VECT

That's right, if 51 people can force the other 49 people to finance the road with them though the government, it does violate the 49's individual right. But let me put this into perspective: If 99 people voted to build the road and can force that last person to finance the road against his will through the government, that is still individual right violation. Which comes to your second question: The issue comes first. Some issues are up for voting, others are not (like the above case). The fair percentage question can only apply to issues that are up to vote, and in those cases, the % should be determined by politicians through political science. The issues that are not up to vote are not up to vote. No percentages can provide justification.

What you are complaining about is the current state of affairs in US's mixed economy, affairs resulted from the socialist side of that mixture. It has nothing to do with Capitalism. In a free capitalistic society there is a complete separation between state and economy as there is one between state and church. Any business can attempt to bribe any politician in a capitalistic society all they want, but no one will get anywhere as the politicians can't pass any laws that can regulate economy. It's only in a mixed system like the present state of US, where the government is allowed to pass laws to regulate the economy, that businesses would have the option to bribe politicians into passing laws either favoring their own business, or passing laws that could oppress their current or would be business competitors. With Capitalism, there is no such option.

The reason why LFC is listed just as another variant Capitalism elsewhere is because majority of the people, who are politically inept, believe that Capitalism is just whatever system America has. So if US changes her econ-political system to a relatively more socialistic stand, these people will believe it as just another form of Capitalism, and the politicians will also want to label it as such to avoid..problems. All political systems has its foundation in an ethical system, and that foundation is what separates them apart, not arbitrarily designated names. LFC is the only system that has its ethical root planted firmly in the soil of individual rights, and ten feet away from that other patch of soil called altruism. That's the reason why LFC is the "real" capitalism.

Oh they are altruistic alright, altruistic in the sense that if you ask an average Joe whether the people should make sacrifice for others or that whether the government have the right to sacrifice the interest of a minority for the good of the majority, chances are they will say yes. The funny thing is, if you ask this same person whether HE should make sacrifice for others or that whether the government have the right to sacrifice HIS interest for the good of the majority, and depending on the amount of sacrifice you are asking him to make, you can observe some pretty interesting reactions. Most people are altruistic today in the sense they are hypocrites who have no problem voicing others to make sacrifice for the public good, but when you put him on the spotlight of the sacrificial alter, ohhh boy, that's an issue they want to evade at all cost.

I don't blame you, consider how much the concept of morality has been corrupted by modern day culture. It doesn't. The science of ethics only apply when an organism with free will is added into the mix in addition to nature. Ethics is essentially the study of what an organism with free will should do in order to achieve the end goal of living in the environment. If you are an organism without free will, like normal animals, then there's no point designing any ethic code for you, since everything you will do is automatic and based on instincts. But if you are a volitional organism like a human, and you choose to live, then you need the science of ethics to guide all the choices you make in life so that the choices you make are actually moving you toward the goal of living instead of toward death. The Objectivist Ethics is a ethical code specifically designed for the volitional organisms called human, and for the end result of living well on earth. If there is an alien race out there who are also volitional, then they'll need a different ethical code designed for their survival. Believing in absolutes doesn't automatically mean you are believing in the arbitrary. It depends on where your absolute came from. The belief of the absolute that 1+1=2 by a mathematician and the belief of the absolute "God exists" by a priest are complete separate things. The mathematician's absolute came from rational observation, while the priest's came from blind faith (ie fantasy). A simple example of absolute morality would be "thou shalt not ingest cyanide". If you are a normal human and your goal is to live, then this eithical code applies to you, absolutely

The only unquestionable primary in Objectivism is the metaphysical axioms (because the act of questioning it must automatically assume them). The right to life is just the means to the end of supporting an individual's life in a social context. Anyone can question the right to life all they want, but none has found any rational flaw in this right, in that it somehow does not promote an individual's life in a society, and there are no reasons so far suggesting anyone ever will Well, very close but not exactly. Under Objectivism the standard for good and evil is an individual's life, that which acts to support one's life is good, and that which destroys it is evil. The right to life is not an individual's life, they are two different things (although closely connected). An individual's life is the ultimate end, the right to life is not. The right to life is the political means to the ultimate end of promoting an individual's life (and therefore, good). So yes, it is correct to say that in a political context, if a particular decision upholds the right to life, it's good, if the decision destroys it, it is evil; not because the right to life is the ultimate end, but because by either promoting or destroying the right to life in politics, that particular decision is either promoting or destroying an individual's life. Pretty much perfect.

The word "free" or "freedom" is contextual, meaning depends on the context the word it is used in (depending on the answer to "free, from what?"), it will mean completely different things. The freedom that's talked about in politics is political freedom, meaning the freedom to conduct certain act without retaliation from the government. You have will have all the freedoms and rights proper to a human begin in a free capitalistic society. But the freedom to enslave other individuals is not one of them, because the physical nature of human doesn't give him the right, the justification, to enslave other humans. The physical nature of human does give him the right and justification to have the right to his own life, the right to own inanimate objects, the right to self-defense..etc. in a society. That's right, it is called immoral by consensus in our day and age. But that's not the reason why it is wrong. Public consensus doesn't make something morally right or wrong. Whether something is morally right or wrong to human is determine solely by the physical nature of human. If the public consensus coincide with what human nature demands, like in this case of condemning slavery as wrong, then the public consensus is correct. If the public consensus deviate with what human nature demands, like in the case of condemning selfishness as immoral, then the public consensus is wrong. And that's one of the biggest flaw in politics today. The politicians thinks the justification for the any political right is the majority consensus, that whatever the majority votes on is right. However, humans are objects with set physical nature just like trees or animals. If you want to grow a plant, whether an action is wrong or right in the path of achieving that goal is solely determined by the nature of that plant. One million people telling you it is right to grow that plant in salted soil doesn't make that action right. The same goes with humans, with people. If you want to create a society proper to humans, it's the same when you want to create an environment proper to a plant. You base what you do on human nature, and human nature is the sole factor in determining whether something is right or wrong. The inalienable rights SHOULD be justified under human nature, by the self-evident. But, the politicians today practice their trade, do it with disgrace and don't.

What does the fact that ownership of anything requires a legal framework have to do with what we are discussing? So you make a legal framework for private ownership, does that somehow automatically provide a justification for private ownership? And what the hell does this fact have to do with any essentials of Devil's post? Of what you have posted? You are saying I am been an ass. I am, and this is the reason among others why. You start pulling out facts and make no direct connection to what's been discussed, and you do it with an attitude of superiority complex as if by pulling out none connecting facts somehow automatically proves your point. Among others you have misinterpreted to a large margin certain essential points that I made very clearly, and even put word in my mouth for things I didn't say. Whether these acts are result of irrational intentions or incompetence, I am fully in my right to be a bit pissed. And you say I am a troll? If this were any other forum I would have refused to waste my time defending against such irrationality posts ago. The kind of trolling you have accomplished in the past page is much greater than I could ever hope for.

It doesn't make a difference whether "the People" you wrote was meant to be the collective or a collection of individuals, because both terms denotes or includes entity other than oneself, that others' welfare or values have a claim on the resources he is economizing. The "by the people, for the people" is valid when used in Lincoln's context because he's talking about the formation of a government, that the government should be an entity created by the collection of individuals, and be proper to every single one of them, proper to both an individual himself and every other individuals. What we are talking about is economizing limited resources, it's a completely separate context and if you use "by the people, for the people" in this context, it would translate to: -Private ownership is justified because it is the method that can best economize a limited resource by the people for the people. That would be by the people for themselves and every other individuals. Private ownership is justified because it is the system that best allows an individual to economize a limited resource for himself (or individuals for themselves). "Economized" is a verb that denotes an entity that acts and an entity that it acts upon. The entity that can fill the actor spot is the individual, or individuals/people. But the only entity that can fill the receiving side is either himself or themselves, any other term, like "the People" automatically includes someone other than an individual's self. The only right answer you could have given to my question of "Economized, for who?" was "for himself" or "by the people for themselves". Although now I can see why you made that mistake as you did.

There is a mistake if the implication of the [people] stands. Arguing for Capitalism on altruistic ground is a common mistake, one that I have committed myself in the past, so I know it well. You didn't call out on him because you missed it. And sure, there is a small room to change the [people] to the [individual] in Devil's post, which is the reason I asked "Economized, for who?" in my very first post. But guess what? Jake comes right below me and answers the [people] himself, then proceeds to drop context and result in the drama you see now.

Topic of the thread --- justifying private ownership for waterways Justification offered: Translation: Private ownership is justified for waterways because it is the method that can best economize a limited resource for the public and give the best result to the people, the collective. Translation: The system that can best economize a scarce resource for the public and produce the most social net gain in wealth justifies its existence. Private ownership can best economize a scarce resource in this case of waterways for the people, therefore it is justified. My post: That's wrong. My reading skills are non-existent? So what is this, am I seeing different words on my monitor other than the ones appearing on yours Jake? Yes, that's how the "best" SHOULD be defined. But the "should" doesn't magically prevent people to define it the wrong way in their argument, by mistake or intentional. Been an Objectivist doesn't make you immune from making mistakes. Devil's Advocate made one in his post, I pointed it out, and somehow people want to deny that fact by the incredulous method of taking out the single term "private ownership" from his post and dropping every other word he's written. How's that for context dropping huh?

Does the fact that private ownership is defined within the context of individual right magically makes it impossible for people to physically use the term outside of its proper context? No. Is Devils_Advocate's post an example of that? Yes. You say I am the one dropping the proper context of private ownership, I am the one pointing out that private ownership is used in the wrong context in the other post. I don't assume the speaker used it in some imaginary other context, his own post explicitly and implicitly communicated that he is using it in a context other than the proper one. You are the one who somehow want to argue that Devils_Advocate's post does have the proper context for private ownership, by blanking out and dropping the entire context of his post. Really now, quote me. Don't put word in my mouth, I never said implementing individual rights is the ultimate end. What I said was private ownership is a means to the end of implementing individual rights (in a political context). Individual rights are then a means to the end of something else, which ends up to the ultimate end of an individual's life..etc. Ha! the "best/most good". You do realize the "best/most good" in Devil's Advocate's post is the people, the collective, not the individual; something you even stated in your own post. So by the virtue of what you are saying right now, the good of the collective is the moral, private ownership is a means to THAT, which is the best for the collective and individual rights are also a means to THAT best Devil's Advocate is talking about, which is again, the collective. That is what I was pointing out in his post, and that is what I am condemning as wrong. And if you are going to support that stand, you will be in the wrong with him. I made no mistake, you are the one who is somehow making the mistake of interpreting that I interpreted Devils_Advocate's "the best" (or the actual best for that matter) to mean "the most efficient". What I interpreted, and what Devil's Advocate posted, is that his "the best" means "the best for THE COLLECTIVE", that private ownership is justified because it is the best for the collective good. And I am pointing out he is committing the fallacy of arguing for Capitalism on altruistic ground. The hell are you talking about? You do realize you brought up the example of stratosphere ownership as a counter example to invalidate the private ownership of waterways. So what, now are you trying to commit an equivocation saying stratosphere is not something the government should worry about at the present time, implying that...waterways ownership is not something government should worry about at the present time...? Just what exactly are you trying to say here?

You are wrong. Don't drop context and automatically assume any argument explicitly mentioning the word private ownership will somehow magically always have individual right as the standard; read his post again. The end, the standard, in his post, is not individual right, but the best economization (for the people/public). Private ownership is used in his argument as a means to THAT, not as a means to the end of implementing individual rights. And that's committing the fallacy of arguing for Capitalism on altruist ground. Why wouldn't private ownership of the upper levels of the atmosphere be right? Just because you or anyone else's personal ability at political and governmental science isn't up to the par to think up a legal implementation of property right on difficult entities doesn't automatically invalidate property right on those entities. As for what I deem irrelevant "social statistical reasons", they are irrelevant in my original context, which is the standard and justification for private ownership.

You are making the mistake of arguing for Capitalism on altruistic ground. Economized, for who? Your argument is implying the public at large is the "who" and the standard is the collective well begin. So if the private owner of a waterway happens to be incompetent, and cannot serve the well being of the public better than if the government takes over and nationalize his waterway, then does it follow that the government have the right to do so? Private ownership and distribution is right not because of any social statistical reasons (the net result could be good if the majority of private owners choose to be rational, or it could be bad if they choose to be irrationals), it is right because it's what human nature demands. In practical terms, it's the only system that motivates the rational and discourages the irrational by giving to each what they sowed.

That's government decentralization, not government competition. Government competition would be two different governments of different fundamental principles facing off against one another. ie a theocracy VS a free-capitalistic society. In this case war is the natural discourse when the balance of power shifts. The theocracy would see the opponent as a sacrifice who they are entitled to invade if they so choose, and the free-capitalistic society would see the theocracy as a criminal state who they have the right to liberate if private citizens donate up enough cash and volunteers for a military operation. Everyone of your states in your example must operate though the same fundamental principle of individual rights. It's decentralization, and yes it's good since it give municipal/state governments the chance to compete against one another in seeing who has the better politicians who can carry out those principles into practice. And also, there is a mega-government that must oversee the whole of the decentralization, this government takes the form of a constitution and a federal government that enforces the constitution to prevent any of the states from going rogue (i.e. adopts Communism, theocracy...etc.) so everyone of the states must operate though the principle of individual rights. The federal government also organizes a national military from state donations for this purpose and also for defending against foreign invaders (from other humans to aliens). Founding of US is a close example to this.

Businesses can compete productively because of proper governmental protection on individual rights. So what kind of new entity will you invent that will oversee proper competition between governments so they don't start invading their neighbors? Some form of mega-government?

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy in Rand's context denotes a society moving towards pure private ownership of all property, where less and less entity is "publicly owned". In this case surveillance isn't a problem what so ever, since everyone is perfectly entitled to survey their own property however they like.

Oh wow, what a clusterfuck this thread has been. From newthoughts' posts the guy's misunderstanding and fallacies of the topics at hand does not stay in politics alone but goes all the way back to ethics, maybe even metaphysics and epistemology, maybe. http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page Read it, beginning to the end. It will help you a lot more than try arguing anything in this thread, when you don't even know exactly what you are arguing about.

Feminism is at best a redundancy and at worst just another social gang vying for their share of the unearned. If it's a political movement seeking individual rights (ie right to life, right to property, right to self-defense...etc), then why only for women? Join the radicals for capitalism and and seek it for everyone. If it's a social movement that seeks equality through unearned privileges such as employment and wage regulation that would have the government force businesses to give out jobs or change wage rates for women, then it's just another looter gang with gender as the name tag.

Shouldn't it be the opposite? Rational people tend to be more intelligent. No matter how high someone's IQ is, if they choose not to think, and think rationally, they will not be intelligent whatsoever. And more IQ won't automatically cause someone to choose to think rationally. On the topic, Longevity and upgraded immune system is the most important here I believe. But consider this, if longevity or even immortality is achieved though gene manipulation, unless it's in a free capitalistic society, the overpopulation will cause social collapse in statist societies faster than anything if unregulated. And you can bet regulation is going to come down HARD from all pressure groups on any such development. On the wishful side, If I had the choice I'd give up any scientific discovery for the biotech that could achieve longevity/immortality, even if it's the technology to create a new metal stronger and lighter than steel

EVA have it's appeals on how it was set up, but the very ending was a total chaotic cesspool if there ever was one. Hopefully they'll do better with the Rebuilds. All of the works that's good now days can only set the conflicts up right (in that the conflicts are both metaphysically important and the style plus integrity of their presentation), and a lot of them done so brilliantly. But almost all of them falls apart midway, the better ones, which are very few, manage to carry it further, or at least finish it decently. But none so far I have seen finished their conflicts brilliantly. For anime/manga, in terms of theme/plot, TTGL and Sanctuary manga are the only 2 that concluded decently with important conflicts and Berserk manga is the longest running one that still kept up strong and haven't fall apart yet. Death Note is worth mentioning as one of the best thriller. Macross series have the best style by far, and in the latest series, Macross Frontier, human's elite and their best military divisions the "SOS" which the protagonist is in, are basically small professional militias backed up financially by Capitalism. A lot of those authors/producers came pretty far in terms of their own personal philosophic achievements delivered through their works, and in those few titles above, all of them have managed to touch Objectivism partially by their own strength (especially Sanctuary, political wise at least). But unfortunately they are artist after all instead of philosophers, and their talent mainly lies with their own trade. For a lot of authors, if only they found out and studied Objectivism and integrated the philosophy with their sense of life, so much more work could have been brilliant instead of falling out short.

Nope, if an unsuccessful corporation goes under, no one will have to pay for the failure other than those who made a choice in supporting that corporation while it existed. That means the employees, managers..etc. who choose to work there and pays for it by losing their existing job, the creditors who lent out money and pays for their misplaced faith if they weren't able to collect all their debt, and lastly the investors who made a decision in supporting the failed corporation will pay for their wrong decision by losing their investment. I don't know what kind of backlash are you thinking of, but in a free society/market, everyone is responsible for their own choices. If they screw up, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Yeah, it's shame the producers at Gainax can bring such a great sense of life implicitly into their work but cannot communicate it fully in explicit terms. Guess that's one of the reason you need philosophers. It happens in a lot of other great works in the East. Unlimited Blade Works, the second route of Fate Stay Night, the most popular and highest sold visual novel in Japan's history. In the story the main character is plagued by survivor's guilt and a serious case of altruist morality. Plot develops until he have to face off against his future self who have ultimately turned into a Machiavelli anti-hero. Here's the climax scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNSEWOlup8w#t=30s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V0tGvI4NNI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7SlIQkAspA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjQHLFemeSs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syRyxNCJ22I The preconditions are setup almost perfectly. But without professional philosophical guidance, the author struggles to finish the conflict with a final philosophical answer.

"Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann", or simply "Gurren Lagann", if anyone hasn't seen it yet I highly recommend it. This 27 episode series comes as close to the ideal of Romantic Art as one can get in today's art mediums, and epic beyond belief, bar none. If you haven't and do decide to check it out, watch it with Japanese dub and English subtitle; there is a version with English dub, but the voice acting just isn't on par. I've watched a lot of animated works from both East and West, there are quiet few great titles, especially from the East, as Japan have taken what they learned from Disney cartoons decades ago to a whole different level. But this title, TTGL, blew every impression of animated works I've ever had and set a completely different record. Those of you who truly enjoy Romantic works, this series will bring tears to your eyes, guaranteed.