y_feldblum

I asked at the moment: A is, at this moment, a ps. Is A, at this moment, man or not - rational concept-thinking animal or not? I can not accept the claim that their biological ability to abstract from range-of-the-moment perception to concepts dissapears and reappears every two minutes. The fundamental nature of those with ps is either one thing or the other. It is my contention that the purpose of government is to protect men from other men: not men from animals, nor animals from men; not animals from other animals, but only men from other men. Depending on your classification, you want government to protect animals from themselves or men from themselves. Either way, do you go all the way: does government protect all animals from themselves, allowing them no freedom of movement whatsoever without its permission based on years of extensive analysis of what is in the animal's best interest? Does government protect all men from themselves, banning all manner of thing with the slightest risk - no more McDonald's, no more streets, no more mechanical/motor transportation beyond what the legs are able to do, and again men being allowed things in a similar fashion to the above? Or is there an arbitrary line you draw somewhere? I am always in a state where I might hurt people. What ought the government do with me? Might is not do.

The question is similar to: imagine an x-y graph on the floor, and put chairs and tables at certain points. Intrinsicism: the x and y axes exist as physical entities in and of themselves, immaterial of whether they affect anything or not. Subjectivism: the x and y axes are simply things the mind made up - and are perfectly valid as such, though it is immaterial whether they affect anything or not. Couldn't there be a third alternative - what do you all think?

A person who is right now a paranoid schizophrenic - is he man or animal? Does he have the ability to think in concepts as opposed to being able merely to perceive at this moment or not? Rational vs irrational (ie existence qua rational animal) at a particular moment is not a false dichotomy. Your claim, sometimes they belong to the category of rational, sometimes to that of irrational. When they are irrational, government has no call protecting them from themselves. And, government has no call protecting others from them. But, you think government ought to protect others from them. They belong fully to the category of the rational, therefore; government has no call interfereing unless there is an actual violation or threat of such.

Oldie, What do you consider the principle that operates with respect to paranoid schizophrenics? Are they rational animals - ie, men, normal people? Are they irrational animals - ie, rabid unowned dogs one could shoot indiscriminately? Are they rational animals under guardianship - ie, like children, under the authority and protection of a normal person? Is there a different category to which paranoid schizophrenics belong? Government is charged with protecting men from other men; that is to include children and such under guardianship being protected and being protected from. Government has no call protecting or protecting from irrational animals.

If the state can provide evidence to a judge, or a police officer makes a snap judgment, that a paranoid schizophrenic or any person is off to kill somebody, the state or the police officer should stop him; if not, neither the state nor the police officer should initiate force. There is no difference here between a paranoid schizophrenic and any other person.

Firstly, by "pathologically illogical" I meant committing the same logical fallacy twice in a row. Regarding my statement, read between the lines. "Your ad hominem ... again" ... what exactly does it succeed in - damning me?! I don't feel you have insulted me; I know you have done so twice. If you are sorry about something, recognize what it is and don't do it again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Re my colloquial logic - one judges that life is the fundamental good and observes that in order to live there are subsidiary actions it must take; one therefore judges that these actions are good as well. The topic is judgment, not action; your quarter example is irrelevant. Love is in no way altruistic; your old woman example is irrelevant. What would happen to you if you judged that altruism is the good and egoism the evil and acted consistently on that judgment? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Objective judgment is in its entirety awareness. The subjectivist judge is not aware; neither is the intrinsicist judge. The former has nothing to be aware of; the latter does not exist (in the context of value) to be aware. Objectivity as yet does not imply necessary truth - ie, whatever one judges objectively is true. Theories of truth is not the topic of discussion. Neither does objectivity depend on the number of people sharing an opinion - that is pure subjectivity! The Randian value-judgment that altruism is evil is: "I observe in the world that the principle of anti-life is inexorably death; I judge that it is evil: ie, one who practices it is evil." Perfectly objective: the judgment is not based on whim and is not contextless. Moreover, morality is not a social thing; it is personal. It is a code of values to guide a man in life in whatever setting, social or not, that he may be. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You still misunderstand what comparative advantage is; along with researching that, look up marginal value / disvalue as well. Children can produce more later by investing in education now; and, children prefer more leisure to more labor. If you are really interested in what happens with non-blood-sucking-leech loafers, read Atlas Shrugged. Moreover, deserve implies virtue. Again, love is in no way altruistic. Perhaps you should research the Objectivist conception of love.

My personal take on the word is - an Objectivist is one who applies the principles of the philosophy to his everyday life, though not necessarily with any conceptual knowledge of the principles. The reason people prefer to call themselves "students of Objectivism" for a time while studying the philosophy and internalizing it is that they originally were applying the principles of some contradictory philosophy to their everyday lives. When one is confident enough in his studies and integration, he will call himself an Objectivist. Our society in general promotes contradictory philosophies; most people grew up with them and thus must purge themselves and internalize the principles of Objectivism. Such a process takes time. Should society in general be Objectivist, such a thing will generally be unheard of as everybody will be applying the principles of the philosophy, and people will be calling themselves Objectivists (or "normal") from birth.

Welcome, member #200!

What a person does with money which he has acquired has absolutely no bearing on the morality of the method by which he acquired that money. Meaning, whether a billionaire's son blows his money on whores and crack, or whether he spends it on a beautiful mansion, a fast car, and other more admirable consumer goods, or whether he invests and produces with it, has absolutely no effect on the morality of inheriting it. Him inheriting the money is of itself (ie, without needing to consider its future use) neutral, neither good nor evil. Similarly the thief - whatever use to which he puts the money he illicitly acquires, the act of theft is of itself evil.

The answer to your question of ought is, go back to the principles. The ethical state may not initiate force against anybody, no matter how irrational or how paranoid schizophrenic; it may only counter the initiation of force. It may not arbitrarily prevent things at whim, as you would have it do. If a paranoid schizophrenic is off to kill somebody, the state should attempt to stop him, whereas if he were at home watching TV the state should not attempt to put him on a drug regimen. But the exact same thing applies to everybody else as well.

Chien, My logic may often be expressed colloquially. You do have the option of intentionally misunderstanding me, and unless you want to play Devil's Advocate, excercising such is pointless. Furthermore, your argumentum ad hominem succeeded beautifully again in pronouncing me pathologically illogical. There are no absolute/universal values. Objectivistm is not intrinsicism. The theory of David Ricardo of comparative advantage as it applies to the output of a whole economy is as you say - applicable only to the output of the whole economy. Now, let us take an economy consisting of two people and see what the theory tells us. In fact, the theory of comparative advantage, extended, does not speak of economies, but of producers, as an economy is nothing more than the individual producers/traders/consumers. Your rational point is entirely subjective and utterly emotional; it is pure whim devoid of the semblance of reason. Productive work is the highest of virtues - unless oppressed, your people suffering from poverty and starvation are not virtuous. Love is the highest of rewards.

The state ought not help Objectivists, quasi secular Christians, fundamentalist Christians, small children, or paranoid schizophrenic patients. You cannot set a point on your continuum where it is reasonable for the state to help below but not above: that point would be arbitrary. Ie, one could argue, if the state helps paranoid schizophrenics, then why not let it help small children too? In fact, the idea of a continuum is wrong - ie, one is either rational regarding acquiring a piece of knowledge or acting in a certain way, or he is irrational in regarding such -, but that is a topic for another time.

OG, what are you trying to say? If the mentally ill truly are rational animals no longer, then they have no rights and we ought, or have no reason not, to shoot them on sight (if that's what we do with rabid tigers and such prowling through the city).

Which slit does the electron go through? I've heard Intel has started including a truly random-number generator in its chips. What caused you to conclude that?

The state has no rights apart from those of each individual within it. The responsibilities of the state are to prevent certain actions from occurring, namely initiation of force and such. Not to ensure that every individual is rational: it has no responsibility to stop me from donating the multibillion-dollar businesses I own to a blind one-legged teenager, deaf in one ear, and who speaks only Akkadian. It has no responsibility to stop me from getting drunk every night. It has no responsibility to stop me from advocating socialism. It only has the responsibility to stop me from hurting others.

A thing that lives (as a fact) is by definition a thing that acts to live, to sustain its life (as a value). Ethics is a system of values for volitional action. With life as the fundamental value, inferior values appear. These are, where volition exists, oughts. Taking A as life and B as an inferior value, the ought looks like: if B then A; ie in order to sustain life, certain subsidiary values are necessary; since the thing in general acts to sustain life, it ought to undertake these necessary values. Logic. Objectivism (lower-case o) contends that to judge a thing and decide its value - whether good or evil - it is necessary to consider oneself and one's relation to the thing, as well as the thing and its context as an entity existent in reality. Intrinsicism considers the first condition as unnecessary, while subjectivism considers the second as unnecessary. Nihilism rejects both conditions as it rejects the concept of value-judgment. People's judgments do vary, but what of that? Comparative advantage exists everywhere, regardless of absolute advantage, so long as the person can act. Your example was silly and context-less, and your assumption of the scope of the concept wrong. It exists at every economic level and describes the producer/trader relationships between two or more people, groups, nations, geographic areas, etc. You were particularly quick that time to catch my lack of independent judgment and my mindless reliance on Objectivism as a substitute. However, you should know, that type of argument is what's known as a fallacy in logic, specifically argumentum ad hominem. My personal judgment has no bearing on my words: judge them, not me; debate them, not me. The moral and strong include Dagny Taggart and the rest who end up in Atlantis. The moral and weak include Dagny's assistant, who in no way was a parasite, as well as John Galt during his twelve-year stint organizing the strike. The immoral and strong include the Neitzchean Toohey. The immoral and weak include the altruist Keating. Where are your downtrodden homeless? And what is your rational (as opposed to emotional) point?

The definition of life, a continuous process of self-generated, self-sustaining action necessitates logic as the foundation of ethics. Living things have the choice to exist as life or not. Insofar as they choose to do so, they are alive. Rational animals - men - have volitional choice, necessitating a code of ethics to determine exactly what actions serve to sustain life and what not. The definition of life implies fact, and ethic where reason exists. "The good" is not intrinsic - does not exist independent of context - , is not subjective - does not exist independent of reality -; it exists both dependent on context and as a relationship between the value-judge and that which is judged. Comparative advantage - every person, no matter how old, sick, etc., can produce and trade to his and every one else's best advantage. Google the term. The strong (rational egoists) should not offer moral sanction to their parasites, the people deliberately holding them back as a moral action. See the difference between Dagny's assistant in AS and Keating/Toohey in tF. The former is weak but perfectly ethical, the latter are weak but entirely immoral. The strong have no right to prey on the weak, contrary to Neitzche; however, the weak have no right to prey on the strong either, contrary to you and the collectivist altruists.

RadCap, What do you mean by "distance" and "instantaneous"? Under relativistic geometry, such a concept as "instantaneous" does not exist without specifying an observer, and the concept "spacial distance" as well. "Spacetime distance" exists independent of the observer, but it precludes the idea instantaneousness: two different observers can very well observe two different events (coordinates in spacetime) happening in different orders, depending on the velocities. All observers, however, can agree that a certain velocity is either slower than the speed of light, exactly equal to it, or faster than it. Perhaps you meant something along those lines ....

Marc K., C§1.8 Lists the various valid powers which the Congress shall have. First in that list is the power "to lay and collect taxes ...." Congress shall also have the powers to borrow money, regulate commerce, etc. All social spending is unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not authorize the Congress to spend on social programs in this list. A§14.1 Is an injunction against the various states committing certain actions which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had previously prohibited the federal government from committing. The three clauses in the second sentence all mean exactly the same thing, to wit, if the Constitution prohibited the Federal government from doing something, as it violates the rights of its citizens, then the various states are hereby prohibited from doing those things as well. This injunction applies to citizens of the United States only. The pertinent section of the fourteenth amendment applies to all fifty states and speaks about citizens of the United States, but only insofar as they relate to an injuction against the fifty states. Furthermore, it speaks about individual rights and potential enforcement of law not in keeping with rights - not laws.

Personally, I prefer this flat style to a newsgroup style bbs. It makes conversations easier to follow. However, a good compromise (not really a compromise, though) is to use the Yahoo! style - each post will have a "reply to this" button, say, and each post will have a note at the bottom saying "in reply to post #XX"; the default view will still be flat, in chronological order of posts, but the user has the option of viewing the forum as a tree of subject-line links. (That of course would necessitate adding a subject line.)

Those are the relevant pieces of the Constitution. C§1.8 Congress has the power to collect money but only in a uniform manner. This money can come from taxes on the various states or from taxes on trade. C§1.9 Congress can only collect money from the states in proportion to the the official census. The conclusion is, Congress taxes only the states (which themselves might tax individuals, but that is not in the domain of the Constitution). A direct tax is a direct tax on the various states. A capitation is a direct tax in proportion to population. The point above was that the federal cencus is the official arbiter of population. A§16 Congress can now collect money not only from the states, but can tax the people themselves. Furthermore, Congress can do this without regard to the official cencus, and even without regard to any cencus whatsoever - ie, arbitrarily. This new tax can be taken from any source of gain, be it income, capital-gains, inheritance, gift, and everything else. The sixteenth amendment is a vile thing; every citizen was asleep. And Rand discusses your last question (though I forgot exactly where - try VoS).

Whatever the ACLU might claim to defend, in the past it has actually defended subjective rights, altruist morality, and collectivist statism. The right to privacy is a subjective right. As such, it is not a right at all: it is merely a privilege which may or may not be granted, whimsically and equally morally. Privacy is not a necessary condition of man's existence on earth as animals surviving by the product of their rational minds. The notion of civil liberties, too, is a subjective thing - they are not grounded in reality, not derived from the nature of man and his requirements for existence. The Objectivist position towards organizations promoting subjectivism is to denounce subjectivism. In fact, many of these organizations, however noble they consider their intentions, are terrible offenders of objective rights themselves, promoting welfare statism or worse at the cost of man's life.

There are very many choices (or value-judgments) in life that are made over a course of time, catalyzed by an extreme experience, and require an extended and perhaps difficult process to reverse. To be homosexual is one.

AshleyAyn, I don't personally have an answer to your question, but it must be pointed out that the amount of welfare illegal immigrants consume is a red herring; in any scheme of things, it matters only as a scapegoat. As GreedyCapitalist pointed out, the evil and the crucial point is the collectivist-altruist welfare state, not illegal immigration. BTW, calling the redistribution of income from the wealthy to the general poor the good, but then calling the redistrubution of income from the wealthy to the illegal immigrant poor the evil, is a contradiction.

R, The name of the author and any facts attached to his name are not reason enough for me or any independent-thinking individual to be interested in a book, whether "any book" or "a specific book". On top of committing many errors in thinking in arguing that it should be, you fail to address what is in fact reason enough: the book itself. "I am interested in all things Star Wars" vs "I am interested in all things Steven Spielberg calls Star Wars". "I am interested in all things Cake" vs "I am interested in all things My Favorite Bakery calls Cake". "I am interested in all things Objectivism" vs "I am interested in all things Prominent Objectivists call Objectivism". We are the former; you are shocked that we are not the latter. Your argument is, in essence, "Steven Spielberg calls it Star Wars" ... "Your Favorite Bakery calls it Cake" ... "Dr. Kelly calls it Objectivism". Although your argument might be correct, you have done nothing to address our actual interest. Is Kelly's book good (for what it claims to be) or not? And what is your rational evidence? The answer to the first question is yes or no, and the answer to the second must be something else than the logical fallacy of appeal to authority by citing the author's record. Have you read the book and can you offer a factual/rational review to entice us?