Inspector
-
Posts
4032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Inspector
-
-
Oh, I see. So if the criminals did not earn enough to keep up the whole prison system then your rights would be violated. Are your rights also violated if the police and the military do not pay for themselves?
Alright, point taken. But the criminals SHOULD properly pay for themselves... if they do not, it will be via accident rather than design, and yes, I think that would constitute the criminal violating rights, if he left the state a bill for his care (like for example if he were to hang himself).
If the criminal refused to pay then the state could simply add bills to his "account" or decrease the quality of his care.
Anyway, if you are right, then you should not need to explain this to me in terms of criminals and prisons. How does the child having a right to be cared for not violate my right to own and dispose of the products of my labor?
-
Did you forget that in a proper society financial support for the government is voluntary?
No, and while that mitigates the issue, it does not resolve it. If that made everything okay, then you could have a welfare state! Obviously not!
"Since [incarcerating a criminal]must provide material, and if [the incarceration] does so by ... RIGHT, then that means the [incarceration of a criminal] has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor."Where on earth did you get the idea that incarcerated criminals would not pay for themselves?!? YES that WOULD be a violation of my rights!
-
You are neglecting the distinction I have repeatedly made. It is not the "needs" of the child per se that is the issue, but rather the child's rights. An adult in need remains responsible for his own life, but, by definition, a child requires a guardian to protect his right to life.
Please reconcile this statement with the one that "there can be no such thing as the right to violate rights." Since a guardian must provide material, and if he does so by the child's RIGHT, then that means the the child has the RIGHT to violate my right to keep the product of my labor.
I'm obviosly missing something in your reasoning here Stephen, since I know you would not support such a position.
-
Would you like it if some TRULY free nation, viewed the US and its socialistic ways as a threat to their freedom, because we sometimes invade and interfere with things we shouldn't? So they launch a war and kill ALL AMERICANS with carpet bombs and nukes, simply because we weren't sufficiently uprising against our government.
I have considered this point in the past. I believe I would leave America and join that nation. Oh, and to answer your question, yes I would like that, because that would mean that a truly free nation existed and was powerful enough to survive.
-
No.Do you agree with the majority of stances the US takes on issues?Yet, do you sanction "the evil"? Yes!Only when forced, so I'm not really giving my sanction.
The point where the government supresses free speech and openly violates rights is where to draw the line.But some of us choose to work within the system to improve things for the better.Now imagine you are under a regime that rules by force and fear. What options do you really have?Die resisting the government, die at the hands of the government, or die when someone else bombs the government to keep themselves safe. Those are my choices. I would choose the former. Oh, and "leaving" is a form of resisting the government.
I think its better to take out leaders and officials through covert ops, rather than full out war.That is a question of strategy, not morality. As I said "IF and that is a BIG if."
Re-read my post; I have clarified it a bit.
-
Should we go around killing all the country's men, women and children who may or may not be affiliated idealogically with their government simply because they live in some geographical area?
Morally, we would have the right. And not "simply" because they live in a geographic area, but because those people "living in that geogrpahic area" are not suficiently resisting the government. They are sanctioning the evil through their inaction. They failed and their failure is now a threat to us. So we will respond in the way that is least harmful to our own citizenry. If (and that's a BIG if) that means nuking/carpet bombing them all, then that's what it means. We have no moral responsibility to sacrifice our lives to save those who are sanctioning evil. And so long as ANY strategy is more risky to even a single American life than nuking them would be, then that is precisely what we are doing: sacrificing ourselves.
So long as such a strategy (nuking) is clearly known by the world, I think no one would mess with us.
-
Does the policeman, qua agent of the government, leave the unwanted child in the crib to die, or does he protect the right to life of the child?
(emphasis mine)
Concretize this please. What will the government do, specifically? Who will pay for it?
-
Speaking of cars ... Today I saw an absolutely great commercial for the new Ford Mustang.
I only saw the latter half of that commercial but I cranked the volume in awe. It was brilliant! With Steve himself, no less!
-
342.5 x 1.15 = 393.875
It depends on what the percentage is relative to. If you mean a 15% increase over the original, then 342 x 1.15 = 393.875. If you mean a 15% decrease from an original, then 402.94 x .85 = 342.499.
I was doing a 15% decrease from the original, which is the most common method used. Thanks for being vigilant, though.
-
Nice figures, but that is greater than a 15% increase.
Er? 402.94*.85=342.499 402.82*.85=342.397
Not sure what I'm doing wrong...Don't forget the relative power/weight ratios. And, I think the Z06 came with a few more things than the Firebird, other than the horsepower.
LOL, yes indeedy. I was talking simply in terms of power. Of course, the lighter and better geared Z06 would be a quicker car. In addition to being sweeeeet. (That's factory option "S"
) -
Oh, I almost forgot: for those who don't know, those were horsepower at the rear wheels. Manufacturers measure HP at the flywheel; the drivetrain generally costs about 15% on a manual transmission car.
So compared to what most of you know, the measure is 402.94 and 402.82.
It's more than a year 2001 Z06 but less than a 2002+. Not bad for a couple hundred dollars in modifications.
But I am far from finished.
-
[incoherant, happy sounding babbling]
...*ahem*
Okay, May 15th is getting marked on my calendar.
-
Forcing someone to kill someone else is an initiation of force. Killing someone is also an initiation of force. Both people are intitiating force. Only the first, however, is legally responsible.
No, I am fairly certain that the person who is under threat is NOT initiating force. The force has ALREADY been initiated by the original actor and it remains in play. The person who is being coerced is not INITIATING force. He is USING it, but not INITIATING it.
In either case, of course that person is not responsible for that action.
-
Nate,
Probably the most important rule of hot rod ownership is to have a clear goal in mind before you start. Sounds like you already know that! I guess the next question is: what are you thinking in terms of engines? That's going to have a large effect on how fast you can go and stay streetable.
All:
Well I got the dyno on saturday, and although I was hoping for more, I still got some pretty good numbers:
1st pull: 342.5 HP; 348.8 TQ
2nd pull: 342.4 HP; 351.8 TQ
That's with an internally stock engine. I'm hoping to correct that status this spring...
-
Those are some pretty cool dreams, Cannonball. With engine technology being where it is, I'm sure you can toss that Mopar into the 10's and still be streetable!
Keep striving!
-
The philosophy Ayn Rand created is Objectivism. What do you mean by "objectivism"?
He is quoting the author of the article there, not making his own statement.
-
I am talking about real increases in strength, not the illusions presented in that well-written article.
Does he answer the question of what happens to a person who does not fall victim to any of those bugbears? What happens when that person reaches the top of his CNS adaptive ability? Will his body be then forced to adapt by getting larger? Is that in fact what is happening in a successful HIT system?
And what is his conclusion? Will an occasional blitz-and-rest do the trick if thrown into a normal HIT system, or is his solution more complex?
I also note that Max Contraction solves many of those problems by more effectively isolating muscles and controlling for time and completely eliminating momentum...
-
An initiation of force is not to say that the initiator is to blame. If you are forced to kill someone, you've initiated force
No, that's not quite right. The one who forced you to kill someone is the one who initiated force. I don't know if this changes any of your conclusions, but it's an important fact to note.
-
I finally finished my installs, so the pulley is on and the A/C is out. I'm looking to dyno this Saturday.
Stephen,
I notice that most people who sell their LS1 are either doing it to get a 'vette or because of unfortunate circumstances (financial, etc). Almost nobody says "I don't like this car"
-
It appears that HIT has inspired further development:
http://www.maxcontraction.com/
I am going to try this new method myself and I will report the results. (It should be a few months)
John Little was a colleague of Mentzer. I've read 75 pages of his new book so far, and it makes sense (unlike what I have heard about HST).
...And the idea that size and strength aren't related is daffy.
-
-
If it is torture for the sake of torture and is allowed because they, like animals, have no rights, then it is immoral on the part of the torturer for the same reason it is immoral to torture animals
Very true, which is exactly why I said "so long as it serves a rational purpose." The implication being that the pleasure of the torturer was not a rational purpose.
-
As I said before, my goal is not size but strength. If I get bigger, all the better, but that is not the primary purpose of my activities.
Could you provide any further details into how the two are related? If you claim that HIT is training for strength and not size, then what will be the end result of doing so versus training for size and not strength?
-
Yes, I know this sounds evil, cruel and Machievellian but is it right and ethical?
Only if they are in fact murderers. IF they are, then it is okay. The problem is: can a justice system be sure enough to decide that?
As others have said, IF the death penalty is acceptable, then anything else is as well, so long as it serves a rational purpose.
What should be done for a rights-violated child?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
I believe that I have an answer to this, if I could step in?