y_feldblum

Practice dissecting irrational arguments so that one has technique and scarequotes "intellectual ammunition" when one is put on the spot and one's own premises are attacked may be useful. Practice dissecting irrational arguments so that one has technique and scarequotes "intellectual ammunition" when one wants to convince somebody one cares about of the validity of one's premises may be useful. And it's definitely useful when the situations are in combination. In simpler terms: When you want to convince somebody and when you want to do it effectively, you need to be practiced and you need to be prepared. If converting others in general or in particular to Objectivism or whatever it is you're espousing isn't too important to you, then you don't. I suppose the example RadCap provides in his soliloquy testifies.

When another makes an assertion, you must check its validity on your own; never rely on his authority. Are you saying that you engage irrational debators just in order to have more assertions to validate? Do you think that www.mindless-maybies.com ought to prosper?!

One reason of -- one -- to ban human stem-cell cloning.

Manifest ignorance on my part ... what's this about a synthetic rubber corp? What are the details necessary to render moral judgment, and what are some interestingly horrifying details just because I'm morbidly fascinated? ... which government boards create.... (Cough, ImClone, Martha Stewart, cough ... sorry, the FDA has just banned all cold-relief medications.) I will force you to stop eating; and I am going to force you to pay me for the privilege. -- It is a faith-based initiative. (Sorry, W, for taking over the term and turning it into an anticoncept whose meaning just became a lot clearer. I will probably vote for you anyway as the far least evil (poetic licence, right?), comparatively if and surely not absolutely.) Ayn Rand would have said the logical converse, implying the philosophical inverse, thusly: The solution of the crisis of the spirit [altruism, collectivism, statism, you name it] in our country can also help us to conquer our energy crisis [egoism, individualism, can't remember the right word, you name it]. Carter's Malice Speech.

If going up a step in the hierarchy of knowledge is getting off-topic, then yes.

Ok. Regarding number four, I thought demographics screw absolutely nothing in the absence of government regulations. Insurance would work fine (you pay us or we don't insure you, and we use your money to invest and maintain your account), but social security wouldn't (you pay us or we throw you in jail, and we use your money to pay for our reckless indulgences), because it falls nowhere near the definition of insurance.

... and here is born the phrase buy the upgrade and wait for version 2.

It was at SonsOfLiberty, but the site is down and the domain is for sale. Bummer.

Yeah, the question was to you, as well as anybody who would know the answer, having "a good perspective on the medical profession in America." The last line of your post reminds me of the creatio ex nihilo fallacy of economics that I just made up.

What, in your analysis, is the cause of surging disability insurance premiums and the dire results of it that have recently appeared?

Ah ... the age old dilemma of the erstwhile poster and the gallon of coffee and the Admins Gone Mad....

A while ago I came across an online article, "Rights: A Functional Derivation and Definition". I have a copy on my computer, but I didn't save the author or the website. It's essentially a functional derivation and definition of rights, it's done rather well, and for the most part it's right on. I tried googling it just now, but I cannot find it; it seems to have disappeared. If anybody happens to know where to find it, pretty please post it here.

Those are legal rights; rights without the prefix "legal" are moral principles. Though those who violate moral rights may retain legal rights, they forfeit their moral rights - by declaring that that which they violated is, by virtue of violating it, not an absolute. Rights are fraught, not with mercy, but with inexorable justice. Because "persons" are the only ones who have volition. Rights exist where volition exists, as rights are "moral principles defining freedom of action in a social context" (don't know if that's an accurate quote or close paraphrase, and don't remember of exactly what). There is no free action (ie, action by free will) without volition (ie, free will). Here, the law professor seems (or could be read) to be accepting Objectivist premises, but ... it could also be read as an endorsement of intrinsicism. And here he utterly rejects Objectivist premises in favor of ethical intrinsicism, the idea of absolute value, value that is not agent-relative, value independent of the mind. In truth, there is no value without the one who values; there is no value created without the one who values; and the one who values can only be an entity with life. A man's life is not a value in and of itself; a man's life is a value to him. The noun-concept value is utterly dependent epistemologically on the verb-concept to value. There must be one who values oneself, that one being oneself, in order for oneself to be a value to oneself (can read oneself as one's life). A living thing can value, since life is the basis of value. The primary thing that life values is itself: life is a constant process of self-generated, self-sustaining action (you all know it's paraphrased from Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics"). That means life constantly acts to gain and keep itself - life. To value means to act to gain or keep; in short, life values itself. A value is that which an entity acts to gain or keep; life is a value. Moreover, life is the fundamental value which life values, since there is no other thing that life values as an end-in-itself, and since life can value itself indirectly by valuing subsidiary things. Eg, life can value itself indirectly by valuing food. None of that makes sense if value is not relative to the valuer, if it intrinsic, abstract, absolute. In fact, to postulate intrinsic or absolute value is to assert the arbitrary, since there is no way to prove nor falsify the assertion, and whether it's true or not matters not one bit. Moreover, to postulate that is to assert that rights are arbitrary and meaningless, since they are based on value (specifically: life). So ... who values (as an act of volition) this supposed value which the group's existence creates? If by necessity somebody values it, then it must be traceable back to his life. If not, then it is arbitrary, meaningless, utter nonsense. But it cannot be by necessity somebody, since, as the law professor asserted, it is not traceable back to his life. The premise is false, since it depends on ethical intrinsicism being true; and the conclusion is false, since it depends on the premise being true. Ethical intrinsicism, in addition to being arbitrary and worthy only of being dismissed from discussion immediately, is sheer nonsense. To answer the questions at the end of your post: Each living entity values its own life. To value is necessarily objective: it necessarily implies that there is an entity doing the valuing (agent-relative) and that there is an entity (material like a house or spiritual like a relationship or checking account). The act of valuing is a function of life. Only life can value, and the fundamental thing that life values is itself. All other things that life values - it values them because it values life. Man acts by volition alone, and all his values are volitional. Man is the only animal that can commit suicide. The basis of rights is the ability to value volitionally. Rights are moral principles sanctifying certain values. The fundamental right is the right to life and all other rights derive from the right to life, just as the fundamental value is life and all other values derive from life. It is moral that man acts to prolong and enhance his own life, and it is moral that man acts to do those things which indirectly prolong and enhance his own life.

Random Musing: Does bleaching cost more or less than $250?

For another starting point, take a look at And They Lived Happily Ever After.

Random musing: Could Theresa Heins win after calling herself African-American?

I don't know about the philosophical issues (I mean: I do), but I would ban him for his username alone. It demonstrates a frivolously perverse hatred of self-esteem equivalent to calling oneself a shit-head (that's very nearly what he does call himself) in earnest and laughing about it. There are no fine lines and grey areas in judgment. The issue is black and white. Everything volitional is to be judged. Period. Men form their system of values by volition alone. Period.

To default on a choice is still to choose: to choose not to think and to let whim make the choice. But to default is as damnable as to choose wrongly - more damnable, even. I think the concept volition forces me to disagree with your knot theory.

The argument was that a collection acquires life for its own from its individuals, and that therefore has the rights that derive from life. By obviousness, the premise is false, to say nothing of the conclusion. Capitalism Forever states explicitly and in general terms something that I hinted at (or would like to think that I did). Society having rights necessarily means depriving individuals of rights; moreover, the law professor's argument is that society has rights by depriving individuals of rights. However, to have rights necessarily means not to deprive others of rights, meaning society having rights is a contradiction in terms; moreover, the instant one deprives another of rights, one loses one's own, and this applies equally to societies, meaning the law professor's assertion is equally a contradiction.

« I've had just about enough of this » The prophet doth speak.

« each additional day increases the total value of the life » The value of life is: life. One cannot quantify it except in relation to itself, since it the standard of value, the unit of measure. As such, life cannot become more valuable in terms of itself, because it is itself. A is A; A is not A x 2. « When people come together in groups to create institutions such as states and markets, their lives are enabled to be much longer then they would have been in a Hobbesian state of nature; in anarchy or total solitude. » That (the "necessarily implies") is patently untrue. Firstly, length of life is not the standard of value; one's life itself is the standard of value. Mixing these two up is a fallacy (the stolen concept: the length of one's life being of value depends on the fundamental value, one's life). Secondly, it is mutually voluntary and mutually beneficial trade of value for value which enhances the lives of the traders (read: is of value to); it is entering into relationships, not entering into societies, that is of value. Necessarily, trade is only possible to the extent that freedom from aggression (initiation of force or the threat of such) is guaranteed to be absent; that is the purpose of society and the state: to guarantee a ban on force. It is often seen as a good thing because people have a good expectation of living reasonably well with the ability to pursue many values in society; but holding societey above freedom is ignoring reality. « all the days each individual in the group lives longer than they would have lived without the group are not traceable back to those individuals » All of the services alleged to make society of value - they were provided by somebody. I have yet to see somebody have a better life simply by virtue of transporting his house (with much free air conditioning and water) from the Sahara to NYC, without changing his actions in the slightest: A is, again as always, A. Rather, he would better his life by exchanging values with others. « the group creates these new days, and the group appropriates the life that it creates » "The group creates and destroys with one stroke" - in which case no-one's life is lengthened at the end of the day! Could that be an argument (evasion) why one cannot observe this extra life that the group creates? « this way, the group has its own life, untraceable back to the individuals who constitute the group, and this life gives the group a basis for rights just as individuals gain the basis for their rights from their lives. » False - individuals never gain the basis for right from theft! Yet that is how he claims society gains the basis for right: from theft. And last of all, he ignores (evades) the fact that the group is nothing more than a collection of individuals (A and B does not become A and B and C in reality, no matter how far one stretches the imagination); if he posits that stealing from each other is the basis for the right of stealing from each other, that is only a further hallucination.

« Honestly, this entire concept of "indirect volition" seems downright absurd to me. » Is downright absurd. A thing is volitional or not. « This seems like a false dichotomy, since it doesnt have to be one 'or' the other. It could easily be partly genetic and partly volitional (ie you are able to choose, but your choice is partly limited by your genes). » It is not a false dichotomy; it is a true dichotomy. Either volition exists, in which case all human action is by volition; or it doesn't, in which case all human action is determined (to mean: not by volition). « Only if he is control of those problems, otherwise you are seperating volition from morality. » And one is only not in control if there is a genetic defect. In all other cases, one either judges or chooses the blindness of wilful unconsciousness. « That an emotion as such, and a person's psychology as such are not properly subject to moral judgment is a well-established view in Objectivism. » That virtues and values are properly subject to moral judgment is true; "well-established view", unless you testify otherwise, appears to be an appeal to authority (the logical fallacy of); and emotions are the product of values. « that if somebody has a psychological problem, knows that he does, but does nothing about it » Or if it is plainly apparent and he refuses to acknowledge it and instead shows himself only the blindness of wilful unconsciousness. (I'm going to have to start using that phrase more often.) « this is not just true. » Grammar check: This is just not true.

Which of the European "strongmen" do you think would have the temerity to launch burning mushrooms over the atlantic ... ? I had thought it was only the (scarequotes) "hardcore" left that pronounced defending one's right (scarequotes) "insane". "Representative constitutional republic" shares very few semantic flaws with "democracy".

"It is proper that men go to the bathroom on time, rather than dance around holding their crotches and waiting for the inevitable." "It is proper that men engage in heterosexual relationships" for the same reason. Not to say that there is anything more wrong with homosexuality than "holding it in" for extended periods of time.... Okay, so what's the Tenability Factor Rating - 1 to 10 - of this position?

That's a common enough mistake that you make. Yes, biological history gives people urges. However, see if it teaches one to act. Biological history does teach one how to open and shut his jaw; but see if it teaches one how to hunt - see if it teaches one how to survive. Humans do come with urges. However, whether or not to act on them, and whether or not utterly to suppress them, are entirely volitional.