Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hotu Matua

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Hotu Matua last won the day on December 29 2010

Hotu Matua had the most liked content!

About Hotu Matua

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/25/1966

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Enrique Camacho
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    Born in 1966 in Oaxaca, Mexico. Currently living in Monterrey, Mexico. Physician. Specialist in Infectious Diseases. Atheist, but formerly very religious. Working for pharmaceutical company in clinical research over the last 12 years. Came to know Ayn Rand's work very recently, first attracted by the works of Rothbard, Friedman and Nozick.
  • Occupation
    Geography, travelling, photography

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. The current framework of rights in Objectivism thought is that rights are rights to action (negative rights) and not rights to stuff (positive rights). However, in this situations, my disabled relative or my small child are helpless for an action that ensures their survival. Do these people have a right to THINGS such as food, bed, clothes, books, toys, medicines? Is one of the responsibilities of the State to ensure those positive rights are "honoured" by some persons? In my view, those cases are clearly outside the current framework of rights and should be treated under another log
  2. I would like to know your opinion about it. My question is not whether abandoning a small child or severe disabled first-degree relative to their fate is ethical or unethical. My question is whether a right is being violated, and therefore the agent of such an action should be punished accordingly by the Law. In general, we know that the need of person A does not imply an obligation from person B. While acting directly on person A to kill him is an obvious violation of his right to life, is the omission to take care of them also a violation of a right, in circumstances where we are the
  3. Unanimous consent on what? On the nature of the crime in question? You are right: no unanimous consent is needed because the nature and purpose of a government is precisely to judge on disagreement. But government requires consent from people it governs in terms of the choice of that government. If this weren't true, then it will be all right if Yaron Brook seized by force the governemnt to implement an Objectivist rule over the USA. The very endorsment of democratic elections by Objectivism strongly speaks on the attempt to reach volitional endorsement by individuals. Well, such try is a
  4. But if you define "territory" as "my privately owned land", then you don't have competing governments over THAT territory. We have this sort of anarchy already. For example: Let's take the case of John and Paul, John owning a pet-friendly hotel and Paul a hotel that forbids their guests to bring along pets. Within Pau'ls property, any guest who violates that law can be expulsed, even by the use of force. And it doesn't matter whether Paul is protected by agency A and the guest is protected by agency B, the matter in question should be resolved under the assumption that within Paul's hote
  5. A MISSING PIECE IN THE DISCUSSION: HOW TO DEFINE "TERRITORY" 2046 is making, in my opinion, a brilliant defense of anarchism. I have no way to argue. I declare myself defeated: I have exhausted my ideas on how to defend the possibility of a proper monopoly of force within a given territory, IF territory is defined by the currently existing borders between nation-States... This in no way undermines the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and esthetic premises of Objectivism. It does not undermine its view of politics as far as the definition of rights is concerned. It would only challenge a
  6. Rejecting something unearned when there is no option to earn it and you need it, is itself a form of self-sacrifice. This applies to societies with mixed economy, as Nick has clearly pointed out. We benefit everyday from goods provided by the State from coercitive expropiation of others' wealth. Rejecting such benefit when all other options have been closed by the current system would be self-sacrificial. Other situations involving the unearned is good luck. From time to time, you happen to find goods or oppotunities that you didn't strive for, and nevertheless you take advantage of.
  7. That's why I stated as a condition of morality "if conceived and applied honouring reality". If I fantasize about getting rich by winning the lottery I am not honouring reality. Such fantasies may distract me from real work. But fantasizing about getting rich by succeeding in the project I am actively involved in may indeed help me either to achieve it, or to enjoy my efforts even if I don't achieve it.. If I fantasize about a woman I could reasonably expect to love and be loved by, I am honouring reality. The content of the fantasy is crucial, as it will inflluence action.
  8. Fantasies are deliberate mental processes that can help us to flourish, if conceived and applied honouring reality. Inasmuch as they help me to understand or celebrate reality (specifically, my life as part of that reality) they are fine... indeed, they are great. When you read a novel, and you feel inspired by the main character, you may fantasize you ARE that character and image how you would behave in those scenarios and in new scenarios: for example in the scneario of your current life. This can bring new insights to your life, and pleasure about being a part of this world. Fantasy is
  9. Well, I'm not sure about that argument. The fact that some governments offer some level of protection to the rights of their citizens will not hold water in front of an anarchist. They could reply: "That's exaclty my point. Goverments are gangs that protect their members from being screwed by people other than the gang's boss". Some drug cartels in my country behave that way. Being part of some criminal bands, in fact, offers you a more effective level of protection of some of your rights that some local governments do. The induction process cannot go this direction: "Taxes are good fo
  10. Excellent idea of a thread, Thomas. At some moment in history, all governments denied women a chance to vote in elections. At some moment, all or nearly all considered homosexuality a crime. Using inductive thinking, they could have concluded that this kind of discrimination was inherent to any government. They could hardly imagine our time, where governments would think and act otherwise. Induction, to be effective as a tool of cognition, has to consider the full context of knowledge available. This means that, by knowing everthing we can know about the nature of man, rights, democr
  11. The issue with the Falkand islands is a concrete case to apply the principle. As you know, Argentinian claims on those islands derive from the fact that, in the oldest maps, they appear as part of the corresponding Spanish colony ("Virreinato del Río de la Plata"), even though they were not inhabited nor any economic activity was being performed by any citizen from the empire. Argentina sees the islands as property of their state/government/nation. But that is is floating abstraction. It does not connect with any concrete. Governments/nations/states cannot own territory. On the other hand,
  12. Thank you, Leonid, for your insight. I agree with it completely. Rights come first. Specifically, property rigthts come first. And even more specifically, land ownership which, after ownership of your own body and your tools (which are extensions of your body), is the most basic form of property. Over the course of history, landowners where the first ones (and sometimes the only ones) to form governments. I am trying to illustrate this with the following graph. Suppose landowners (represented by blue spheres) organize to form a government, which authority is confined within the blue bo
  13. . I didn't say it is necessarily an act of force. An annexation must be the result of agreement among free men, or else it is an act of force. Which men? The men who need protection of their rights in the new territory. Hi, Nicky The statement I am referring to is your statement about North America having "a colourful map, with every country represented many times over, in various spots, across it." After picturing this scenario, you say that "that obviously would result in anarchy of the worst kind". That is the statement I want to rebuke. It is not obvious to me that h
  14. Thank you very much, Reide. I think you're right. At an individual level, the standard argument it is not determinist. It looks as if it were determinist when we examine the group of people as a whole and for a longer period of time. If group A has much more incentives to be dishonest than group B, then group A will very likely behave worse than group B. This statement only reflects the effect of accumulated number of immoral decisions, and not any determinism at each individual decision.
  15. When there is still territory to be explored and claimed, minorities (those who voted for the loser candidate or the loser proposal) can either 1) accept the decision of the majority and stay in the new country 2) move outside the jurisdiction of the new country to new, unclaimed territory. So, the number of new countries that can be formed in the Antarctica, or the number of already existing governments that can be called by colonizers to enact their authority will depend on the colonizers acting as free agents and seeking agreements. . Now, the word "anarchy" has been brought to th
  • Create New...