VcatoV

I agree. That's why I believe the problem lies (and has lied) with the system. Do we disagree about that? You are correct, and I was not clear. What I meant was that those who stood by moral principle in the face of opposition would be worthy objects of adoration by others. Is that not what makes Kira's "Escape" so tragic yet heroic? I never said morally obliged. I was merely discussing the way things were. Do you know any other options currently available in the real world?

I think we need to get something straight: are we talking about things as they are or as they ought to be? From my initial post: *bold added I don't see ought to be anywhere in my post.

And what happened to those who did not agree? If some disagreed upon moral grounds, and died/were sacrificed in pursuit of that morality, does that not make them moral heroes? If others disagreed, but accepted it anyway, does that not make them moral evaders?

The Constitution is not an inherently moral document. Its morality only lies in the degree to which it aligns with a proper ethical code. The people agreed and continue to agree to live by these rules, in spite of the fact that some are immoral. In a free, contractual society, the obligation then is to amend the constitution in order to make it fall in line with a proper moral code. If it cannot because its very core, its axioms, are corrupt-then you need a new constitution.

You know-it's difficult for me to tell exactly which conversation is going on. What is is different what what ought to be. That is why the burden of proof lies on you. Are you under the assumption that a person who turns 18 and does not pay taxes will receive no penalty? Or that a 15 year old could get a credit card in their name? I never advocated a position for what ought to be. That is...once again...a different conversation.

I have to prove to you that my argument either is or is not what you claim, when I made the argument, and you offered no rebuttal save accusation? Unless you speak on point and about issues instead of resorting to attacks and mind games, I see no point in furthering the conversation.

No-they are of course valid. I am just stating that they are created, which means they can change, as as such are not to be considered "property". Border is a legal designation, whereas property, in this sense, is a physical manifestation of the individual (right to life being equal to right to private property). That is why any individual can cross any border, so long as they are not "breaking the law" by crossing the border. If they do break the law, and the law is unjust, then the problem lies not with the individual or their property or their crossing the border (possibly from one hill to another, if they purchased it), but with the law itself.

Claiming something doesn't make it so. Prove it. *bold mine Who was talking about a contract written by Objectivist? If so, I was mistaken-I was discussing the United States Constitution.

Can you prove that? I never said it was.

Borders (and the very nature/definition of) have changed many times in history. Our government, and the rest of the world in this century, have adopted the "national" concept of borders. It is true that the border is drawn out on a geographic line, but that distinction is purely governmental for the purpose of law and order. A border separates ideas. The ideas are enforced by the military and other defensive bodies. How is this "taking a side" in the mind/body dichotomy? Can you find "American Border" in the natural world?

The adult/guardian is by definition the primary agent in the contract-children, until the age of 18, are represented by their parents. If the child chooses to leave their parents, that is another issue. If the adult (18) chooses to leave the country, that is another issue. Please reread what I said, and correctly quote my statements, instead of drawing claims based upon supposed assertions. Tax avoidance is theft under the legal system within which we all live. The problem with taxes is that, like slavery, they ought not to have been a part in the Constitution. Unlike most of the world, though, our "contract" gives us the mechanisms to change our contract, even down to the local level, through peaceful means using intellectual debate. Trying to get something like Prop 13 in Zimbabwe would be impossible. The point is exactly in line with what Rand said about taxes-the change to a better system must come over time. Unless you would like for the whole system to collapse into anarchy. Do you believe there to be something wrong with following the law and at the same time attempting to change it-so long as the law has not crossed the point to where peaceful discourse is no longer possible? Where exactly the point lies when the government oversteps its bounds is another discussion. Did I ever say any of this?

I don't want to come across harshly, but in essence from the quoted section, he is correct. America is a nation of contract, including the contract citizens "sign"/accept by birth-and-staying here or by moving here. Part of that contact is accepting the price for the services offered, taken/eligible or not. Taxes have been levied and raised by means of the representatives of the people. In this sense, Americans have created a sort of "legal karma"-the sum of individuals in this nation has legally created the situation they deserve. But you know this-and you have a choice to either stay here and abide by the contract, or leave. Now, had you agreed with him on this point, you could have shifted the argument towards a discussion of breach of contract. Meaning: current laws or tax policies violate the initial terms of the contract (The Constitution). You now are merely practicing your right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances*." Expose the emperor for his nudity-he is using your own contract as a noose which he himself has violated! * See the First Amendment

There is no such geographic entity as The United States, or Mexico, or any other nation on this earth. There is no difference in the soil on one side or the other of the border, other than what would be naturally different. A nation is not a place, it is an idea, embodied in a set of laws. I would assume that you oppose the various attempts by government or individuals throughout history to coerce the minds of, to attempt to enforce choices upon their citizenry. What makes immigration any different? In short, human beings are innocent until proven guilty by nature, and as such unless an immigrant is initiating force against another, they have every right to choose where they live, so long as another agrees to sell them the land. Immigration is both an intellectual and a physical journey. Outside of the welfare state (a whole other issue in regards to immigration), an immigrant has two choices upon moving to another country: 1.) is there another individual willing to trade them land? 2.) Do they agree to the contract they enter into by crossing a designated intellectual barrier; ie., do they agree to abide by the laws of the land. If they do not, they are punished accordingly, and in that instance, the issue is criminal and legal, having nothing to do with immigration. Your fallacy is that the government is not a market; it is its antithesis. Government is based upon force, whereas the market is based upon trade (volition).

As others have stated, this is a semantics war-one which the collectivist have been playing for a long time. The original equality of opportunity (meaning that all have the free opportunity to pursue their goals, but no guarantee of success or assistance) has morphed into equality of condition (meaning that all have the free necessities provided to them so that all may have an equal share the process of pursuing their goals). They know that America is a nation which likes the word equality. So the Marxist have hijacked it to pull a fast one over you. Watch out for their words, and don't let the particulars boggle you down and lead you into believing the definition he wants you to believe in. It is almost impossible to debate class with a Marxist. They accept it as blind faith, though of course, the truth is-there is no such thing as class. The only rebuttal would be to tell him that you could pull equally tantalizing data proving that hair color had a lot to do with your income levels, and thus hair color influences your behavior. "Class" is an artificial range placed on an income scale. The purpose or qualifications remain, of course, relative.

This just shows that he does not understand the market. The market is not an entity, it is a relationship. A relationship cannot create anything: it merely reflects the status of the individuals in that relationship. He is taking a few true ideas and morphing them into some kind of materialism. It is true that there are structural power relationships, and that a person's position (ie. wealth) affords that individual more power, whether born into it, given it, or earned it. But power, once again, is just a tool. Give a savage a gun and he's likely to blow his head off. Some people have more choices, more resources, or more power, than others. But in the long run, the power can only be handled by those who earned it-the savages will drown themselves in hedonism. Look at Lindsey Lohan or Paris Hilton for your modern day equivalent of that. Tell him that and I bet you will force out of him the Maoist truism/argument: power grows from the barrel of a gun. Then you know who you are talking to. I would ask him to prove this. It sounds just like an assertion. So what if they are unchecked? What happens if they are unchecked? Why does that happen?

This is true, though I think you do not see another intention of parole. There was a saying once, "You go into prison a pacifist, you come out a better pacifist; you go in a criminal, you come out a better criminal." While I don't agree with that entirely, it gets to the point. If you know that you have 10 years to sit in prison, and you know that you will be free in 10 years so long as you remain "neutral" (don't cause any problems, but don't necessarily reform either), then many times the criminals will think about how they got caught, how to avoid it, or how to change their "basic" behaviors without changing the main reasons behind why they committed the crime in the first place. Parole is a "reward" for good behavior, an incentive to encourage prisoners to reconsider their ways and actually begin the process of acting like a good person. In short: parole is a good idea, but not properly implemented in today's society.

Number one advice: be brave and bold (which it sounds like you are shaping up to be!). Be brave, because your ideas are your own, and you are going into a world that is very hostile towards your view. Do not lose yourself. And be bold, because you will always lose defensively. The battle for ideas is won by the bold-so take the battle to him. These are descriptors, but do not get to the essential idea for which the word "cult" gets at. You knew this-which is why you asked for a definition. Good thinking-press him on that. The burden of proof is on him to prove how it is a cult, not for you to defend that it is something for which there is nothing. My first question to him would be: oh? and how do you know that/where did you hear that from? Press him on it-he will not be able to back it up, and then his case falls. But for the sake of argument...this is in some senses both true and false, but really just displays immense immaturity. In youth, one thinks that philosophy is a GPS system, with each word of the philosopher being a blinking dot on the screen. If he veers ever so slightly, he fears the wrath of the voice of condemnation (or the robotic Lisa). The effect is the same-being new to the world, the youth is cautious, blumbering, and apt to stick closely to the dots out of fear of getting lost. But as one matures, they see that philosophy is not the dots on the screen, but the sum effect of our rational journey. The course may differ, the terrain may change, the stores may close, and the people may come and go; but east is still east, longitude 27 still longitude 27, a lake is still not crossable without bridge or boat-unless you go around it. Following philosophy to the T means following the essential and eternal principles which guide your own individual journey. It has nothing to do with listening to Rachmaninoff because Ayn Rand listened to Rachmaninoff.

Would you also be in the understanding that you are breaking the law by breaking the terms of his bail, parole, conviction, etc.? I don't want to sound like I am splitting hairs, but I think you have confused something from the start. A criminal is an individual who forcefully violates the rights of another individual. Per the social contract that individuals have made with one another (to form the nation, and abide by its laws), a standard has formed, and rules have been created, with basic and widespread understanding of their implications. In short-a felon is an outcast of society in many ways, and people markedly know this. By breaking the law in this way, you are breaking the most supreme and holy contract. Remember that. Every individual, including a felon, has a right to defend himself. Go back and look up the definition of a right: self-defense is within our nature and cannot be broken. You might ask, then, about death-row: the answer, again, lies in the terms of the broken contract. By being a citizen of the United States, the individual understood (or is at least responsible for) the implications of his actions. By breaking the contract, he knowingly is receiving his end. The Dr.'s with the needles are just facilitators of the criminals contractual end.