Capitalism Forever

That which is moral should be legal. That which is immoral but does not violate the rights of anyone should still be legal.

Death matches are immoral. That much had been established even before this thread started.

Do death matches violate the rights of anyone? If yes, who is it whose rights they violate?

Actually, the equations were developed by Lorenz, and formed a part of the Lorentz Ether Theory. This is why the transformation is called the Lorentz transformation. The Special Theory of Relativity is really a mixture of the Lorentz Ether Theory and bad philosophy.

You can decide to donate the goods to him--but then of course you have to pay for them in his stead.

Your question seems to be based on a HUGE misconception about Objectivists ethics:


Objectivism does NOT say that the theft is immoral because it prevents the millionaire from living qua man. It is immoral for the thief to steal because it is incompatible with the thief's life qua man. The reason for that is that stealing is antithetical to life qua man--because life qua man means surviving by means of your own rational faculty.

The millionaire's life is solely the millionaire's business; it has no direct relevance as far as the morality of my actions is concerned. Objectivist ethics is not altruistic; it does not make it my responsibility to worry about some other guy's life. If I cancel some contract with the millionaire and thereby reduce his bottom line by one dollar, the effect on him is still the same--he has lost $1--but such an action may well be moral on my part. It is not the effect on the millionaire that matters, but the effect on me.

The physical appearance of a person already tells you something about his character.

Well, if I saw a lady who looked like the perfect woman for me to spend my life with, I certainly wouldn't be indifferent--I would be very, very excited !

But would I be in love ? Would I be committed to her? I definitely wouldn't, until I have found out that she doesn't only look like, but is, the perfect woman for me to spend my life with. Appearances can be misleading, and I wouldn't want to base what is perhaps the most momentuous decision of my life on what I hope to be true. I'll be in love when I know she is what I am looking for.

OK, suppose, just suppose, it to be incontrovertibly proven that Al Gore is right. The average global temperature is going to increase by--let me be very generous--5°F. So it's going to be 5 degrees warmer on an average day. Why exactly should I give a damn?

See this thread: Bill Clinton's Impeachment--The legal aspects of abnormal behavior. It's quite a long one and full of pointless bickering, but there is about 10% or so of the posts where you will find some thoughts that may be helpful.

If you don't want to go through all that invective, then as a very brief summary, the philosophical basis for legal restraints on public displays was stated by Miss Rand as follows:

Okay, let's see if I meet your qualifications...


I don't know what it means to /actually read/ Kant him, aber ich habe die meisten Werke von Kant im Original gelesen, which I suppose is a good substitute for what you are looking for.


Don't cite the conclusion's what? Or do you mean don't cite the conclusions? Anyway, don't worry, I won't cite anything.


So I take it you agree with the criticisms? If yes, you probably won't like any answer that includes "far too much" rational argumentation. No problem, I'll make sure to keep it on the level a three-year old can understand.


Okay, I'll stick to attacking his claims regarding the pheonomenal, if anything.

With that out of the way, back to your question:


His philosophy.

Hope that helps...

Okay, let's see if I meet your qualifications...


I don't know what it means to /actually read/ Kant him, aber ich habe die meisten Werke von Kant im Original gelesen, which I suppose is a good substitute for what you are looking for.


Don't cite the conclusion's what? Or do you mean don't cite the conclusions? Anyway, don't worry, I won't cite anything.


So I take it you agree with the criticisms? If yes, you probably won't like any answer that includes "far too much" rational argumentation. No problem, I'll make sure to keep it on the level a three-year old can understand.


Okay, I'll stick to attacking his claims regarding the pheonomenal, if anything.

With that out of the way, back to your question:


His philosophy.

Hope that helps...