. At least thats my opinion. Choosing to value an entity over the system that I use to determine value is paradoxical. The closest thing I can think of would be complete mental collapse and obeying whoever is in power. In other words, being broken mentally and emotionally.
  10. Honestly, it might be a move for the better. Not that religion isn't destructive and wrong, but a moral compass pointing in the wrong direction is slghtly better than one spinning wildly. At least he's thinking in terms of absolutes. Perhaps you can work from there if you want to. At minimum you have a basis by which to at least partially anticipate his behavior. I'll take "I can't be a thieving, murdering cheat because Zeus tells me I must never do those things." over "I don't have a subjectively valid reason to be a thieving, murdering cheat today. We'll see what tommorrow brings." that isn't an assessment of your friend btw, just a joking paraphrasing of the views. Religion is a primitive attempt at philosophy so maybe this decision is just a waypoint on his journey, it was for me. At least the friction caused by the stealing won't be in your relationship.
  11. Well, there is a certain amount of utility to having some people on the ground to go after difficult or hardened targets, do recon, gather intellignce, and snatch the occasional HVT for interrogation. Certainly not the massive investment of manpower we've currently mobilized.
  12. Well, thats a good development. I can understand the attachment to someone due to shared history, my stock answer for "How do I make this person see?" type questions is close to what I wrote above. It just doesn't pay to get too emotionally invested in it, as people make their own choices. I also happen to have a very deeply rooted wariness of anyone claiming to have a subjective moral compass. Seen too much of the result. That being said, I don't know your friend. Your values are, of course, your guide. Not some internet advice. That goes without saying, but I'll say it in case I came across as authoritative. You're right, Objectivism is a difficult philosophy to practice.
  13. Sure, everything happens for a reason in the sense that cause and effect is valid. People that say that usually don't mean it that way though. They're really saying that everything happens according to an intelligent plan or "for the best". Absolutely wrong, and not particularly comforting even if it were true. Being in the grip of an invisible being who's apparent concept of "the good" is radically different than my own and who is willing to cripple, kill, and otherwise set me up for torture using limitless power to achieve that "good" I can never understand seems like a recipe for stark raving terror to me.
  14. Your friend hasn't thought it through enough. He is actually anti-knowledge, in my opinion. Theft of any good serves to reduce the future supply, by way of reducing the incentive for future production. Everything he steals was produced by someone else's mind, using a portion of their limited lifespan. Even making the media available for purchase involves time and resources. Elimination of that person's profit eliminates their incentive to continue to expand knowledge and share it. This friend claims to be operating on a principle of love of knowledge, but is acting to destroy its production and distribution at the source, as far as he is able to. "I love apples so much I rip the tree up by its roots to reach them easier." would be a different way to illustrate the principle involved. Everything this friend says he "loves" is the product of another mind, and within the limits of his ability, he acts on the premise that that other mind should wither, starve for lack of resources, should die if it continued to provide that which he "loves". Also, by your friends argument, the producer of the stolen items should search him out and cripple or kill him if he finds that the profit he would have gained to be more valuable than the thief's life, as long as he finds that assessment "subjectively valid" and therefore overrules morality. Your friend is a fool who operates on principles that would culminate in his own deprivation and destruction if they were allowed to be truly implemented on a large scale. I would seriously rethink this friendship, especially if he says he values it. Anyone who operates on the premise that "subjectively valid" assessments trump morality is capable of anything.
  15. I agree. The rich need employees, lieutenants, trusted advisors, professionals, customers, suppliers, and all sorts of other things from their fellow men. The wealthy generally didn't get wealthy alone or just by thinking it so, and the few that simply inherited still provide tremendous benefits to less affluent people passively.
  16. I think it could be helpful, but does not solve the real issue. We aren't being beaten by the Taliban in A-stan, we're being beaten by Washington, DC. My opinion is that we must either go on a total offensive, with limited disregard for borders, or completely reevaluate the parameters of the mission. Probably both now that I think of it. What is the value of "nation building" in A-stan, other than its "what we do" to show that we aren't conquerors? We gave the previous local government an opportunity for a peaceful resolution, they declined. My experience from being there is that we should have reduced any government structure a smoking ruin, eliminated every government official responsible for refusing to stop supporting the training camps, and stamped out those training camps. After that we should have pulled back and given notice to whatever government seized power next that non-support of terrorist training facilities was a condition required for their survival, and pulled out to defend our own borders and look for other state sponsors of terrorism. Let private aid agencies rebuild, if they feel its such an imperative, with their own funds they either earned or solicited from volunteers. Let them pay for their own security as well. That isn't the military's job.
  17. 1. You can determine poor workmanship and materials from inspections. The only regulation necessary is enforcement of fraud and theft by deception law against businesses that sell inferior products and hide it. Also, please present evidence that government regulation works in this regard. 2. Because their job is not to innovate or improve, its to enforce compliance to a standard that may or may not be current. His job is to make sure the product looks like the snapshot he's given, nothing more. If that means prohibiting nonstandard, but superior, materials he will. If it means greenlighting a product that barely makes code, giving it a false veneer of acceptability when a commercial inspector would warn the paying consumer, he will. 3. True, when your system does away with rights in favor of regulation the corrupt will always rise to the top. In a properly free system there are no arbitrary rules or regulations to bend, break with a wink, or loophole out of. Just laws against rights violations rigidly enforced. 4. For one thing, Canada is not a utopia. As a personal anecdote, I've known bank executives that consider working with canadian banks to be pure hell. The system is stagnant and no one even cares to fix problems. Believe that or not, but it is a true assessment I received from a VP of a regional bank. Regulations provide a smokescreen for crap like the massive fraud in the financial sector to take place. The layman assumes that "its all being watched". It isn't. Madoff got away with his crime for so long partly because he had held high level positions and was trusted. People didn't think a guy connected like he was could be doing what the analysis they were looking at said, and the money kept flowing. And yes, mandatory housing finance regulations, winking assurances from congress that losses would be covered, and oversight that can be bought did have a role in this. 5. Isn't it weird how politicians in countries with heavier regulations always seem to be peddling influence and favor to let someone avoid the regulations and messes? Yet somehow.....businesses are evil. Interesting. Extensive regulations serve as a smokescreen for malfeasance, stagnate the market, protect some businesses at the expense of others, and assign corrupt power to government officials who arbitrarily abuse it.
  18. I honestly don't remember ever showering in the field when I was active. In my line of work, that sort of thing was just way down on the list. Even if we did, I wouldn't expect private showers. The point is to practice the hardships and tasks of war (kinda). I honestly hadn't thought about toilets, there always seem to be stalls or port-a-potties. I probably wouldn't be MORE uncomfortable knowing a dude watching me take a dump was gay, I would be pretty close to max uncomfortable no matter who was.
  19. My sense of life is full of mirth and laughter. I'll take your word that the OP was tongue in cheek. If a guy posts an inside joke on the outside, he might have to throw out a "Dude, it was a joke." if someone makes the mistake of taking him seriously. Sorry for the confusion. I keep trying to get over myself, its just that its the only self I've got and he's made of pure diluted awesome. (That was a joke)
  20. With all due respect, acting on principle is exactly what I did do. I did not dictate any conditions under which the gentleman in question can do anything, I pointed out that the conditions and specifically his stated reason for soliciting were insulting and in poor taste. Nothing I said had anything to do with "picking a fight" unless answering "no" or pointing out that the request has questionable and of insulting intent is "picking a fight". As to remarking on his quotation, I find a posted quote from a man Rand repeatedly and forcefully labeled the originator of a patently evil philosophy to be of relevance WHEN the person in question is requesting for me to associate my name with his own. I did consider the content of the quote in question along with the context of the author and where it was posted. I found the intent questionable and said so. This is, in fact, how ALL men should act in the face of questionable and insulting actions. As to acting on principle. I happen to believe a solicitation of the sort request, with the reasons stated, is insulting and deserves to be challenged. I did so, on principle. While we're on principles. "In addition, do not use this forum to promote any other web site or solicit the members of this board without the approval of the moderators." - Forum rules Was the thread soliciting facebook ads for the purpose of looking cool and cultured approved by the moderators? Is the solicitation of affiliation with forum members for the purpose of second handing esteem or a cultured appearance from them consistent with the purpose of the site, as per forum participation term 1? If the answer to these questions is "no", I presume It shouldn't be necessary to report the thread, as its obviously being watched by the moderators very closely. "Do not post complaints about the behavior of any member on the forum - report them to the moderators. Public complaints about other members will be treated as a personal attack and may be deleted!" I respectfully requested a PM from the moderator who was deleting posts to inform me of why. I honestly would have expected that in the first place, if only to let me know what I did so that I wouldn't do it again. I tried to fix what I thought might be the issue on the second post and afterward reiterated my request for a PRIVATE message informing me of the policy I was violating. If you've sensed any sort of irritation from the posts on that thread it has to do with being arbitrarily censored without even being given the courtesy of being told why. I know myself and the courage to simply say "I moderated you because your post was a simple "No"" would have likely stopped this whole mess in its tracks. Instead of the request PRIVATE message detailing the complaint, I find that I did get a PM informing me that the complaint against me had been posted PUBLICLY in my intro thread. It seems an odd choice to publish that sort of thing PUBLICLY in an out of context thread introducing me where anyone reading it would simply read that I'm hostile, pick fights, dictatorial, outspoken (at least that ones true), and apparently from your last paragraph devoid of understanding about principles and their application. So we have that criticism out of context and public. IIRC context is a pretty important concept in Objectivism, it would certainly help anyone reading the complaint you publicly posted against me to know the quote, since "I think your opinion was wrong about the quote." is apparently relevant to the moderation. Something tells me that the above quoted forum rule's intent wasn't to privately report complaints so that they could publicly post them out of context elsewhere. It read to me like the intent was to keep that sort of thing private, which I requested if I was being moderated (which I wasn't even sure of until now). If I'm correct regarding the forum rule intending to keep complaints off the forum, please explain why you went public? What were you saying about principles being absolute? PS - Apologies for the original post, censored for brevity, as well as the second and third, censored for responding to an insulting solicitation on the thread.
  21. I'm positive its an economy thing. It certainly never made me feel more unified with the team, shared hardship and success does that. It just felt childish. We partitioned ourselves private areas in A-stan, but sure there are situations where you would have to bunk communally. The army doesn't necessarily live constantly like its a war though. Even if it did cost more money I still think it would be the right thing to do for integrating different lifestyles into the army, outside of wartime. As stupid as homophobia is the homophobe has a right to be wrong, and making him perform uncomfortable and disturbing (to him) actions as part of his job is wrong, just as forcing a homosexual to hide or act against his lifestyle and convictions as part of his job is wrong. The only answer I can see there is everyone lives in their own domicile, like adults. War is different because it entails all kinds of unforseen considerations and situational difficulties.
  22. Nor did I have anything mean to say. Responding to a request you find pathetic and insulting with the reason you find it so isn't a personal attack. Just then was the first time I mentioned pathetic btw, I left that part out because it seemed personal. You wouldn't know that since the only response allowed is agreement. As I stated in a previous post that vanished, if he had asked for contacts with mutual interests or interesting views my response would have been different. The request was for facebook friends to make a page look cool and cultured. When someone asks me to allow them to second hand attributes on an Objectivist forum while posting quotes by Kant I reserve the right to respond to the request.
  23. Since I've posted "No" twice and provided a well thought out reason, and keep having posts mysteriously vanish, I would super duper love to expose details of my personal life to someone I don't know and all of his friends so I can be furniture on his website! Please contact me immediately on PM so I can add you and you can start looking cool and cultured. As previously requested, if the deletion is by moderator I respectfully request a PM explaining what part of the forum rules I've violated. Is disagreement with a request not allowed?
  24. Wow, what a dick move. The answer to the communal shower/living thing is to get rid of that style of living, not try to acclimatize everyone to exposing themselves without odd feelings. To the best of my knowledge (10+ years in service) the discharge for homosexual conduct is a general discharge, doesn't reflect one way or the other. That can be bad enough, but it doesn't hold the stigma of an "other than honorable" or "dishonorable". I don't exactly keep my finger on the pulse of the issue, but I doubt that the policy has changed. I doubt a lot of the so-called moderates supporting this would back a clear declaration of "dishonor". The whole point is to implement lame half measures in an atmosphere of indistinct principles after all. Honestly, Every dishonorable discharge I've ever seen has been for something totally crazy, criminal activity and the like.
  25. But what came first? The cosmic egg or the universal chicken? Why should one always engage? There are all kinds of reasons that debating this with someone wouldn't be worth my time. The person that is genuinely curious, can offer some value to me, and can be swayed is rare indeed. I'm not an Objectivist evangelist.
×
×
  • Create New...