PatriotResistance

Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PatriotResistance

  • Birthday 04/27/1962

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.zazzle.com/Patriot_Resistance?rf=238694893847999175

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Hiking, mountaineering, pool, photography
  • Location
    Lakewood, CO
  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Bob Keller
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

PatriotResistance's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Building codes have required fire sprinkler systems in multi-family (apartment and condo) buildings for a few years now.
  2. I've been gone dealing with a death in the family. I had time to think about this issue quite a bit while driving and have come up with the following reasoning to explain why I was wrong. Ayn Rand (and many others I'm sure) said that when one is having trouble to always check your premises. My original premise was that since we are such an advanced civilization with the medical ability to heal many birth defects that we have an obligation to do so. My idea that we are an advanced civilization I now believe is the source of my problem. We may have the means (medical ability) but we do not possess the method (universal political/social/cultural facilities and will), and so we are not as "advanced" as I presumed. A similar example is hunger. While there is enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet some still go hungry. The problem is not the availability of food or the desire to help. It's governments and bandits who prevent it's distribution. My original premise assumed some type of perfect world in which our "advanced" society operates, but that does not exist yet. Within the free-er and more technologically advanced areas of the planet children's cleft palates ARE routinely repaired during infancy, for example. The standard response that many provided, 'if you care so much then donate', also felt lacking to me. But once again, in a "perfect world" where capitalism and the virtue of selfishness is universally practiced it's easy to imagine that those who choose to donate their time and money would easily be able to handle any such need. And again, within a smaller venue such as the United States we see that is already the case, even though the U.S. is not yet close to that ideal. I had argued that birth defects are somehow different from other needs, and so those forced donations are justified. I still believe birth defects are quite unique compared to other "needs" such as clean water, housing, education, etc. but that cannot justify force. Rather, for me, birth defects then are one of the most important reasons for promoting real solutions. So the lesson for me is that even though I realize my meager donations cannot fix this problem today I cannot let my despair lead to an error in judgment about premises, causes and effects. The problem is not insufficient donations. And more importantly the problem can never be fixed by forcing "donations" from everyone. There isn't a single problem or solution to universally repairing all birth defects or any other problem or need for that matter. And there may never be a "perfect" world. But in a world where rights are protected, free trade is practiced and personal responsibility is the norm, it may feel like it.
  3. *****PLOT-SPOILERS BELOW***** Well, the red-matter ship was stolen from Nero so one could assume that he had intended to keep it to save the Romulans later. A big plot hole I noticed was that no Vulcan ships appeared to be defending Vulcan from Nero. Huh? Wha? Yeah, the jump in rank from cadet to captain was painful. Why would Pike promote Kirk to first officer mere minutes after demanding he be removed from the bridge? That noone else, including Pike who wrote a dissertation on George Kirk, could put it together that the 'lightning storm in space' spelled trouble was silly. In the movie when Kirk was explaining it, it even looked like Captain Pike had a look on his face to say, "Gee, why didn't I think of that?".
  4. The new Star Trek was an action movie, nothing else. Notice how it never stopped to catch it's breath. Don't feel too bad, though. You do realize that Roddenberry's future was based totally on communist ideals and altruism. I've always found it hilarious how the Star Trek Federation patrols the galaxy extolling the virtues of no money and peace. Yet every single episode had them firing phasers and bargaining for what they needed. The Ferengi was their obvious attempt to demonize capitalism and the profit motive, but the end product was so laughable and unrealistic that they are one of my favorite Trek species! Vulcan being destroyed is a terrible story arc, IMO. I think they got the idea from the Xindi storyline from Enterprise, but yeah, bad idea. What was good about Star Trek is that every episode took on social issues (that would make for awesome debates here), and that was totally lacking in the movie. For example, one Voyager episode took place on a planet that rationed health care according to the skills and contributions the patient would be able to make to society. The new Star Trek movie was just character introduction and setting up the new universe/timeline, while engaging young people who may not be familiar with the ST universe. So I'll give them one more chance to inject some humanity into the story. If the next movie is just another action flick with yet another stupid, contrived fist-fight in the end I'll be done with them. Oh, and I LOVED the opening sequence. I thought it was very well done, moving and engaging. Bob
  5. I'm not police or military but I've studied their website and support them. It makes me feel safer to know they are there. The LV review article is pathetic. The Oath Keepers stand for one thing only - defending the Constitution. Also in a similar vein, there are groups seeking to educate the general public about THEIR ability and duty to defend the constitution regarding the Grand Jury and trial juries. The Grand Jury today is often denied to citizens, and trial juries are often instructed by judges in ways that violate the constitution. I don't want to hijack this thread but I think I have some links around somewhere if anyone is interested in reading more. Bob
  6. Well, thank you for the excellent exposition of the Objectivist position. I'm having a problem, though, that when private charity is inadequate we say - too bad, so sad? But I have a more important question for you. Image that Objectivist values have become a fundamental part of society in general and of everyone's education. Would that "fix" things in that there would then be adequate private charity? In other words, when almost everyone is an Objectivist and need is no longer forced on anyone, then most people are more able to care for birth defects, and everyone feels more free and able to exercise compassion and all charities become overfunded? Is that the Objectivist solution to ensuring that no child suffers unnecessarily from a birth defect? Bob
  7. The parents have a duty to the child. So now their child is born with a serious heart defect, or conjoined twins. Their country does not have a hospital capable of dealing with that, and though they are middle-class in their community they have no means to cover this expense. Your solution? I do. Yet still this year hundreds of children who should have had the operation as an infant still cannot get the procedure and they will have to suffer for yet another year at least. Assume you have helped out the doctors somewhere in South America this year. Your group is packing to leave but there is still a line of children hoping to be treated. As an Objectivist, what do you say to them to explain why they will not helped? Bob
  8. I understand. This is why I mentioned the difficulty in defining just what is a "need", it is a slippery slope with no bottom. I also understand that, for an example, if a poor population somewhere makes a habit of six or more children per family they would be forcing an undue burden on those elsewhere in the world who are more responsible. But that is an extreme example. What about the poor couple who do have the means to take care for the one or two children they have, but are unlucky in that one is born with a cleft palate. Can you really stand in front of that six year old child, who should have had the operation as an infant, and say, "Maybe next year." I realize the pat answer is, 'if you care so much then you are free to donate'. But then when donations aren't enough we say, 'sorry, the world is not obligated to help you'? Now to explore it from the other side, imagine if we DID create some definition of minimal "rights" that all humans are to be provided with. Perhaps the minimum standard of guaranteed housing would be a 4-foot by 6-foot plywood shack. I believe such a thing would belittle what it means to be human by removing any incentive to provide for oneself. In other words, we should rather teach our children that they have a duty to themselves to exercise their own self-interest in providing for themselves. But you can't say that to a newborn with a cleft palate - that operation should be performed soon after birth. So what I'm saying is that birth defects seem to me to be something that could be defined, in a medically advanced society, as a right that is not allowed to slide down the slippery slope to anything else. But I do have a major problem in defining when the parents are "unable" to provide that need and society should step in, or when the parents have been negligent in having too many children or whatever. Can't come up with ANY equitable means of defining that, so maybe THAT is why it's not a good idea. In spite of what I wrote above I do understand that. But my problem with birth defects is that the child did nothing wrong. I wonder if anyone has every looked into what the costs of fixing birth defects are worldwide. What if society fixed birth defects where the parents were unable, but then required the parents to repay in some fashion? I'm reaching, I know, I'm just having trouble with innocent children suffering when the technology to fix that suffering exists, whether the parents are responsible or complete cads or dead. Absolutely. As a fundamental tenet of Objectivism is that noone is forced to donate, I wish Objectivists would make more of a point that Objectivism does not "object" to compassion in any way. Bob
  9. Thanks, Michael. I'm pleasantly surprised that I found nothing to disagree with in your post. I easily agree with each of your numbered points, 1, 2 and 3. I believe my previous comments were my attempt to explain your points 1 and 2. I don't get as intellectual as you, though. I'm a very practical person and I like to think about issues by example, sort of like Einstein did with his "thought experiments". Your discussion of Rand's essay and historical-political environment of the founding fathers' times reminds me of my opinion that they, and indeed many parts of the world, were then undergoing a political reformation of sorts. Rather than governments granting rights and having power over people, the people HAVE rights and grant power to the government. I don't know a great deal about that aspect of history, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the founding fathers were the first to solidify those ideas in a constitution for government, and that they did it better than any following. The point I want to make with you (and others) is that I don't fully agree that the idea of Natural Law, as you described, must necessarily include a mystical source. As it's been pointed out by someone else here, Jefferson could not have been an evolutionist. But he did not write that rights were endowed by "their God". I realize he capitalized the word Creator, but I believe it was meant to be an all-inclusive term. If you think about his intent that rights are fundamental to "Natural Law", then the phrase "your Creator" can mean anything from evolution to God to Allah to Reincarnation to Brahman to primordial seeding by aliens. It doesn't matter what "Creator" means to each individual, as long as we recognize that ALL human beings are equal and possess those rights. I believe that was Jefferson's intent. Now, I agree that some people, for example fundamental Christians, will claim otherwise and maybe that's the crack you speak of. But I think his DofI introduction is fine given an understanding of his intent and the times he lived in, and so I don't think my idea is revisionist - something I'm careful to guard against. Finally, regarding your last paragraph I would say, yes, lack of critical-thinking by the population at large is rampant. Instead they emote and feel, leading to a moral relativism that can justify opposite courses of action from one day to the next. It's truly frightening. Thanks again. Bob
  10. I assume this is the proper forum for this? I just got home from a Health Care Forum sponsored by a local news station (Denver, 9news). The governor and six of Colorado's U.S. congresspeople and senators answered questions. I plan on blogging about it once I organize my notes. But there is one very specific topic I would like to hear your opinions on. As I striving/budding Objectivist I understand that health care is not a right. One man in the audience talked about his daughter being born with issues requiring 27 surgeries, and Ed Perlmutter (Colorado Congressman) mentioned his epileptic daughter in his response. The citizen complained of not being able to get insurance for his daughter's pre-existing condition. Here are my questions - please understand I'm not arguing for these positions, I'm asking how the Objectivist explains rights and values regarding these situations. First, is it necessary for all couples who plan on having a child to be financially able to deal with all possible birth defects before giving birth to that child? I would think the answer is no, so then those unlucky parents who don't have the means are just that - unlucky, and they just have to do the best they can? For a modern civilization like ours, with the knowledge and means to repair many birth defects, does society have a duty to heal those children? If no, why not? I can see part of the problem is defining which parents can and cannot afford that care. But I need much help on this issue. Secondly, one of my favorite charities is Operation Smile. Doctors and nurses donate their time and materials to travel around the world, mostly to quite impoverished areas, and perform cleft lip and cleft palate surgery on children whose parents have no possible means to get that service. Now, my first solution to that problem is rights protected by rule of law and free-market capitalism to empower those people. But until that happens how do you justify not helping such a child left behind after Operation Smile has spent all their donations and has to return home. I assume part of the explanation is how do you define who needs what, and where does the definition of "need" end? And I can accept that. But repairing a birth defect like a cleft palate is a simple operation and many of these kids suffer unnecessarily for years. Surely that does fall under any definition of "need" that could be defined? Is it really enough to say, well they are a third world country and the rest of the world just can't fix everyone else's problems? Bob
  11. I don't know where you saw that, just want to make sure people know it's not mine. Zazzle randomly adds link to products from throughout their marketplace, I suspect that's what you saw. Thanks Bob I didn't think you made it, as it was made by someone called "xuberalles." It's pretty clearly visible here: http://www.zazzle.com/patriot_resistance/favorites Second row down. To complement the message, it has a charming little illustration of an iron right smack in-between the words. Now, what I found notable about it was that it was in the favorites section. I've never run an online store before, but wouldn't a "favorites" normally have... well, the favorite products of the customers in it? Oh, that's where you saw it. I had forgotten about that completely. Thanks for pointing it out, I've removed it. I have no excuse, perhaps I found it humorous late at night some time ago. Haven't looked at my favorites section in ages. Thanks again. Bob
  12. I don't know where you saw that, just want to make sure people know it's not mine. Zazzle randomly adds link to products from throughout their marketplace, I suspect that's what you saw. Thanks Bob
  13. So I had a little bit of satori (sudden inspiration) and wondered about the marriage of these two symbols. The Yin/Yang has a generically positive association with the general public, while the dollar sign - as Objectivists know - is too often associated with plain greed. I like the idea of the dollar sign representing a "balance" between rights and freedom in the free-market. (Click to see this design on products in my zazzle store)
  14. For something that's supposed to operate on pure logic, computers sure do seem to behave irrationally quite often, eh? Thanks. Bob