Dormin111

I was wondering what Objectivists around here thought about Murray Rothbard's Title-Transfer Theory of Rights. It is a subject which I haven't quite wrapped my head around yet and I am not sure of its validity (or at least eh validity of one of its key components). As far as I understand it, the theory states that individuals have the right to transfer property conditionally. However, one's wllful action is not technically owned, but is actually an inalienable component of one's concious. Therefore, the state cannot legally enforce a slavery contract, regardless of the consent of both parties involved. If John contractually agrees to be Mary's slave for life, but John gets cold feet at the last moment, the courts should not be able force John to be Mary's slave, nor force him to pay a fine or go to jail for such crimes. That is a pretty extreme example, but the same thing can be said for marriage. I am having trouble reconciling when a contract can EVER be legally validated under this theory. Aren't I always be asked to go against my will any time I am fined or punushed for contract breach? Can someone put forth a better explanation of how this idea fits into Objectivist philosophy. Wikipedia Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title-transfer_theory_of_contract

http://searchenginew...le-Maps-is-Free Worst abuse of economic government power in how long?

The AoC didn't prohibit tax collection, it just prohibited federal taxation. The states still taxed and were supposed to share some money with the Feds but they never seemed to anyway. As long as any form of government taxation exists, I don't think that there will be any significant amount of voluntary taxation.

Your analogy is accurate accept for one caveat. US (Empire) doesn't have to convert the Nordic (Iraqi) population. They just have to outlaw the worship of their most popular diety.

There is a pretty interesting dilemma in the new video game, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Essentially, there is a land called Skyrim populated by a race of people called Nords who are very Scandinavian in appearance and culture. Skyrim is ruled by a foreign nation usually known as the "Empire" which is controlled by another race of people called Imperials (who are kind of British). A war breaks out between the Empire and another nation called Thalmor which is populated by Elves. The war occurs mostly in Skyrim and ends with a Thalmor victory. The Empire signs a treaty with the Thalmor in which they agree on a single condition, the worship of Talos, the most popular God in Skyrim" will be banned. From then on the Thalmor leave behind a small group of agents to monitor the activity of Skyrim and make sure that the Empire abides by the treaty. The local Nord population is so enraged by the treaty that they rise up in open rebellion and a vicious civil war ensues. They argue that their relgion and culture has been stolen from them and that the Empire should be thrown out of Skyrim. The Empire argues that if they renege on the treaty or leave Skyrim and allow local rule, the Thalmor will invade again and destroy Skyrim (not only the Nords, but also the local Imperial citizens as well). Which side has the better moral argument, the Empire or the local Nords?

But why are they morally disgusting and creul? They have violated no rights, and have acted in their own self interest. How come it is ok to murder animals purely for fun (ie. hunting), but it is not ok to torture them for the same reason? The reason I ask is that animal abuse seems to evoke a gut feeling of disgust in most people, but as an objectivist I can't really see any reason why it is morally reprehensible.

Animals do not have rights and exist for the use of rational beings. Since we can kill animals for fun and food, and enslave them, why can't we torture them purely for pleasure?

*** Mod's note: Merged this post with an existing thread on this issue. - sN *** Should it be legal in for individuals to behave in a lewd manner while in public? What about while on their property but while in view of the public? Two examples: 1. A man walks outside of his house on his lawn in broad daylight naked. 2. A man walks down a city street naked.

What is the specific difference between the voluntary exchange of money for a store's product and the choice to continue existing on a piece of land under a government's jurisdiction? I guess I am mostly asking about the validity of "implicit contracts."

Part 1 (the former): John signs a contract with Dave saying that John will mow Dave's law. It also says in the contract that if John fails to mow Dave's lawn, then John must pay Dave 1,000 dollars. Is it moral for John to sign the contract and then purposefully not mow Dave's lawn. Bonus question: would it be moral for John to sign the contract and then purposefully not mow Dave's lawn if the contract did not stipulate a penalty? Part 2: (Directly from a friend) John buys a video game from EA Sports. EA Sports specifically prohibits digital replication and distribution of its video games. John disregaurds this stipulation because he doesn't believe in restrictions on his property, thus violating the contract signed with EA Sports upon the purchase of the game.

Is it moral to violate a voluntarily signed contract if the individual immidiately submits himself to the punishment layed out in the contract for not following through on the obligations? Is it moral for an individual to violate a contract he voluntarily signed if he believes part of the contract is immoral?

I recently heard the argument that taxation is moral on the basis that all individuals within a country sign an implicit social contract with the government. Basically, by living within a country we have agreed to subject ourselves to the government's laws despite the lack of a formal contract in the same way that that a contract is implicitly signed whenever an item is purchased from a store. So living on land within a country is roughly quivlent to exchaning money for a product even without an official legal document in between either one. Is there any validity to this theory?