Bryce

I receive more brain damage, per capita, at work from my so-called customers than from anyone I've met off Craigslist. I've sold or traded maybe a dozen items on there. The turnaround was sometimes weeks but I believe I've received the best money possible short of waiting on a miracle. I'd buy and sell there all the time if I just knew what to resell.

After the video was removed I looked for another upload. Then I found comments that described the dog owner antagonizing the police prior to the shooting. Apparently video of that exists but I didn't see it. He supposedly parked his car next to the scene after driving by and being belligerent. So if he was antagonizing them then I was wrong (about why he was handcuffed). I don't believe that baiting the authorities in this way is productive. This guy, the Ridley Reporters and of the world are not defenders of rights.Still, the officers were wrong in shooting his dog and I stand by the rest of my comments.

Something without a voice is such an easy target for a coward. I've seen a lot of YouTube videos of or about cops shooting dogs. And I don't think it's a coincidence. A person with a gun, with authority, with a compulsion to kill and a justification to do it will kill. I don't think a moral code is what stops these government employees from so brazenly shooting humans. I think it's that the potential repercussions are much more severe. And god help us when those are taken away. Oh, and let's not forget what the guy was handcuffed for. The ending is graphic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0isxv2jnIo

I learned that haggis hasn't been available in the US for about 40 years because we're not allowed to eat sheep's lung. That was a surprise to me because I thought that I had eaten it. Anyway, I did recently eat real, bona fide haggis and it was good. Whatever I'd eaten before I thought was good, but this was good. I had little rounds of it. That and black pudding. Congealed blood is as appetizing as it seems.

That's funny. I did a lot of fundraising for Cub Scouts and school as a kid. Certain people in the neighborhood never had money on them, otherwise they definitely would've bought some gift wrap. I should've taken a tip from that girl. You see this fire merit badge? Why don't you find your checkbook before I earn another one. The last time I bought Girl Scout cookies was when a girl at the grocery store stood in my way and asked me as I was leaving. But I haven't seen any of the scouts at the grocery store do that since I moved to Texas. Maybe it's store policy or maybe their scout leaders don't care. I busted my ass every year selling popcorn to win those esteemed BSA Victorinox Swiss Army knives.

Bryce, I never said I would push anything. I never even hinted that I would. That doesn't mean I would or I wouldn't. It just means you decided I would out of your own biases, not out of anything I wrote. You misidentified. This is a very simple case of making an assumption on first seeing something, i.e., instantly evaluating it, then presenting that in the place where correct identification should be. This--the epistemological method you have used so far in your posts--is the premise I suggest you check. I call the correct method "cognitive before normative" and the error "normative before cognitive." (This is based on the idea that it's very difficult--actually impossible without blind luck--to evaluate something correctly if you don't identify it correctly.) But it's your mind, your method and your decision. You misunderstood (misidentified?) me but I wrote it in a way that could be and was misunderstood. I've read all of your posts so I know you didn't write it. If I had meant it as you thought I did I would have written, "...you who would press the blue button or anyone else..." And I'm not pissed off. Then again, you haven't written that I was.

Unless he's trying to evade responsibility, if he would contentiously shrug off the anger of the family of the random someone he murdered, I would wonder why he had that John Galt-like demeanor. I think I'd be taken aback by it and question him down to see if he could understand the problem of his decision. Because if he could I would demand restitution instead of killing him. Though I don't believe a man so rationally self-interested would comply with the machine. But if he didn't let me question him down, I would put aside my wondering to kill him. But now that I'm wondering, I wonder if you or anyone else who would press the blue button would accept being murdered so that the subject's close friend would not have to die. If John Galt or Ayn Rand would have made the decision you suggest either would have been mistaken to do so. That's not a premise that needs checking. If I had the inkling I was about to be murdered for my murderer's feelings towards someone I don't know, I wouldn't wait until after he took his action of killing me to kill him. Mostly because I physically couldn't for being dead, but because his intent is what counts. If, as he placed his finger on the button to push it down, he was suddenly paralyzed and unable to kill me, I would hold him as accountable as his twin in the next death machine room who wasn't paralyzed and who did murder my twin.

Yes. I would because a man who wants sympathy for committing 'evil' is worse than a man who doesn’t. And I’m not talking about someone who’s asking for forgiveness for prior questionable actions. This man wants - to bastardize the term - to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to not feel the guilt of his atrocities but not commit to not doing them either if he's under compulsion. This is about compelling the subject to murder and the timer is the clincher. The altruist, seemingly left with no other options, believes that to press either button is compassionate and the timer a coward's excuse to not make an ethical decision (to press one of the two buttons). But I think a rational person would see the timer as an altruist's justification for making murder compassionate. Edited.

I don't know a lot of racing history but Bruce McLaren is iconic. And his company is responsible for some of the most advanced cars in the world. I think this tribute overlaps well onto Objectivism. http://youtu.be/23E1m8ZxFmU

Somehow you think that my will would be tied to that of the guys holding my family for ransom. But I don't control them and therefore I have nothing to "wash my hands" of. Besides, you're not considering alternatives. You didn't ask if I would try to save them nor if I would risk my life for theirs.

Hardly. The subject is being compelled to act for the would-be murderer. Instead of the buttons (or machine or whatever it is) doing the killing it is allowing him to do the killing instead. But he may still decide to not be party to the decision despite being put into the situation against his will.

This is about the initiation of force. A reason could warrant a button-presser killing someone close to him, say to mercifully kill his dying wife. But none to kill a stranger. And he is complicit if he presses either. You're rationalizing. If it were about saving a life the choice would decide who lives and inaction would save both. Frankly, you're insane to think that because a thing or anyone commits to killing several that you would kill fewer in order for it to not kill at all. If you chose a button you are more contemptuous than the maker of the machine. And if the random victim of your decision learned of it before his death, or if the loved ones of the victim sought revenge, you should not be surprised that either would kill you back.

Most men have the will to do what they please, within reality. That's freedom. We are free to do what we will, and the limits we place are only on ourselves. And the reaction of others to that will - good or bad - is separate. Two men who have no inclination to murder each other wouldn't draw a social contract to prohibit one from murdering the other. Hobbes had a different view of this situation. In nature, men do as they will within the boundaries of their capability . In this situation where there is no external restraint on what they do the life of man, as Hobbes says is "solitary, nasty, brutish and short". Which is why we need government to restrain what people do with the fear of punishment. Ba'al Chatzaf So did Hobbes support his government because without it he was nasty and brutal? Understanding that a problem exists is not the same as knowing why it does. And whatever the problem is, correcting it begins with the individual.

Some children are born without brains. Some humans are retarded and others have become vegetables. I'll go out on a limb and say that they don't have much will. And I deliberately didn't write "free will".

As there is no such thing in human social existence as "absolute freedom"--ever--not now, not back then and not in the future--please restate your proposition and its consequences so it makes some sense. --Brant Most men have the will to do what they please, within reality. That's freedom. We are free to do what we will, and the limits we place are only on ourselves. And the reaction of others to that will - good or bad - is separate. Two men who have no inclination to murder each other wouldn't draw a social contract to prohibit one from murdering the other.

Bryce, you can change the nouns to apply to any specific and thereby ultimately make the case for anarchy. Laws against robbery and burglary obviously do not stop perpetrators. These laws make it illegal for one neighbor to borrow the lawn mower of another without express written permission on file with the police. What if the cops on patrol see you coming from your neighbor's garage with his mower? In numismatics about 10 ot 12 years ago, we had what I found to be a very embarrassing case of some collectors who thought they knew more and were thus morally empowered attempting to "warn" people against the "frauds" perpetrated by a certain dealer whose grading they disliked. As all information was available in this perhaps perfect market, I felt that every choice was clearly an informed one and regardless of my opinion, the buyers were certainly happy and the seller delivered exactly what was purchased. Thus, this case reinforces your logic, that laws against fraud were troubled by unanswerable questions.I might agree that yours are the questions that might be asked in debates in the legislature of a rational government as lawmakers carefully consider the complexities of everyday life. Short of that, though, your challenges seem to miss the wider target: we pass laws to announce social norms. Enforcement and remediation are different issues entirely. Rational governments do not exist, and technically cannot because no entity or law can be rational. My intent was to prove that no rational explanation exists to support even limited gun control (an irrational idea) and I didn't expect to receive one. And I didn't. I botched the analogy but you got the point. I think that [absolute] freedom requires an individual to be [absolutely] responsible for his actions. And even the least stringent law releases him from the need to be responsible. In one example we, the irrational and the power of the society, expect of a victim to use against an aggressor only a fair amount of retaliatory force. Or none, being an enlightened society. But the reality is that the victim should not be judged. Half because we don't have a right to expect anything of the victim and half because the aggressor is the aggressor. And he, in his own mind, should be prepared for any consequence, including death.

But the caveats do. No conditions may exist that are reasonable in restricting gun usage, only those that a majority of policymakers feel good about. Because nobody is qualified to define "basic self defnse" or to standardize gun safety. And nobody may be a reasonable gun owner simply for passing a class. However, defending guns from a rights perspective is wrong (improper or impertinent, unproductive maybe. I believe a better word exists but I can't think of one). An explanation should be asked of the person who would have gun ownership criminalized. It should be demanded of the least stringent opponent to the cowards like Donald Kaul. And I expect any answer to follow the lines of public welfare, we as a society nonsense. So will mandatory gun safety classes ensure that everyone never accidentally discharges a bullet into his own foot? How do those who wouldn't have done that without certification justify the time and costs of certification to themselves? And what is basic safety? And how often is certification needed? And is everyone convicted of violent crime incapable of safely using a firearm? You're not even asking to judge felons individually, or if any of the felons should be felons at all. How about restrictions on open carry? What exactly is the motive of restricting open carry? How much violence done not in self-defense will that abate compared to that done in self-defense? How do you justify the numbers either way? Is the potential for saving the life of a stranger in California worth the life of a murdered man in Nebraska who respected open carry laws and did not carry?

I think Mikee summarized laws best. All law is subjective. But on the topic of drunk driving, blaming alcohol for reckless driving is as naive as blaming guns for shooting deaths. The law only weighs intoxication. An objective, rational person would only consider judgement. Otherwise the decision of the drunk who, at a .25 BAC, decides not to drive is equal to that of the drunk who decides at a .25 to drive... and kills someone.

Yes, I do. Fade to Black but particularly this cover:

Or maybe he could sue the liquor store in the name of social justice.

Good timing. A former acquaintance posted this on Facebook this morning: "If everyone is in the same boat, no one is likely to poke a hole in it. The conundrum, then, is how to get everyone in that boat in the first place." She is an avowed Obama-lover.

I am listening...I see a few serious issues in invoking a Federal Anti-Trust statute if that is what you are getting at? Yes, exactly. Edit: On "moral" grounds, not legal. I skimmed the comments on the Ron Paul site and I didn't see any condemnation of it. I believe that most who endorse free markets don't have a clue what free markets are. And the few who do and who have a big stage should advocate capitalism with unimpeachable credibility. But libertarianism is a nebulous mess of ideas so I think I'm giving Gary Johnson undue credit.

I wonder if there are many libertarians who understand the problem with this.

I post very infrequently because I often agree with the subject matter. But Objectivist Living is also like a news aggregator: interesting content is posted all the time. edit

I tried several times to write the right reply but it didn't come. I think throughout this you are conflating the priorities of salesmen and marketers and business developers and business owners. I think this person can be one in the same. I also think you're taking a mostly marketing approach and with maybe the mindset of a person building his own business, on his own, and placing those concepts over the job of a salesman. If I'm right it doesn't invalidate your points, necessarily, but it means that we're not talking about the same thing. I think addressing the points - the subconcious, the inate drives - at all is the problem. A more rational buyer would address the points on his own; he would attempt to overcome them. A more rational salesman would likewise plow thorugh the bullshit to present facts. A more practical salesman (the epitome, I mentioned) would address the bullshit. And the more models I think you'll present will give further credence to the profitability of being the practical salesman. The great salesmen aren't the Fast Willy's you seem to think they are. They are outwardly the ones that people like; the ones who receive top marks on customer surveys. Fast Willy gets lower marks and doesn't make nearly as much money. And the rational salesman gets the lowest marks and makes the least. Unless or until the buyers change the salesmen should be the most pragmatic (profitable) that they can be. Nothing wrong with this. But you are leaving out time--specifically the lifetime value of a customer. But before that, here's a question. Who would you rather spend your time selling to, a person who comes in off the street or a person who has already been prequalified and is highly interested in what you are selling? So look at the fairness. Suppose you gain a $1,000 commission from the sale of one car to such a client. You have a profit of $1,000. Now suppose that customer buys a car once every two years and you keep him for 24 years. Suddenly, you are talking about $12,000 coming from the same person. Doesn't that extra value to you deserve a little more attention than just an off-the-street pitch once every two years? To me, that's just common sense. Rational common sense. I saw somewhere (I can't remember where right now) some car sales training where they showed videos of prospects in a dealership. The way they analyzed these people (using Prizm-like demographic pigeonholing) and the tactics they suggested turned my stomach. If ever there were a school for vultures, this was it. Often, the kind of salesman you mentioned belongs to that persuasion. But I believe he will deal only with the 15% slice. Instant sales is where his focus is. So within that 15%, he will shine. But he will leave a lot of relatively easy money on the table doing it. There are salesmen who exist to be salesmen and not marketers or business developers. It is a career choice and they do only have a small amount of customer retention. Low price was a factor, sure. But I don't think it was the low price so much as the honesty--which is also a value for the customer. (Think about SCARF--especially the certainty, relatedness and fairness parts.) Joe Girard made long-term relationships with his customers thinking about (1) making hassle-free deals for them at a good price, and (2) the lifetime value of his customers. He got in on the 85%, not the 15%, and he kept many of them for a lifetime value. Is it any wonder he outsold everyone else? To use the numbers above, suppose your smooth-move dude closed 100 customers for $1k each. He has $100,000 in profit from his 100 people and very few repeats, so he has to keep finding new prospects. Let's say Joe earns half that, but he gets the lifetime value (for 24 years for this case). That means he gets $6k per person, i.e., $600,000 in profit from 100 people. He will get new prospects all the time, too. In fact, he gets more than Smooth Move because he gets word-of-mouth referrals. Michael Joe Girard also sold (1) Chevrolet in (2) Detroit in (3) the 1970s at (4) a dealership that let him set his own pricing. He did what you said but he had a lot going for him. Don't you find something wrong with a buyer who would find him dishonest for not selling at the MSRP? Or who intrinsically expects a discount? Or who wants to not negotiate, who wants the potential low price from a negotiation, and who thinks the definition of negotiation is getting the salesman to lower his price without providing anything in return? And before you or anyone else says that buying is what the salesman gets, know that there is a difference between a salesman who is willing to discount a product to close a deal on a prospect who is unwilling to buy and a prospect who comes in just expecting a discount.