Dormin111

Although Objectivism is often associated with "negative rights" (as many libertarians are), Ayn Rand rejected the negative/positive rights dichotomy. Rights are the moral perquisites for man to live qua man. They are neither claims on products of others (like positive rights) nor only declarations of the moral limitations of other (like negative), but rather rights are claims to take certain actions. My right to private property is a moral claim on my ability and freedom to use what I create as I see fit. It may imply limitations on others, in the sense that no one else can use my property without my permission, but those limitations are corollaries, not the primary. Defining rights in a purely negative way opens up all sorts of conceptual problems, which have probably been discussed elsewhere on this forum.

This is an interesting news story and I'm not really sure what to make of it: http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/the-girl-who-fought-her-school-s-anti-gay-actions--and-won--202756408.html Basically, a lesbian in high school was outed to her parents by her softball coach. Her parents then sued the school for invasion of privacy and the school settled out of court for $77 thousand. This case has many legal implications that I am unsure about. What is the "right to privacy"? Do people give up their right to privacy when they reveal sensitive information (like when the girl revealed her homosexuality by having a girlfriend)? Does "right to privacy" apply to literally every bit of information, like my favorite color, or just information with potentially emotionally distressing implications? Is "causing emotional distress" a form of coercion which should be punished by legal action in some instances? Which instances? EDIT - Upon further thought, I find myself turning against the plaintiff. Why does the "right to privacy" specifically refer to homosexuality but probably not a lot of other thoughts and actions. What if the girl's coach told her parents that she was really into anime or was a Nazi or some other random fact? Would her "right to privacy" be upheld in those instances? Also, considering that the girl openly had a girlfriend, it seems ludicrous to suggest that no one is able to tell anyone else that they think she is a lesbian, without violating her right to privacy.

This is slightly off topic, but I really hate the word, "feminist" and would never identify myself as such, even in alignment with the best sort. Putting "fem" in the title should imply some assertion of a fundamental difference in the conception of rights and justice as applied to each gender. It's similar to how Martin Luther King Jr. didn't call himself a "blackist," while Malcom X and others referred to themselves as "black nationalists" or something of the sort. If legitimate gender equality is the goal of self-described feminists, then they should simply day they are for individual rights, not "feminism" or "women's rights."

Attack on Titan (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2560140/) is a new anime show which just popped up on Netflix with very good reviews. I had never watched an anime show before and decided to check it out due to the cool premise and sheer curiosity. I was not disappointing. It's about a post-apocalypse scenario where most of humanity was killed by these mindless humanoid giant beings called titans, and the survivors now live in a small walled off region. In the first episode, the walls are breached by a new type of Titan and the ensuing attack kills about 20% of the surviving humans. From then on, the show follows a group of young soldiers who join the military to fight the Titans. The philosophy and aesthetics of the show are fascinating. The primary over-arching theme is about the importance of total warfare. Most of the good guys act like the villains in any other military-themed story, by continually pressing for extreme measures to defeat the titans, while the bad guys are either too cowardly, mystical, or weak willed to do what's necessary to fight back. The protagonist borders on the psychotic in his drive to destroy the titans. Aesthetically, there are a lot of romantic elements. The characters all represent clear concepts or moral ideas, even minor ones. The art style is beautiful, and the Titans are brilliantly creepy. Has anyone else watched it? If not, I recommend it.

The repeated drugs, sex, debauchery was purposefully monotonous. The whole point of the movie was that the protagonist led an empty and pointless existence despite fulfilling the shallowest definition of successful.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-drummer-neil-peart-denounces-ayn-rand-im-a-bleeding-heart-libertarian/ Although the title of the article is misleading, Neil Peart isn't an Objectivist, only influenced by Ayn Rand's literature. Jimmy Whales, the founder of wikipedia is an Objectivist though.

Consenting to sex implies consenting to the risk of having a baby. Even using a condom during sex implies consent to a very tiny risk of having a baby. The same should apply to intoxication. It is not the responsibility of other people to evaluate the intoxication level of others before engaging in an activity with them. More generally, why does consenting to one action not imply consent to potential results (intended or unintended)? Consent does not stop at intention.

An individual consents to getting drunk, and by extension, consents to putting him or herself in an impaired state of mind. Also, as Nicky points out, is it rape for two drunk people to have sex with each other? If not, this creates a really bizarre incentive. If a sober guy wants to get with a drunk girl, he should simply knock back six shots, get wasted, and then have at her.

Murray rothbards history of money and bqnking in the us. richard timberlakes monetary history of us: aj intellectual and institutional history. and if you are up to, milton friedman and anna schwarts monetary history.

There are now two threads on the front page about about boobs...

On a related note, there is a common aversion to elective plastic surgery of any kind. While there are certainly horror stories, there are also plenty of immensely successful examples of plastic surgery being used to make individuals look better. Just Google image search Raquel Welch, the hottest 73 year old woman on the planet.

One philosophical explanation is that the movie is about why people believe in God. Pi tells two stories of his survival. One is an uplifting tale about animals and Pi coming to terms with a tiger companion. The other is about a bunch of terrified humans slaughtering and eating each other. Pi offers no direct evidence as to which is actually true. Pi claims that when he tells people these two stories, they choose to believe the nicer one because it is more comforting. And so it is with God. We don't know if he if he exists, but it is comforting to believe he does, so we do.

Cracked.com put out a fascinating article on prisons today: http://www.cracked.com/article_20775_7-horrifying-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-prison.html

I have started my own list of what I call "Red Flag Words/Phrases." When I see or hear someone use an RFWP, I automatically become highly suspicious of them. This is not to say that these words necessarily refer to incoherent concepts (though they can), but that these concepts are usually used to advocate for bad ideas. Here is my list thus far: · Discourse · Social Justice · Verbal Construct · Neoliberal · Sociology/Sociological · Society (especially “we as a society”) · Community · Privilege · Dialectic · Recursive · Collective/Greater/Public Good · Biased/Unbiased · Objectification · Commodification · Human Rights · Racial/Gender Identity Please add more.

You mean "Under 21." But yes, this is absolutely horrible.

Has the president of France threatened/promised to exterminate any populations?

Can the difference between the two Germanys be based on their degree of defeat? World War I Germany was war-weary, low on manpower, and hungry, but it still had the infrastructure and skeleton of a powerful force. WWII Germany was utterly leveled and completely occupied. Perhaps the second sent path sent a more clearer price of aggression.

Speaking as a self-described Austrian, you need to unpack exactly what Austrian economics is. Austrian economics is a positive economic theory. Rothbard's evaluation of American businessmen, his anarchism, and Mises's epistemology are not a part of Austrian economics. Mises lays out the philosophical groundwork for Austrianism is Human Action (its called praxeology), though that too must be unpacked. One can agree with praxeology as a foundation for economic science while denying its validity as an epistemological and metaphysical tool. Mises unified the two in the Kantian tradition, while Rothbard took the econ but combined it with Aristotelian (and really Randian) metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. I agree with you on Hoppe. He is a dangerous figure who should rightfully be ignored and marginalized. I saw him give a talk where he claimed the success of Europeans compared to Africans and Asians can be attributed to European genetic superiority due to living in colder climates.

Just finished it. Brilliant game play, world design etc, but I would love to hear a review of the game from someone better versed in Objectivistic aesthetic theory. From my rudimentary understanding of it, GTA V is probably one of the most worthless, if not evil pieces of art ever created. GTAV consists of watching evil sociopaths doing horrible things with no remorse. The story follows three protagonists, who have no character arcs, in a fictionalized version of Los Angeles filled exclusively with massive exaggerations of vapid Los Angeles people. These three horrible people start out in a bad position which gets progressively worse as they try to use crime to dig themselves out of trouble. Finally, they decide just to kill everyone who poses a threat to them and that's it. The story ends. Nothing is learned. One of the characters remarks that it all meant nothing and nothing will change. Utterly depressing.

I never said anything about reproduction, or marriage. See the thread I posted for more details.

I completely agree, see this thread: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25153 I have yet to see anyone make the fundamental argument as to why sex must necessarily be a grand act that expresses one's highest values. I consider Rand's views to be sadly regressive and emblematic of outdated socially conservative attitudes.

Some people at Mother Jones are taking the "Sam c b" view of Objectivism: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57604495-71/ayn-rand-producers-beg-for-help-from-others-on-kickstarter/

Kant himself did not say this, but numerous philosophers inspired by Kant did. As Stephen Hicks explains in "Explaining Postmodernism," Kant declared that reason could not enable one to access reality. The intellectual response was divided into two camps: those who tried to access reality through alternative means like pure will or faith (Nietzche, etc.) and those who dismissed objective reality entirely in favor of conscious primary (Foucoult, etc.).

I don't see her accomplishment as fundamentally different from winning a sporting event. She is proving to herself and the world that she is capable of something that few other people are, and as a result, is praiseworthy.

Nicky, you stated that ARI will deal with anyone who is "respectful, reasonable, and isn't seeking to undermine Objectivism." Surely being "respectful of Rand," as well as recognizing reality and the importance of reason, is a part of not "seeking to undermine Objectivism." Schwartz says, "Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called “liberty." It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why “liberty” is desirable and what “liberty” means." Also, "Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain “wings” of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it." And, "since reality is the fundamental “restraint” upon men’s actions, it is nihilism—the desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism." I consider these to be statements that libertarianism seeks to undermine Objectivism. If they (and the rest of the essay) do not indicate that libertarianism undermines Objectivism, then why would ARI not deal with libertarians up until a few years ago?