JacobGalt

Even if I correctly integrate the information I have and come to a specific conclusion, it won't be "proof" unless other people agree with me. What am I missing?

If someone says: I have seen something that you will never see because, while it's real, it's not available to your sense perception organs, how can you respond?

You love to give non-answers like this, don't you? I've given my opinion in the post, but I'm wondering what the other people on this forum think.

I would say it's certainly not illegal, because it's, in my case, in the contract of the sale that you can return the book after 30 days. However, is it wrong for me to do it? I don't think I'm sacrificing reality; I'm just taking advantage of the store's foolish policy. Your take?

There are no "mixed-economy" conservatives in Brazil - all candidates support higher taxes, more controls, government ownership, public roads, schools, hospitals, etc.

I do realize that more specific questions are more appropriate for these type of debates, but I want to ask some broad philosophical questions so the public can see how inconsistent and wrong politicians are.

By statist I mean the typical liberal/conservative politician. As of my own questions, I have some: - Does man have the right to take property away from others? If not, how can man delegate that right to the government? - Shouldn't your argument for having public schools and hospitals be reason for the State to control airline and technology companies as well? - If a man takes away money from another man, it's called robbery and is illegal. When governments takes away money from man, it's called taxation and supposedly moral. Why the double standard?

3 of them are coming to my college in Brazil, and I have been tasked to write some tough questions for them... what should they be? A 50-word limit would be adequate. Thanks.

I mean the kind of man that can't think at all and must have someone to feed him, move him, etc.

I meant actually dying for someone else.

If that's the reason I don't get how it's valid or rational to sacrifice oneself for anyone else (including your kids and loved ones). What I am missing?

Quoting from 'The Objectivist Ethics': I still don't get why the ultimate value of man is his life. Can someone make it clearer for me?

It's an audio file, working here.

It's from the No Agenda Show, where John C. Dvorak and Adam Curry talk about news and current issues from a pro-reason (but not Objectivist) perspective. Listen to it here: http://noagendaforums.com/forums/MGalleryItem.php?id=212 What do you guys think?

I'm rereading OPAR and trying to understand it.

I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking. What's your opinion on it?

I think government should protect minors' rights to not be beaten by parents. At the same time, I think the parents should be in control of their childs' education.

Why or why not?

Suppose there's a celebrity named David Watson and someone buys davidwatson.com and tries to sell it to Watson. Is it proper for him to use the courts to get the domain name from the squatter?

Only one result found: this post.

Isn't it in my self-interest to do so?

Got it, thanks for the answer.

So you have the right to fight back against government?

The hackers, yet Peikoff still said they were moral.

First, English is not my native language, you are correct in saying that. Second, I believe that you have the right to violate someone else's property is that person is going to use that property to destroy the world.