Capitalism Forever

Threat? What threat? If person A were threatening person B, then A would be initiating force, and as you say yourself, person B can respond in self-defense. We are talking about a challenge, not a threat: person B does have the option of walking away. A has not initiated force against him, he's just offering him a fist match, like a more rational person might offer a game of chess. As far as the moral aspect is concerned, B's best choice is probably indeed to walk away--but what I am saying that, if for whatever reason he chooses to take the challenge, his action does not constitute an initiation of force. It is not force for the same reason Roark wasn't initiating force against Dominique when he first touched her, even though she had never given verbal consent. Now, with regard to "how is it obvious" and "what are his physical actions," let me respond by asking a question. You write: Does the threatening person have to make explicit verbal threats, or can a reasonable person infer the presence of a threat from more subtle hints in the threatener's words, combined with his body language etc.? And similarly, does a willingness to be touched in an erotic way have to be explicitly verbalized, or can a reasonable person infer such a willingness from mere verbal and non-verbal hints? I would suppose you agree with me that inferences from non-explicit signals are fine in both cases. I think that the same way there can be implied threats and implied sexual consent, there can also be implied challenges to fight.

Actually, as far as morality is concerned, I think the most important thing to say is that a virtuous person would simply try and avoid contact with the kind of people who exhibit such behavior. I have been addressing the legal aspect (although now that I notice that this is in the Ethics forum, this may not be what the original question was about). Now, as for examples, basically what you wrote: is a good pointer in the general direction; these are examples of obvious provocation, where the person saying them is clearly looking for a fight. Now, if the same kind of person uttered the same kind of monologue with the same kind of body language, but omitted the explicit calls for physical confrontation and made more subtle hints in that direction instead, would you still consider entertaining the argument? E.g. suppose that person A makes salacious comments on the lady in the company of person B, calls person B a weakling and a coward, and suggests that the lady would be better off in his (person A's) hands--and generally makes it obvious that he is challenging person B to a fight, without ever verbalizing it as such.

LOL, calm down. I can assure you, I'm not planning on hitting you. Not even if you say much stronger words than "crap" ! I knew my position would cause a stir, which I'm afraid is the result of what I consider to be a very serious misunderstanding of what Miss Rand meant by force. It is the kind of misunderstanding that makes people wonder if Roark had a right to "rape" Dominique, or perhaps even if he had a right to break Mallory's figurine. Perhaps it would be useful if those who are shocked by my position could give their definition of the concept of force. Also, if you hold that it means something different, I would appreciate it if you gave the differentia for "physical force" as opposed to just "force." Conceptual clarity is an essential part of stopping crap from existing on Objectivism Online, and you can make a difference by doing your part!

"A couple" ?? Vern, I honestly hope you don't think I have been saying anything like that.

I am not sure what people mean when they say "pre-emptive" force. I first heard it applied to the retaliation against Saddam, and I suspect that it was meant to insinuate that the U.S. was initiating force in that conflict, which of course is total bunk. Anyway, let's proceed to your example: So is the person in question acting threateningly? If yes, a threat of force IS an initiation of force, and you have every right to use force in self-defense.

The extent of injury, nothing. The absence of injury, everything. Read carefully what I wrote: First of all, for the record, I don't agree with D'kian's reckless-driving analogy at all. If you have an accident through your own fault and there is no second party involved, then there is no second party involved, so no potential rights violation to talk about and no one to give consent to. Normally, random strangers are not given implicit consent to touch you anywhere on your skin or clothes, but in certain situations such touching does customarily happen. For example, suppose that you are standing somewhere and somebody comes from behind you, but you are blocking his path. He says "Excuse me" but you don't seem to notice--so he gently taps your shoulder. Was this an initiation of force on his part? I would say no, because by being in a public place, you have implicitly consented to things that customarily happen in public places, such as strangers wanting to get past you and tapping your shoulder if you don't notice them. The shoulder tap is, in effect, a form of communication, in a context where verbal communication fails. Now, if you seriously insult someone, the insulted party might want to communicate to you that your insult has been successful (so to speak), and he might find that the most appropriate way to communicate this is to slap you on the face. Again, he does not intend to cause any injury, he just wants to tell you that he disapproves of your conduct; he is using the slap on your face as a form of communication. By offering you an insult of a serious kind, the person has implicitly consented to what he knows is often the response to insults of that kind. Let me stress that I am not saying this is universally applicable, only in certain contexts. I am not positing as a general rule that you can hit whomever has said something you don't like--just like you can't walk up to any random stranger and grope him (her?) after saying "Excuse me." It's all in the context.

Yup, that's what I would predict as well. As I said, I think it's all up to how much new statism Obama can introduce; so far, his most ambitious plans have been health care and the carbon-cap stuff, but fortunately his progress on both fronts has been slower than on the Nobel Prize front.

I'll ignore the "collective" part and respond to the "doesn't go to necessary places" part: Sure, most of it doesn't go to the legitimate functions of the government. But neither do your taxes. In a country where the majority of people are reluctant to pay taxes and do their best to minimize them, the government has no choice but to cut back on its excesses if it wants to remain solvent. So the effect of minimizing your taxes is to encourage a government that is more focused on its legitimate functions. Personally, if someone manages to keep his taxes near zero while making his wealth grow, I'll be thankful to him for it.

It will be interesting to see whether history repeats itself. It will all depend on how much Obama is allowed to "accomplish."

The dollar was convertible to gold at a fixed rate in the 1920s, so I doubt there could have been much inflation.

Don't worry, even if you pay zero taxes, the amount you contribute due to the inflation caused by budget deficits more than covers your fair share of the legitimate expenses.

Is it your premise that illegal tax evasion is a form of force?

The key question is whether the hitting constitutes force. If it doesn't cause any injury to the person, and he has been "asking for it" with his behavior, then the case can be made that he had implicitly consented to being hit.

In what way do you think he was using force?

I second martyrdom.

Even Obama himself seems more embarrassed than proud...

Is there any evidence that he is becoming more religious? My take is that he's always been religious, which is why he sometimes says religious things. It's business as usual. And I wouldn't even know what it means to be "anti-atheist." If someone told you that he thought many of the posters here were very "anti-non-Objectivist," what would you make of it?

Their standards are slipping, though. Arafat had to murder thousands of people before he got the Prize. Al Gore had to make a movie. What did 0 have to do? Read a couple of words from the teleprompter?

Honestly, folks, expecting Glenn Beck not to advocate his religious views is like expecting ice not to be cold.

I was born in a family that was not merely atheist, but my father actually believed the Socialist ideas he had been taught at school, and my mother even was a member of the Communist Party. And yet, we celebrated Christmas every year, just like everyone else in Hungary did. There were even official ceremonies in school on the last day before winter break. It was quite a surprise to me when, around age 10 or so, I heard my German teacher mention in class that Christmas was the holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ--I had always been told that it was "the Holiday of Love." So no, it doesn't have to have a religious tint AT ALL.

He didn't primarily express an emotion ("hatred") in the segment, but rather an argument. The argument is fatally wrong, but the premise behind it is shared by a VAST majority of American conservatives and moderates, which is why I didn't find it the least surprising that Beck should say it. What we need to do is educate people about why the premise is wrong, not accuse them of implicitly hating Objectivism. Last evening, I bought a meal in a McDonald's and sat down to eat. There was a couple sitting next to me, and the girl kept turning her head towards me and even shouted out some terms of endearment in my direction. A romantic activity, I would say. But her male companion didn't seem to support it; in fact, he told her to "Look at me when you're talking to me!" and shouted out a not-so-endearing term in my direction. That was clearly a contradiction on his part; if he loved the girl, he should have supported us, I could have satisfied her real good! I am not much of an expert on any religion, but "Our God is a jealous God" is pretty much Judeo-Christianity 101. Beck thinks worshipping God is good and worshipping Obama is evil; one of these premises is false and the other is true, but there is no direct contradiction between them.

Heh, leave it to DU to discuss Ayn Rand in their "Religion/Theology" forum... There's probably a reason why no source is given for that quote--namely, that the source is the poster's buttocks!

So Beck is religious? Man, I would never have guessed that! That totally changes my opinion of him! </sarcasm> I must say that I did find your post instructive, though: I learned that the extent and intensity of your hatred for Glenn Beck was greater than I ever would have imagined. To be sure, there are many things that I passionately hate myself; for example, I hate dogs, and I mean really hate them, especially when they bark, but somehow it's never crossed my mind to go on a pets forum and say things like "Man's best friend, THIS? Yeah, right!" And I found that creepy footage of children singing hymns to Obama an eye-opener, too. So yes, thanks for the instructive post, but if your agenda is to persuade people to support the DNC, you have pretty much shot yourself in the foot as far as I'm concerned.

Or, better still: "The very concept of the perfect man implies that he is married to you. Therefore, honey, I am the perfect man!"

Attitude is for second-handers! I like her attitude. But what I love is when a girl is too busy living her own life to have an attitude!