Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Godless Capitalist

Regulars
  • Posts

    759
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Godless Capitalist

  1. I went to a good book forum today at the CATO Institute about a new book debunking global warming hysteria. Unlike most such books, this one looks at why scientists and the media exaggerate global warming. The full title is "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media" I haven't read it but it looks promising. More information here: http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=Prod...&aeid=&adv=&pg=
  2. True, but the tip is considered incentive for the server to do a good job, so it is only fair to reward them (or not) accordingly. I do tip: 15% for OK average service, less for bad service, very rarely more.
  3. QUOTE(Godless Capitalist @ Nov 17 2004, 09:50 PM) Well, if one US soldier shoots a helpless Iranian POW, that's an initiation of force isn't it?
  4. We care if they hate us because we don't want them to attack us. You ignored the rest of what I said: "I think the only real choices are to take out the government and replace it with a better one, or to just kill every Muslim and/or Arab on the planet." The latter option is what following your preferred course of action would require. And of course it would not end there; we would also have to kill every Afghani, Pakistani, Chinese, North Korean ... I'm sure there are more. It would probably amount to half the world's population. As for the idea that destroying one country would convince the others not to attack us, history does not seem to support that idea. We did massive damage to Germany and Japan in WW2, yet after the war the USSR and China did not hesitate to act against us in various ways. We destroyed the Taliban and Saddam regimes, yet Syria and Iran still oppose us. Israel has attacked terrorist groups ruthlessly, yet they still carry out attacks.
  5. To put the above in another way, "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem." It should only be considered if your problems really are insoluable.
  6. Of course no one is completely safe. But in any case this is somewhat of a side issue. My main point is that failing to rebel, where such a rebellion would be extremely dangerous, is not a moral sanction of a dictatorship's actions. Well, maybe, but that does not seem to be what Dr. Brook is saying.
  7. Canada doesn't want them, or at least is not willing to make a special exception to their immigration laws. They have to go through the same application process as everyone else.
  8. Hitler had widespread popular support, at least initially. Again, the Iranian people have elected more moderate leaders when they have had the chance. There have also been widespread protests against the mullahs. Yes, they have some support, but not a majority. The problem at the moment is that a serious rebellion would be suicidal. If we took out the government and military the people would do the rest.
  9. We should care because mass attacks on civilians are not an effective way to defeat a country. The firebombings of Japanese and German cities in WW2 showed that. They did not encourage the survivors to overthrow their governments and surrender; they merely hardened their resolve. Since the moral implications of slaughtering millions of men, women, and children do not trouble you, perhaps the practical problems will. As for the "mullah-seeking missile," we do essentially have that. We have the ability to specifically target certain individuals and institutions within Iran. In my view that is what we should do: target the centers of control and power within Iran and collapse the government. On the wider point, I reject the idea of collective guilt implied in treating all Iranians as if they were a single entity. It is acceptable for innocent civilians to be killed accidentally as a result of our defending ourselves against the Iranian regime, but not to target civilians deliberately as if all Iranians were equally evil.
  10. non sequiter; we execute people as punishment for violating rights. The same can still be done to POWs if they are tried for war crimes, but once enemy soldiers surrender we should not just shoot them.
  11. Ed, why no mention of The Virtue of Selfishness? That's what I would recommend as a first AR nonfiction book. Agreed. OPAR is very systematic and more like a textbook than AR's essay collections, which are more thematic.
  12. Well, if one US soldier shoots a helpless Iranian POW, that's an initiation of force isn't it? Also, I object to the use of "the Iranians" as if all Iranians had the same beliefs and desires. The enemy is not all Iranians in general, it is specifically the mullahs who run the regime and those who support them.
  13. I don't see how you are inferring that from the quote you gave. If you choose to have a child (assuming you had a choice not to have it by having an abortion) you thereby accept the responsibility to care for it.
  14. Thoyd, I don't accept the idea that everyone in Iran hates us and wants to kill us. The younger generation is fairly pro-Western and has voted for moderate leaders when they have had a chance. The problems is the old mullahs. So by that reasoning if we kill one Iranian illegitimately (say a POW who is already harmless) it is OK for Iran to nuke New York?
  15. The problem, though, is "Who bells the cat?" A dictatorship by its nature makes it very difficult to organize and carry out a mass rebellion. People who act individually are easily dealt with by imprisonment or murder. I admire the courage of dissidents against tyranny but I hardly consider it a moral failing or sign of consent not to stick one's neck out.
  16. I seem to recall from election night that even MA was only about 60-40 for Kerry. The real split is not between red states and blue states but between big cities and rural areas. That becomes obvious if you look at voting by county rather than just the electoral college. I've heard a lot of whining that the liberals were all going to move to Canada, but very little sign that any will actually do so. I'd be in favor of an exchange with Canada: our whiny liberals for their hard workers who want a chance to be more successful than they can be in Canada. Also, there is already a good example of what a heavily Democrat-dominated country would look like: DC (where I live). It went 90-10 for Kerry and Democrats are so dominant in local politics that the real elections are essentially the Democratic primaries. DC is a mess: among the highest crime rates in the country despite the strictest gun control laws, among the worst public schools despite the highest spending rates, marginal public services despite high taxes, etc.
  17. I think fuel tank fires are relatively rare. In any case, safety was not the only reason I chose the car I did. There was also driving enjoyment, price, fuel economy, ease of parking, reliability, etc.
  18. That's not what Dr. Brook seems to be saying. He's saying only "freedom fighters and dissenters" are "truly innocent." So in order not to be a target of your country's enemies, you have to first be a target of your own country. To me a more rational choice is more along the lines of what you suggest; do as little as possible to support the regime but do not risk yourself suicidally. That of course is what most people in a dictatorship do; go about their own lives as best they can and try not to be noticed. That hardly makes them responsible for the dictatorship's actions. (All of my comments by the way are my own views.)
  19. I'm not so sure. Modern unibody cars are designed with front and rear crumple zones that absorb the impact of a collision, combined with a rigid frame around the passenger compartment that protects the occupants. Big SUVs are built using a body-on-frame structure that is not designed as well to absorb the energy of impacts. More of the energy of the crash is transmitted to the occupants rather than being absorbed by crumple zones. Plus big SUVs are more likely to roll over than cars.
  20. But that assumes the people can freely choose their government, which is not the case in Iran. "causing major population damage" would just encourage the survivors to hate us even more. I think the only real choices are to take out the government and replace it with a better one, or to just kill every Muslim and/or Arab on the planet.
  21. There is already a long thread somewhere about the "Morality of War" speech. (edit: here it is: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1637 ) My main objection to Dr. Brook's argument is that in most countries that oppose us, taking "active steps to oppose the government" would be suicidal. In Iraq under Saddam and in North Korea, Syria, etc. today. opposing the government would just bring you a painful death. It's hardly fair to assume that people support a dictatorial government just because they fail to sacrifice themselves in futile protests against it. A dictatorship may claim to represent its people, but that is not a legitimate claim and we should not hold the dictatorship's actions against the whole population. Now I do agree that it is acceptable to take whatever steps necessary to defeat an enemy country, even if that leads to collateral civilian casualities. But I do not support deliberately targeting civilians by, for example, nuking cities. As for accepting the system if you fail to leave the country, for Americans at least there is nowhere better to go.
  22. If I had an incurable painful terminal illness and my choice was between suicide and months of pain and suffering leading to death anyway, I would likely choose suicide. Basically in order to consider it I would have to already be in a situation where normal life and the pursuit of values was impossible.
  23. Thanks, all! What's the "Boy Named 'Sue'" effect? Why does it only affect boys?
  24. You are correct; it is a form of theft and thus immoral and illegal. There are several threads in here about this issue, and you can also read Ayn Rand's essay "Patents and Copyrights" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
×
×
  • Create New...