georgedonnelly

That's nice but I'd like to understand exactly whose rights have been violated by whom when and how in Michael's scenario.

Um no, no they have not. You'll have to name the ill effects of being alive because frankly none occur to me. If you are a regular consumer of McDonald's food and aren't aware of the ill effects of eating their fare then you must not be paying attention. There was even a movie made about it. I have at different times in my life taking up eating McDonald's 2-3 times a week and quickly noticed the enormous weight gains and other yuckiness. I forswore McDonald's several years ago though. I haven't had the same bad experience with Burger King or Wendy's, for whatever that is worth.

That's an excellent idea, you first. I already went first. Usually you rebut someone's arguments before you add on quips like that.

(1) Don't they already? And what about the devastating effects of alcoholism, nicotine addiction and the like? Shall we ban alcohol and nicotine too? What about videogames? Those have killed! (2) Doesn't that happen already? And wouldn't it be reduced if the enterprise was legal and could be held accountable in a court of law? And I won't even get into all the other activities that cause matter to bleed over into other people's property but have so far failed to bring the sky crashing down on our heads. Let's try a little harder to think this through before spouting off nonsense, shall we?

Oh it sure is. The payments are just deferred. And the payments don't always come out of your wallet. The ill health effects of McDonald's food has been well demonstrated.

Right. Let's make a list of all dangerous products and see how we can get some legislation passed to ban them. I'll get us started: Cars Guns Airplanes Marshmellows [choking hazard] Coffee [ too much caffeine could make you do crazy things] Soap-on-a-Rope [could be used to asphyxiate someone] Well that's just a start, come on, you chip in some too.

Um you're living in it bud. That it's legal or not is a mere formality. The fact is that this drug is widely available. Your sentence makes no sense. It is dead obvious that tobacco is a hugely lucrative business. So is narcotics. Not that this is relevant. Moderation then is what we should be shooting for? Just enough liberty? Just enough evil? Please. That line of debate is so silly and poorly supported I won't pursue it further. Who ARE you? Jim Taggart? Orren Boyle? These statements are straight out of the mouth of the looters in AS. Who will pay to clean up the mess that comes with alcohol addiction? nicotine? guns? violent videogames? teen pregnancy? Each person must pay the price of their own actions.

George, Of course he did. Please reread his opening post. Michael Thanks. So just cocaine, heroin, and meth? My point still stands.

Shayne, suppose I make a batch a recreational drugs in my basement and sell them to the public and they all die? Isn't that a case of manslaughter? What if they merely become scarred for life and unable to support themselves? Do I not have some responsibility for this? Suppose I make a batch of aspirin and they contain cyanide and everyone dies? Suppose I make a batch of cars and they have a fatal gas tank flaw and everyone blows up and dies? Were these cases of manslaughter? (Tylenol and GM, respectively IIRC) The difference here is that Johnson and Johnson and GM are legal enterprises so if I am a victim, be it of willful negligence or not, I can take legal action against them. How am I going to take legal action against a criminal mafia? I can't - because it is illegal. So as a consumer I would have fewer channels of recourse precisely because the operation is illegal. Make it legal and you reduce the violence associated with it. Maybe brands for the products will come out. This means producers will be interested in quality. And they'll be able to focus on quality because they won't lose 1/2 or more of the product trying to get it across the border. Of course this is a wholly pragmatic analysis. The most important is the moral.

Drugs such as what? HH never named the drugs he wants to ban. And exactly _which_ drugs if taken constitute not acting in one's rational self-interest? Marijuana? Hey how about nicotine? Alcohol? Morphine? Wait, in what situations? And even if it is something considered by the majority of soccer moms to be really really nasty, well even then, is it not up to each individual to analyze and decide what is their own self-interest? What right do you have to tell others what their self-interest is or is not - and at the barrel of a gun? She promoted smoking, which is a 10-cent name for nicotine habit. HH we hardly knew ye.

I'm with sjw on this one. And I agree he is showing restraint.

I think I referenced consenting adults and when one's rights are violated. I'd want to look real closely to see where exactly the violation of rights occurs. For sure it is a parenting issue.

Alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and maybe even cocoa (key ingredient of chocolate) could be considered dangerous addictive drugs. So according to you we have to ban their production ... right?

Excellent! Government should not be in any of those businesses anyway! Ridiculous. Highways, bridges and other services should be run by private enterprise on on an entirely voluntary basis.

Absolutely. We MUST ban alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and cocoa NOW. Amen to that brother. sarcasm OFF. Seriously you have no business regulating what consenting adults do as long as no one's rights are violated.

Zoning laws are the right approach. They'd let you own property and exercise free speech - if it was permitted in your zone. You wouldn't have to buy property there if you really wanted to live free. You'd always be free to go homestead in the wilderness and live free to your heart's content there.

What?! If the neighbor's stereo is being heard in your apartment, they are essentially invading your property. The equivalent would be if they hung an offensive photo on the outside of your window, or walked inside your apartment, hung it on a wall and took measures to ensure you didn't dispose of it. Noise is a property rights issue. The noise-causer has no right to invade your property in any way. Wolf's comments on pornography are dead on. It's another property rights issue. re/ Michael's comment about building on your property that affects my sunset, there was a case in California recently where someone put in solar panels while a neighbor's redwoods were growing. Eventually the redwoods cast shade on the panels and the panel owner invoked a law about not casting shade on panels (!) and forced the redwood owner to trim back their trees. I think that is complete bs. We own the land we have title to and the space above it but not the light that comes through the neighbor's property.

Exactly. Yet there may come the day when it is an appropriate plan of action. It's good to be prepared. "To the extent that a man is guided by his rational judgment, he acts in accordance with the requirements of his nature and, to that extent, succeeds in achieving a human form of survival and well-being;" IOW, who cares if they believe in the easter bunny as long as they are engaging in trade, right?

They're very smart when they single out people for deprivation of liberty, as with the watchlists. Large groups of people aren't going to get upset about that. Perhaps 'strike' should be defined. Shayne's comments on that I found very insightful. Although I would only count people actively and consciously striking in the Atlas Shrugged sense of not engaging in productive work that benefits looters through the use of the mind/reason. For example, running a railroad for the looter state is out but running a farm in Galt's Gulch is in. For example, it would be extremely difficult to mount a Galt's Gulch these days. After a few years the FBI would swoop in and confiscate it all in the name of tax collection. Armed resistance may just be a replay of similar standoffs - everybody gets blown away. Advanced technology to make GG invisible or something is nice in fiction but nothing like that seems to exist yet. You could try mounting it in a third-world country where law enforcement is minimal but then you might be under constant siege from guerrillas, poachers, etc. To mount it in international waters or an inaccessible desert might solve those problems but then the technological hurdle is high. Or you would have to get used to living in a harsh environment. When to strike is a very good question.

Objectivists are so taken with the romantic allure of going on strike, especially if they have recently (re)read Atlas Shrugged. It's a bit narcissistic. This is not the world of Atlas Shrugged, not by a mile. This is still the time to fight, and not to retreat/regroup or go on strike. The case for individual rights and capitalism has _still_ not been put to the people of the world. I think I personally would take up arms at the point where they begin openly punishing dissent with force. For example, when they start carting off dissenters to concentration camps. That's not much of answer to your question, just a first stab really.

The measure is self-interest. Justice is not a rock-solid concept but self-interest is. If the nation has conscription it is not free, period. These nations are only mm apart on a scale from slave to free. It's one gang of looters against another. An Objectivist should distance himself from both. Are all nations which have ever stolen/murdered/looted always unjust etc etc. ? They're definitely not free, that's for sure. Undoubtedly, yes. Obviously it is impossible to know for sure. I don't see this being very relevant, though.

Very few people are interested in wrestling with pigs or raping monkeys. Sad, but true.

"bad shit" can come from any mind, good or bad. It's the values that guide the practical use of the good or bad mind. In fact, that a mind is labeled as good or bad by an individual is entirely a subjective judgment, I think. In this case it seems that good manners are not a value at this time to these two minds. Good manners are an important value and it is in a person's self-interest to practice them. Why is a topic for another thread.

Since when is there a right not to be offended?! That is utter BS. She definitely said it: AR Lexicon: Free Speech. Of course she also says: I don't remember which came first.

This is the same line of reasoning that said the polls were wrong and RP was the victim of election fraud. Both wrong. Or at least not serious enough to make any difference. Listen, OL is for Objectivists. Objectivists do not ignore the reality in front of their eyes and substitute it with pleasant dreams. Either face up to reality or take this BS somewhere else, because this is the last place you should be posting it. And don't try to paint me as an RP-hater, I contributed significant amounts to his presidential campaign.