equality72521

I suggest that you reread the part on religion as it does not say that just anyone of any faith can hold office. Section 6. All men have a natural and indefeasable right to worship or not in accordance to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of worship. As to session I suggest that you read a bit more on that subject. peoples have the right to seceded from any government for whatever reason. There can be question raised as to if the newly established govt is legit but that people have the right to secede is a fact. I suggest that you check out some of the well reasoned well written material on Mises.

I have written several theoretical constitutions in the past a few state constitutions and several national constitutions (some for the US some for fictional countries). Given the current state of things I want to (with input hopefully) come up with a State constitution, not for any particular state but for any state. Here is the assignment: You are a State Legislator of state X which for the purpose of this exercise we shall call Alexander (which means defender of man). Preamble TO THE END, that We, the people of the State of Alexander may establish a society of Justice, Liberty, and respect of Private Property, here by ordain this Constitution. Furthermore we recognize the truth that it is the only proper role of government to 1) secure against foreign invasion, 2) to secure its citizens against domestic aggression, 3) and the courts, to protect property and contracts from breach or fraud, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. [3 comes from Galts speech] Article I That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare: Section 1. Alexander is a free and Sovereign State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; and the maintenance of our institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend on the preservation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all States. Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The people of Alexander stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to that limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. Section 3. All free men when they by the Nature of man have equal rights, and no man, or set men, is entitled to exclusive separate public enoluments, or privilages. Section 4. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments. Section 5. No person shall be disqualified to give evidence to any of the courts of this State on account of his religious opinions, or for the want of any religious belief, but all oaths and affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury. Section 6. All men have a natural and indefeasable right to worship or not in accordance to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of worship. Section 7. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes. Section 8. Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilage; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecution for the publication of papers investigating the conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts under the direction of the court, as in other cases. Section 9. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrent to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. Section 10. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to have a copy thereof. He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel or both; shall be confronted with the witnesses against him; and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. And no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on indictment of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine, or imprisonment otherwise than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the army or navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger. Section 11. All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses when the proof is evident; but this provision shall not be so construed as to prevent bail after indictment found, upon examination of the evidence in such manner as may be prescribed by law. Section 12. The writ of habeas corpus is a right, and shall never be suspended. The Legislature shall enact laws to render the remedy speedy and effectual. Section 13. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person done to him for an injury in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law. Section 14. No person, for the same offense, shall twice be put in jeopardy of life or liberty; nor shall a person again be put on trial for the same offense after a verdict of not guilty in a court of compotent jurisdiction. Section 15. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency. Section 16. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts shall ever be made. Section 17. No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without consent of such person. Section 18. No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt. Section 19. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privilages or immunities, or in any manner disenfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land. Section 20. No citizen shall be outlawed; nor shall any person be transported out of the State for any offense committed within the same. Section 21. No conviction shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate; and the estates of those who destroy their own lives shall descend or vest as in the case of natural death. Section 22. Treason against this State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Section 23. Every citizen shall keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but each citizen may write to the officer appointed by the legislature foregoing the right to keep and bear arms, the suspension of this right shall not exceed the term of one year. Section 24. The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority. Section 25. No soldier shall be quartered in the house of any citizen without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war. Section 26. The legislature nor any part of the government shall by law establish perpetuities and monopolies, nor shall the legislature or any part of the government dissolve or break up any business unless that business be found guilty in a court of law of fraud, or coercion. Section 27. The citizens shall have the right, in their own peaceable manner, to assemble together, and apply to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance. Section 28. No power of suspending laws in this State shall be exercised. Section 29. It is recognized by the State of Alexander that there are three fundamental Rights which man by his nature possesses, and they are; the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Further no government, society, group of men, or individual has the Right to initiate the use of force against any individual or group of individuals, and thereby infringe upon the natural Rights of man.

Brant, Is a thought any less real because it is a thought? What you seem to be saying is that because thoughts are non-tangible they are unreal. Concepts all concepts are human inventions, the concept of gravity is a human invention. The major problem that i find with your theory is that it leads to a Nietzschen understanding of life. Will to power. let us ask the following questions. Do men have different Rights? does A have Rights B does not have? If A has different Rights then B why? Regardless of where you believe Rights originate (god etc.) it is absurd to postulate different men have different Rights.

Adam, I have a very... Unique way of putting thing. I am a very strait forward kind of person and do not blunt what I say, some people think that is a short coming of mine. I however tend to think it is a virtue. In my life of all the thousands and thousands of people I have met be it very briefly, or have had a sustained acquaintance there are only three who I can say I wished to see dead. I do not wish death for Wolf, as you pointed out he appears to be rather intelligent, however there are very serious flaws in his post here, namely what is the source of Rights. You cannot say for certain which theory of the source of Rights he follows but if you have some insight please feel free to share. Rand covers the issue in several of her books in several ways. The very fact that man is what man is means that he posses Rights which are not dependent upon others. A man alone on an Island has the Right to preserve his life by 'thoughtful action' (a redundancy when speaking of man), when you introduce a second man onto that island a mans right to action does not change. The only difference between a single man on an island and two men on the same island is that where there are two men neither may initiate the use of force against another as the initiation of force, the introduction of a club or a gun, is a denial of that very thing which is necessary for mans existence, his mind.

http://www.gold-to-go.com/en/ Gold Vending Machine

I did not notice when this was first posted I posted in response to this because it was bumped. It sounds cold but I can fully understand what would drive him to suicide after having examined some of his posts. Let us all keep in mind what happens when we try to fight reality. we go crazy.

Addressing your objections. When does someone become human and why? I would like an objective definition please, I provided one and yet you did not in any way provide objections to why a fetus must be consider human. to answer your question is an Acorn and Oak the answer is yes, an Acorn is an Oak but it is not an Oak tree. We can call an Acorn rekdri or briko or tavo and the Oak Tree pivo, or car, or junk, "A rose by any other name is still a rose." you are focusing on what it is called rather than on the essence of what make a think what it is. An Acorn posses the essence of Oak. There can be no contradictions a dog and a cat cannot mate and have offspring because their essences are different, what makes a cat a cat and a dog a dog will not allow for a catdog. "The mother (paraphrasing you) is the only one who can initiate force, while the foetus is innocent. Have you any idea what the period of pregnancy, the birth, and the responsibility of raising a child, can do to a conscientuous, caring woman?" You here have not addressed who initiates the force, is it the fetus or is it the mother? does the fetus initiate the force by being conceived or does the mother in abortion? If you do as I asked and suspend your belief that the fetus is not a human and adopt the position that the fetus is a human, the initiator of force is not the fetus. It would not in any way be contradictory to your point of view to do the honest thing and say "Yes if one were to assume X then Y would be right. I however am not convinced of X." Further no one is saying that the mother has an obligation to raise the child. "Especially if she has no guarantee that her partner will stay to help with the responsibility?" again no one is saying that the mother must keep the child. "And all because she made one error, you will hold her liable: "Actions have consequences". " What is the error? could it have been prevented, was it not prevented through neglect? If I cross the street and am not watching and get hit by a car I cannot wish away the consequences, if someone pushes me I cannot wish away the consequences which will follow from ONE error. the number or errors made bares no relevance to this debate. "Frankly, just stating your conviction that abortion is wrong, and leaving it at that, would have been more honest. That position I can respect and have some sympathy with, even though I do not agree." What I ask for is a debate, break down point by point how I am wrong. I will gladly admit that I have made and error and will correct my position however it would be completely dishonest of me or anyone to do so without a rational debate which shows where and how I am wrong. Simply saying "your wrong" does not make me wrong. Rand talks about moral sanctions and how when someone who is unwilling to be converted to truth it is simply enough to say "I disagree" and that is enough, however when someone wants to have an honest discussion it is not enough to say you are wrong. Again if I am wrong I will change my position as I will have not choice if i wish to remain rational.

Dear Wolf, I have written several theoretical constitutions the exercise began as a 10th grade class assignment, however I have continued to write several constitutions in an attempt to find the most perfect. There are several fundamental problems with your theory and with your constitution in particular. Lets begin by clearly defining the Right to Life and towards this end I will use Ayn Rand. Right to Life. A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) The Virtue of Selfishness “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, Page 93 I have not read the post in the Altruism thread however here (without context) the question(so to speak) is begged. You assert that the right to life does not exist, where as Rand AND Objectivists assert it is the fundamental Right from which all other Rights flow. It then falls to you to provide a theory of the origins of mans rights. Furthermore to make clear the issue given the Objectivist definition of the Right to Life what you have said is that You may say that I have changed what you originally said or meant or that I have distorted it in some way. I have not I simply substituted where you put 'the Right to Life' with its definition. Here the begging of the question is most obvious. Whence does the Right to petition the courts come from? Does it originate from the document which proclaims it a Right or is it fundamental to mans nature? Does a constitutional Right to petition imply all you think it does? Can a petition not be rejected? Your theory thus far is beginning to sound like contract theory of which a great body of work has been done debunking the theory. If it is not contract theory we still run into the problem of the origin of this proposed Right. I will begin by asking have you ever read the Anti-Federalist papers? If not I would strongly suggest that you do so. Having said that let us return to the point. The first of the two quotes above have no philosophical context from which it is to be understood thus I shall provide it. The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is: That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Further we must consider the question of Justice and what is Justice. The operating (and correct theory) at the time was from each according to their ability to each according to their ability. (You get what you deserve.) As to the second quote I should like to ask the question what are the right principles? who defines and determines them? by what means? I am not exactly sure what this has to do with the subject of this thread but I would like to ask if you are saying that Truman should not have dropped the Atomic bomb? What is the source and authority of the constitution? what makes it a right? Prometheus help us. Who says that it is the lawyers who should select the judges and why do you assume that such an organized top down legal system is best? Private arbitration courts are much better than what it sounds like you are proposing, in addition the best of these courts tend to bar the use or lawyers. Lawful? what constitutes lawful? also I understand that the courts may issue laws, but why the courts and why not a senate, or other body. Says who? I see an assertion with zero philosophical backing. Why cannot laws be codified, legislated, etc. Why is fair public trial necessary, who determines process of law? I am not going to continue to break this down section by section. What I will do instead is ask what is the source of all this suppose to be. I am not an Anarchist I am a Capitalist, you seem to follow the contract theory of Rights but as I have said it has been greatly debunked. Further you seemed never to have read Rands major works which address this, you also seem to have never read Common Sense by Thomas Paine who is one of the most avid nearly anarchists.

What I want to know is with so many objectivist groups out there why have none started a home school or private school? Granted the technology and things like the Ipad it would be completely possible.

There is heavy speculation of him running for president in 2012. I hope he does and if he does it right he could actually win.

As in the last thread (before it degenerated into a flame war) I would like for everyone to keep context in mind. Your statement( not necessarily intentional)is guilty of context dropping. you say fetuses are not persons but you do not present the context which would prove this. Do persons have Rights, or do Humans have Rights. What are we to use as the definition of Human and or Person which excludes/includes a fetus? Also why do we use Person rather than Human. Equality, As the OP, the onus is on you to define these distinctions yourself, I think. I read your article, and if I correctly get the gist of it, your argument is based on these premises: A. The foetus at any stage of development must enjoy full (individual?) rights. B. Leading from that, it has the right to property, and the right to non-initiation of force used against it. C. The initiators of a foetus' conception, by the law of causality, are obliged to see it through to birth. Your conclusion: all the above establish the morality of your proposition. The argument falls flat from the start, if you can't provide solid evidence that a foetus is human, at conception - or at any particular stage, later on. Subjective whims aren't enough. But, even then, "property rights"?! and, the "libertarian axiom of non-aggression", as you put it?! By the analogies you used, by inviting someone onto one's property, means one is not allowed to throw them off. You are kidding, right? Haven't you heard of the right to change your mind...to correct your mistakes? Volition? Or is the abortion issue like 'squatters' rights', (that apply in some countries):in short, once I get into this abandoned building, the law is not permitted to evict me. I think this Walter Block makes ridiculous assertions, and I agree with nothing I read there, but I don't agree with your views either. You both consider the mother's body, Property. (Whose?) Also, that some 'contract' exists between mother and foetus. You believe that foetal rights trump the mother's. Again, that the instigator of a pregnancy is obliged to go to full term, due to causality. (Some notion of 'justice', perhaps? It sounds like punishment to me.) Finally, you have it back-to-front; morality is not derived from rights, but the other way round. Tony As I pointed out in the other post we are talking about essences. What is the essence of Human what makes Human Human? I will here use the same example I used before. When we talk about Oak Trees and Oak Seeds but the essence of both is Oak because the physical form changed from a seed to a tree the essence of Oak still is the same it is the fundamental thing which makes Oak Oak. You are asserting that because the Fetus does not physically look like a grown adult that the fetus is not a human, does then a man who looses an arm or leg not qualify as human? or what about a person who is born physically deformed? The next argument then will be the lack of intellect, then can we put children to death before the age of one year? two years? three years? it is simply a post natal abortion. do we consider the mentally retarded as inhuman? As to the woman's body as property the woman's body belongs to the woman, however the point which you are ignoring is the Right of the other Human involved. The Conceived child did not choose to be conceived the egg and the sperm simply followed the laws of nature, until the egg and sperm meet there is no human, but at the joining the resulting fetus is a human, the child did not assault the mother and force its way into existence, the fetus did not have a choice in the matter. The woman and the man chose to preform actions which they knew could or would result in pregnancy. As the example is given in the essay a man who is knocked out dragged onto a plane woke up at 1200 ft and then asked to jump from the plane because the owner no longer desires his presence the knocked out man has no obligation to oblige the owner. Abortion is an assault on an individual who had no choice in the conception processes. What about cases of rape? again the question is does the mother have the right to assault an individual who through no action of their own came into being? (as to the contract) This is an essay i did not say i agree with everything in it. As to "You believe that fetal rights trump the mother's." you have not fully considered the argument which is being made and are stuck in a specific mind set without considering if its right or wrong. Lets do as Ayn Rand suggests and (even disagreeing) consider the logical conclusions to be drawn if the opposition is right. Assume that I am right for a moment and that the Fetus is a Human. Did the Fetus in question initiate the use of force against the mother? No. The Fetus came into existence by a joining of egg and sperm which is outside of the control of a being who does not exist until after the egg and sperm is joined. Now consider the Right of the woman's property, a woman has the right to her body and all that entails, now consider the Right of the Fetus, the Fetus has the Right of its body and all that entails. Given that we are all agreed that no one has the right to initiate the use of force against another, and that the Fetus cannot initiate the force the only individual able to initiate force in this situation is the woman(not accounting for forced abortions). Placing the burden on an individual who had no say in conception is beyond absurd. Now assuming that I am right these are all logical conclusions. The argument then must be restrained to the question of is the Fetus a Human? "Again, that the instigator of a pregnancy is obliged to go to full term, due to causality. (Some notion of 'justice', perhaps? It sounds like punishment to me.)" Lets consider the question of punishment. If the Fetus is a Human as I am arguing than is it just to punish a the human who had no say? Furthermore it is absurd to say that the woman is being "punished", This is the argument of the blank-out, actions have consequences the action of sex has the potential consequence of pregnancy. It is immoral to attempt to blank-out those consequences.

Thank you Chris. My biggest problem with the LP is that they say they want to change things they say they want to restore the country but they focus on the national elections. What they neglect is that States are actually more powerful than the Federal govt but they buy into changing things from the top down.

I have talked with my friends about the possibility of starting a new (not a third) political party for years, I have also discussed with several leaders of third parties how to make themselves a viable political party (needless to say they have yet to take my advice). I am not posting this as advocating the creation of a new political party but rather to simply put this information out there. Third Party VS New Political Party. There is a very serious problem with Third Party political Parties as they tend to attack the current political system on the terms of the controllers of that system. The majority of Third Parties fall into the trap of National politics, in other words they are so focused on taking over the national government that they are stretched thin and unable to make any affective difference. A New Political Party can be more focused on the local and state level. A New Political Party Founding Fathers The founding fathers of a political party must have clear in their mind exactly what their objectives are, it is in the best interest of the newly formed party to write an issue to its constituents a political manifesto. The founders must also figure out exactly how far their reach extends. The greatest mistake that Third Parties make is that they over extend themselves by attempting to run on a national level rather than forming their parties from the bottom up. It should explicitly be the policy of the party not to run National candidates until such time as it is viable. How does one know when it is viable to run a national Candidate? There are a few ways to measure the viability of a party/candidate is ready for national office. One such way is to measure the strength of the party in the individual state. what does this mean? If a political party holds a large number of offices (mayor, state legislator, governor, city council members.) this can be used as one index to determine if a party/candidate is ready to go national. Another such way is by breaking the party into specific regions and measure the strength of the party in the specific area a candidate wants to represent. This is a much easier and much better way to determine the viability of a party/candidate as the party can focus geographically on building up its strength. A geographical focus Those who want to found a new political party should focus first and foremost on the local level (City, Town, County). The new party should focus on the voting precincts and build up its membership precinct to precinct. City/Town. Find out how the city/town breaks down who votes for who and where then focus on the strongest point. Plan on taking over the local offices with qualified candidates who have clear definable plans. Their plans should resemble closely the relevant portions of the party manifesto. Find out if the City/Town has a strong or weak mayoral system and devise the party plan around that. Once the party has control of a specific town or city then move to take over the neighboring town/city. Repeat as necessary until the party controls the county. Once the party controls enough counties move to take the state legislature, once the party controls enough of the state legislature then move to take the governorship. The Manifesto-Scope and reach of the party. Keep in mind exactly how far the party wants to go. Does the party not want to reach beyond a specific municipality? beyond the county? Develop the Manifesto to be implemented in stages, as the party and its influence grows release the relevant portions of the manifesto, ie. do not release the entire manifesto at once if the goal is for the party to take over a state. Keep the Manifesto relevant, the manifesto should be presented in two portions; 1) Principles of the party. 2) The practical application of those principles. Further keep in mind where the citizens are intellectually and politically. Stay away from hot button topics such as drugs. If a candidate or party is pro drug legalization they should avoid the topic and focus on what is more relevant to their campaign. It should be the policy of candidates to avoid these topics and if it is brought up in a debate the candidate should (in honesty) state that they are not running on that issues and they "I have not run on this issue, and I will not vote to change the current policy during this term in office. This issue therefore is not an issue and my personal views on this subject are irrelevant.". Now there are some out there that would say that this is moral cowardice however this is to misunderstand this position. The reason for doing this is not simply practical but educational, the only way to truly influence and change the political landscape is to educate the citizenship. The issue of drugs and other such topics is a sidebar, the main focus should be to convince the people of the validity of the principles which are held by the party. When one is allowed to be deflected by controversial application of principles they allow the opposition to control the debate and to blind those one wants to reach. The key is to in gradual steps prove the validity of the principles held and convince the individuals that you are right. In this way you can build a base by which an individual can later review their position and say "These are the principles I hold, does this stand hold to X principle". The focus then is not to get this or that law passed by deception, force, or trickery, but rather to educate the people and bring them to understand why X or Y is right. The question of money and funding This is not the problem it once was. Given the internet and the new social media campaigns can be run at a much lower cost than the two major political parties currently spend. The major parties spend more than is needed because they are locked into the old way of doing things. Innovate, and use Social media.

As in the last thread (before it degenerated into a flame war) I would like for everyone to keep context in mind. Your statement( not necessarily intentional)is guilty of context dropping. you say fetuses are not persons but you do not present the context which would prove this. Do persons have Rights, or do Humans have Rights. What are we to use as the definition of Human and or Person which excludes/includes a fetus? Also why do we use Person rather than Human.

I will here give a detailed response to this and would like you to consider seriously every point I make, when you consider the validity of your argument. My detailed refutation. See the: United Nations.

I would like to thank everyone for their response as I have found them interesting, I would now like to address some of the issues that were raised by some of the responders. Selene I was asking for your take on the situation and you can provide that take from any perspective you want. Ninth Doctor To make it more clear if your neighbor has the equipment to construct a rocket launcher has pledged to build that rocket launcher and then use it to destroy your house with you in it do you have the right to stop them with force or do you have to wait until they launch the rocket at your house? Ted Keer You are correct in asserting that "Mere speeches are not grounds for war." however as I said to Ninth Doctor if your neighbor has the ability to build a rocket launcher and has in "Mere speeches" pledged to use them against you do you have the right to preemptively strike? Keep in mind that this same neighbor also believes that it is his duty to bring about the end of the world in blood so that his prophet will return and his religion will reign over the world. whYNOT I don't think you fully comprehend the threat which Iran poses directly to the United States if they are permitted to gain Nuclear capability so I will inform you of a few of the facts. Check out the data on the Iran "space program" the current capability of their missiles would permit them to detonate a nuclear missile that while not capable of striking the US would effectively generate an EMP field which would obliterate ALL non shielded tech in the US. This means that the majority of cars in the US will be dead, computers, tv, cell phones, most cash registers, Ipods, many many clocks, many people would die in the plane wrecks, lets not forget the ships that would be stranded in the ocean, etc. If they are able to gain a nuke and use it in this fashion I would like to be the first to welcome everyone back to 1642. Ba'al Chatzaf The questions is would a preemptive strike be the initiation of force? Robert We should all thank his eminence, his majesty, his holiness of peace and love, Jimmy Carter for the Iran problem (we should also thank him for the Korean nuke problem) as it was his actions at the time which lead to the fall of the shah.

I want some input on the Iran situation. Does the US or Israel have the right to bomb Iran Nuke sites? If yes why if no why. Consider that while no strikes have been carried out by Iran the leader of that country has explicitly said that it is his role to bring about the Apocalypse "with blood and fire", also consider that he is a 12er.

I am posting this here because the other thread concerning this question was hijacked. A Critique of Block on Abortion and Child Abandonment Jakub Bozydar Wisniewski* According to Block’s theory of “evictionism” (1977, 1978), a fetus can be aborted only if it is not killed as a result (provided that it is a genuine medical possibility). Block claims to derive such a conclusion from the libertarian axiom of non-aggression, which prohibits harming other human beings (even those not [yet] conscious of their humanity), but allows for forcible removal of trespassers from one’s private property (in this case the woman’s womb). Further, he denies that the voluntariness of the pregnancy obliges the woman to carry the fetus to term; such an obligation could stem only from there being an implicit contract between the two, and Block denies the existence of any such contract on the ground that one cannot consent (even implicitly) to any decision made before one came into being. Thus, he contends that the only valid reason for obliging the mother to carry out the pregnancy could stem from the existence of a relevant positive right (e.g., fetus’s right to life), which is a notion incompatible with libertarian ethics. And yet, curiously enough, as indicated in the first paragraph, he also asserts that lethally aborting the fetus counts as a murder only given the existence of non-lethal ways of performing abortion, but does not so count if no such methods are available. This in itself seems to me to undermine Block’s proposal, since it appears to introduce an arbitrary complication into the principle of non-aggression—after all, if evicting a trespasser is a right of every human being, and one should not be thought of as responsible for what happens to the trespasser after he is evicted, then why should the moral evaluation of the act of eviction depend on what eviction options are available and on which of them is applied to the trespasser? In any event, I shall not pursue this objection any further. Instead, I shall argue that even in those cases where there are no non-lethal eviction options available, aborting the fetus should count as murder. Why do I think so? Falling back on Block’s “airplane ride” example (1977) will be convenient in this context. Obviously enough, Block agrees that inviting someone for an airplane ride and then, while 10,000 feet up in the air, asking that person to leave would be an example of a very wicked breach of contract. But now imagine a different, though related scenario, in which X gets Y drunk to the point of the latter’s passing out and drags him onboard the plane, and then, as soon as Y regains consciousness, asks him to jump out.1 There is no contract involved, and for the sake of the argument we can even suppose there is no implicit contract involved (we might assume that X and Y disclaim any reliance on standard hospitality customs). Now, it seems to me that the conjunction of the premises that it is X who is responsible for bringing Y onto his property and that it is X who is responsible for then removing Y from his property, when it is known that the outside circumstances are lethal, implies that X is responsible for Y’s death and hence is a murderer (X is the crucial and indispensable element of every link of the causal chain in question). To bring up some additional analogies—it appears obvious to me that pushing someone out of one’s room into an area full of blazing flames, poisonous fumes, etc., would count as an instance of murder. But these types of situations are strictly parallel to the case of abortion (again, let us remember that we are talking about the scenarios in which there are no methods of removing the fetus from the womb without killing it). To the fetus, the outside world is a lethal place, and if it is the mother who is responsible for bringing it into the safe haven of the womb (analogous to the airplane from one of our previous examples) and it is the mother who now wants to expel it from that safe haven, it is also the mother who is taking upon herself the direct responsibility for the fetus’s death (the mother is the crucial and indispensable element of every link of the causal chain in question). Thus, my conclusion is that in such cases the mother is guilty of violating the libertarian axiom of non-aggression. There is no need to bring in the notion of positive rights here, except in the limited and idiosyncratic sense described by Long (1993), where “derivative” positive rights are “sponsored” by the corresponding negative rights, in our case the example of the former being the right to remain in the womb until capable of withstanding the outside circumstances and the example of the latter being the right not to be aggressed against. In other words, the libertarian principle of the non-initiation of force trumps the right to evict trespassers from our property if it is us who are responsible for making someone a “trespasser” in the first place. Similar conclusions apply to Block’s proposal vis-à-vis child abandonment (2001, 2004). With regard to this issue, he invokes the non-existence of positive rights in the libertarian moral framework to argue that a child can be legitimately abandoned by its parents provided that the latter meet all the relevant criteria of the proper abandonment procedure. One of such criteria is that they have to make sure that there is no one else in the world willing to take up the role of the guardian of their offspring (until they do that, they cannot be said to have relinquished the homesteading rights in the child and thus remain liable for their misuse). And while I am perfectly sympathetic to Block’s contention that as soon as such a person is found, the parents can think of themselves as discharged from any duties vis-à-vis the child, I cannot accept his claim that if no guardianship offer is forthcoming, they can abandon the child to die or engage in an act of mercy killing. As in the case of pregnancy, it has to be noted that it is the parents who are directly responsible for bringing their offspring into the world (without its consent). And the world is a place much too harsh for a newborn child to survive in without any help and care from others. Therefore, if the parents first bring it into the safe haven of their care and then decide to expel it into the lethal environment outside, they are acting analogously to a person who drags his unconscious companion onboard a plane and then, when the plane is up in the air, orders him to jump out. Again, one need not postulate the existence of positive rights to argue that the above-mentioned actions are morally wrong according to the libertarian ethic—it suffices to realize that if one is responsible for (non-consensually)2 bringing X onto one’s property or into one’s custody in the first place, then eviction (or any other use of force) which directly exposes X to harmful hazards is an act of initiatory aggression. Thus, what the morally upstanding parents need to do is to take care of their progeny until it can survive on its own outside the parental household. In conclusion, I claim that Block’s proposals vis-à-vis abortion and child abandonment are defective because he fails to appreciate the fact that if one voluntarily initiates the causal chain which leads to someone else ending up on his property, the latter person cannot be considered a trespasser. Furthermore, any direct effects resulting from that person’s eviction are the responsibility of the property’s owner. All of this follows from the simple logical fact that at all stages of the process under consideration (or, to put it in other words, in all links of the causal chain under consideration), the owner is the ultimate causal agent. References Block, Walter E. 1977. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Abortion.” The Libertarian Forum. Vol. 10, No. 9, September, pp. 6–8; www.mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf ———. 1978. “Abortion, Woman and Fetus: Rights in Conflict?” Reason, April, pp. 18–25. ———. 2001. “Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise”, LewRockwell.com, Sep. 3; www.lewrockwell.com/block/block5.html ———. 2004. “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 275–86; www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf Long, Roderick T. 1993. “Abortion, Abandonment, and Positive Rights: The Limits of Compulsory Altruism,” Social Philosophy and Policy vol. 10 no.1 (Winter)

There are a number of flaws in your argument all of which can be simply corrected by checking your premise. The function of government is not to 'ensure that your life has equivalent value...', the function of government is to enforce contracts, protect its citizens from initiation of force, and to redress the balance of force. When someone steals from a store is it not the legitimate function of government to forcibly obtain compensation for the goods stolen? In the same manner if an individual is injured do to neglect of an automobile driver is it not the legitimate function of government to forcibly obtain compensation for the damages inflicted on an individual and or their property. I am purposefully using the word forcibly however you will notice that this does not imply that the government is initiating the force on the contrary the government is responding with force. Lets then ask the question of "Does the government have the right to extract from the offender an amount more than the value of the object or money that was stolen?". The answer to this question is yes, but why? If Chuck steals $100 from me why should he be forced to pay me more than that original $100? the answer is that he is paying for profits lost due to his thrift, if I buy $100 of something each week at a low and then sell it at a high but I am unable to buy $100 of that thing because chuck stole my investment money he is liable not only for the $100 but also the loss caused by his theft. Furthermore lets examine the question of less tangible damages, say for example a child who has been sexually molested. In this case the government cannot extract from the individual offender a definite monetary figure to restore the child to their previous physical condition (assuming the child was penetrated), still further we must consider the non-physical damages obtained by the child. Should then the government require that an individual intentionally psychologically damages another individual pay for the costs required to restore the victim to psychological fitness? Because Objectivism rejects the soul body dichotomy the answer to this question is obviously yes the offender should be required to pay for all damages both physical and psychological. Now let us return to the question of Capital Punishment. Who are the victims in a case of murder? The murdered individual is one, friends and family members of that individual, as well as every member of a given society. In a case of cash or object theft the offender can be forced to pay back cost plus damages. In the case of murder however what is lost is a life, a unique, individual, irreplaceable life. In redress of balance in the case of murder the payment which by the nature of reality must be paid is the life of the offender. The question is not does the murderer have the right to life as you seem to think, just as when a thief steal something the question is not does the thief have a right to property. In the case of the thief the thief forfeits the right to some or all of his property in accordance to that which is needed to be paid back. In the case of murder the murderer by intentionally taking the life of another forfeits their right to life, notice that I did not say the right has been taken away from the individual, it has rather been abdicated by the individual. Do not forget that your life is property, in a case of murder the death of the offender is paid as redress not to the dead but to the living. It should be noted that this does not cover accidental death, or any form of non-premeditate murder in those cases in order to determine if the death penalty is appropriate the question must be asked was the death caused by neglect which if corrected would have prevented the other persons death. Crimes of passion are another question all together which I will address if you like, the purpose here is simply to demonstrate that your blanket statement that Objectivism must be opposed to the death penalty is flawed (The exception disproves the rule).

I realize that this video was meant to be somewhat funny though its techniques are based in fact, however it scared me. In High School and for sometime after I had a cult and an anti-cult neither were by choice though I did not encourage or discrougae the beliefs of my "followers". I heard many times in High School "Are you God" and "Are you Satan". I have had the saying "People wear their secrets on their sleves and if you pretend not to see my secretes I wont see yours.". Because I vocalized peoples secretes instead of pretending that I didn't see them people always believed I was smarter than I really was and that I had some deep revelation about them. How could I know these things about them unless I was God, Satan, communed with demons or communed with Angels. Had I been malicious I could have easily created a full blown cult. I dislike this type of talk even as a joke. As a side note. Even though this can be used for cult building I use aspects of what is described in this video to create people from animals. When I find someone with potential I knock the foundation out from underneath of them destroying their false concepts, then because nature abhores a vacuum I fill them with true concepts. The difference between what I do and what those who create cults do is that I fill the emptiness with an ego, where as they destroy the ego (however small it might be in a person).

There is a Latin saying when it comes to prayer "Lex Orandi, Lex credendi" this is often translated as the law of prayer is the law of belief. It may seem odd to speak of prayer in an atheistic context such as Objectivism, however this is to ignore the fundamental question of what is prayer. According to dictionary.com pray can mean anything from "to offer devout petition" to "thanks", "to make petition or entreaty". These definitions however are not an accurate description of what it means to pray. Prayer in many religions of the world is not simply a matter of thanking a divine being, or placing before them a petition for a wish (though this is often true), it is also as the Latin saying portrays a fundamental centering of ones belief. A running joke between a friend and I is to pray to Greek and Roman gods, neither of us believe in the actual existence of these gods and goddesses which we "pray to" however psychologically there is a difference in us when we "pray". The joke began with one of us saying something to the effect of "That I might have the strength of Atlas" when we began to feel overwhelmed. We then began to discuss the Virtues of each god and goddess and created a mythology for them. As the mythology grew and the gods began to take shape both my friend and I have begun to use them as beacons to lean on. For example my friend is single and wants a mate a woman who is his equal so he prays "O' Artemis mother of gold, that I might find my heart.", the Prayer is not to Artemis that would be absurd as he does not believe in the literal existence of a goddess Artemis, he does however believe in an abstract idea of the goddess who is in his mind the perfect woman. Also instead of saying "I swear to God" we say "I swear by Apollo" who represents to us not just the sun bringing light to the darkness, but also the virtue of Truth. This then brings me to the reason for my post. I began discussing the origin of what was a joke with something that he and I take more serious (though not to the point of absurdity). When I brought up to him the saying Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi I began to discuss the many sayings for which I am known for among acquaintances. It is often said among those who know me that I have a quote for every occasion which is more or less true. These quotes which I have spent my life gathering act the same as prayers do for the buddhist, christian, etc. If strung together they would spell out for everyone an exact oath of my beliefs. "Truth is God", "Who desires peace prepares for war." "The Hardest thing to explain is the glaringly obvious which everyone has agreed not to see.", "To see letters on a page and know what they are does not mean one can read", "Knowledge is the first step to understanding but is not itself understanding." and many more besides. There is a certain psychology of prayer which acts as a reinforcer of beliefs, or of the principles of ones belief. When you distill a thing down to an axiom or a maxim and you often repeat the axiom or maxim it acts the same as a prayer, that is to say that it acts as a reinforcer. The brain is a muscle like any other and must be exercised, if it is not it will deteriorate. However it is impossible to work all of the mind all at once, and when you once work out a thing you tend to move on from it building higher concepts on it, and building other concepts besides. But what happens when the pillar of a concept tree is left untended for years? It deteriorates. This is where a maxim such as "Truth is God" (a maxim I have used since my most militantly atheist days as a youth) comes into play. When I say "Truth is God" I mean something quite different than the Christian who says "God is truth", for the Christian the truth is subject to the will of god, it is subject to some external force. For me however Truth (the objective immutable truth, not the subjective truth) is the ruler (God) of my life. I devote my entire being to that God, it is the source of my knowledge, it is required that I know that God if I desire to exist, if I desire to affect change in the world that I live in. The principle Axiom of "Truth is God" is "A is A, and Existence Exists", however it also encompasses dozens of other axioms such as "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed", and "Laws are immutable facts not whims". The Life of Prayer then as I see it for myself is not supplication to a divine being but a systematic organization and brief articulation of my beliefs, as well as a psychological aid to remind me of the virtues I seek. So in conclusion I pray The Blessing of Prometheus upon you, and may you bathe in the light of Apollo.

The final scene from my play to save a life. The build up to this point is a young man in his early 20's who has lived the altruist ideal. He meets a hero who has rejected the altruist code and who teaches him the meaning of value. He cannot take living in a world of contradictions and thus makes his last stand. THOMAS: "I have lived my life by a single motive, it is a motive which has brought me nothing but pain and misery. I have lived by that which for decades, century, mellinia has been proclaimed by all the great teachers of the world to be mans highest aspiration. I have lived by it? Hell, no I have died by it, a slow agonizing death, I have suffered the murder, the torturer, every year, month, week, day, hour, minute, second of my life has been torture, slow long drawn out. You say it wasn't torture, you ask where are my scars? Here [points to head], there are worse tortures than that of the body, when you torture a mans body he can recover, if you cut off his hand or his foot he can adapt, if you stretch him out upon a rack murdering him over the course of hours, days, or weeks, in the end he still dies, he is dead, released from that torment in the end to kiss she who is the mistress of death. When you do that to a man you still do not own him, he can still die himself, knowing himself, you may break every bone, you may mangle his body, but in the end he can die holding on to that part of him which the physical torturer in all of his depravity can never touch. No I tell you true there is a worse torture than that of the body and I have suffered at its hands, I have suffered at the hands of the truly depraved, the true monsters. You![Points a finger at all on stage] You! {points a finger at the audience] Have put my mind on a rack, who is more depraved the man who murders and mangels the body of children, or the man who mangles the mind of children. In the first death is certain, it is a fact, it is final, in the second the child is still dead, but they are a walking corpse, a body without a soul, without a mind. Since birth you have spent every one of my waking minutes telling me up is down, and down is up, pink is blue, green is white, and innocence is blood dripping from your hands. You stand on your heads asking me why I am upside down. What greater torture can there be than uncertainty, today you may give a child candy for good grades, and tomorrow you may beat him for the same grade. Still though it is worse, if it changed from day to day at least there would be some predictability, but there is not you may give a child candy now and beat him in the next second for the same reason you gave him the candy. You monsters! You taught me from before I could walk that it is mans greatest duty to sacrifice, you say that to sacrifice is noble and good, it is the highest virtue of a man. That would be bad enough but you go still further, you demand human sacrifice, you demand my! sacrifice and demand that I be the one to place myself upon your alter and still to cut out my own heart. [spits] For my entire life I have been the well which others came to for refreshment, I would say that I was like the whore who is used and then discarded. But at least the whore is paid! [sebastian enters stage right he stands behind the onlookers leaning against a wall Thomas does not see him] THOMAS: I was a well that all came and drank from, and I was so valued that none would dane spit in my direction. You have rung this well dry, there is nothing left here for you to take, nothing more I have to offer, nothing more I will offer. Those among you who still have something left, those who still have water, seal up your wells. Do not let them do to you as they have done to me, do not let these vampires suck you dry. They have lied to you, they have told you that sacrifice is your highest calling, it is not. Life is your highest calling, to live, to think, to have as yours that bliss which is joy. Do not be an altruist! Do not accept their creed, do not sacrifice yourself for their whims. You are better than they, do not sacrifice others for your whims just as you would not be sacrificed. Make for yourself a rational world, where men deal in trade not in sacrifice, murder be it of the body or of the mind is still murder, it is still evil. [sebastian steps forward and Thomas sees him for the first time] THOMAS: [Now smiling] I have lived my life as a slave, I have had not one moment of peace, nor joy. I had no notion of value, of good, or evil. I have learned, against the odds, against all the torment, against all the indoctrination I have learned. And now in this moment for the first time in my life I am happy, really and truly happy. I did not get to live my life, I did not get to choose my life, but now I will choose how and when to end it. And I choose to die happy! [Thomas jumps from the bridge]

Atlas Always Shrugs.

Hell? I have only skimmed the surface of my life. I have been through hard times and good. I have lived my life for many years by the axiom adversity leads to triumph.

I have not been on in a few days and this thread caught my eye so I thought to give some input. I will begin by saying I was an objectivist before I discovered Mrs. Rand, depending on how you count it I have been an objectivist since I was 15, or rather I began down the path of objectivism at 15. As some background I was a passivist as a kid, my brother younger brother had a sever case of ADHD and was like a stick of dynamite and you never knew if he was lit. He was only 18 months younger than I but has always been much stronger (had a 6 pack at age 4), and he would beat me pretty badly when we were younger. At that time in my life I was the ideal altruist, I was nearly completely selfless (Prometheus forgive me). Even at a very young age I understood much more than most people think kids understand. For an example as to how selfless I was we always had HUGE Christmas's, lots and lots of presents, it was wrong to be selfish and to want things so no matter how much I wanted something I would not ask for it. My mom had to force me to give her a christmas list and I wouldn't put more than 10 things on it and always inexpensive things. I got much more than those things but I hated asking for anything. at this age (7) I was also responsible for my mother, my older sister, and my younger brother. It was my responslbity to take care of them, if there was a fight between them it was my fault and i had to fix it, if someone did something to me it was my fault, everything was my fault. When I was 12 my mom was given 6 months to live, when she found that out I was given a choice my brother and I could live with my Uncle or my Father (who we did not know). My brother always wanted to know our father so we moved to Cali to live with him. the three of us moved to Cali from the south (a very different culture) and when we got there my world was stood on its head. Civilization had been abandoned and there was no sense of honor, no moral code, it was cultural anarchy. My father was nice to my mother my brother and I for the first six months, then my mother didn't die. The beast came out. He would beat me without reason, he put LSD in my food one night, and all around just compounded the maddness in the world I was already experiencing. I lived for others, I lived to make everyone happy, I lived to fulfill other people, and they murdered me. to paraphrase a poem i wrote 'You came to the well and I gave. You came to the well and you took. you come again and again, but now I am dry. and still you come'. I could not understand why I had to work so hard for everyone elses happiness and yet I had to suffer. We moved out from with my father a year after we moved in with him. Even though I only chose to live with him because that was what my brother wanted, even though everyone knew this, even though my mother left him once and for very good reason, I was blamed for us moving in with him. I was 12. that year changed much in my life and much in me. It was that same year that I hit my brother for the first time, I had been beaten by my father for the first time a week before (about 7 months after we had moved in) and when my brother hit me it was too much. I punched him in the chest then pumped up picked him up over my head and nearly threw him into a wall. After that I got in fights after school a lot, i became extremely violent. I tried to make sense of the senseless, i tried to understand and make rational the irrational. I became destructive and wanted to destroy the world. When I was 15 I got into a really bad fight hospitalizing 2 other kids, i left home the year before, I had no family, no nothing. during the fight I had cracked some ribs and gotten bruised pretty badly. A friend brought me to his house to clean me up and hoped to take care of me after my beating, the fight stopped when i had been knocked out by the third kid, so as you can imagine I was in pretty bad shape. at this time in my life I wanted to die, i hated life, i hated myself, i hated everything, I did not believe in god and yet I prayed every night for death [from a journal] "I do not care how, just let it come. Slow, painful, drawn out. lightning, a truck, a bullet, anything just let me die god let me die.". the only reason I never tried to kill myself is because I had become extremely competitive, if I killed myself they (the rest of the world) would have won.). I had less than nothing, even my friends didn't know me and were afraid of me. I finally decided that I either wanted to find something to live for or to die. After a long nap I sat down at a kitchen table and wrote an essay on the nature of reality and truth. I spent four pages disproving the subjectivity of reality, I spent the other 15 pages proving the objectivity of reality. After that everything in my life changed completely and fully, i was no longer senselessly violent, I was more feared than before but for different reasons, I still hated but I hated with reason. I was feared because I became ruthlessly rational, I hated the willfully stupid, I directed violence to impose justice. I am not going to claim that I became a hero in an Ayn Rand novel because that would not be true, however I became devoted to questions of truth, reality, and justice. The good christians tried to convert me all the time from my evil and wicked ways, my favorite saying to them was "I have but one God and its name is Truth, Truth is God.". I began by slow struggle to shed my unearned guilt, I stopped living for the happiness of others. When I was 17 i read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and loved it, i disagreed with much of it but I loved it and saw much truth in it. What I disagreed with however was the idea of cannibalism, the idea of "will to power", It is funny because that was a central point and i agreed with the idea of will to power but i disagreed with Nietzsche's will to power. Now on being a teenager and an objectivist. You learn very quickly that it is a very lonely struggle, you find few bright lights on your path, and worse still is if and when you see those lights snuffed out. When you commit to truth you will find that few people like you, they would much rather live in their world of delusion. However, don't think i mean you are miserable the whole time. In the words of one God "the pain only goes down to a certain point.". There is a lot of enjoyment to be had and a lot more happiness. When you do find those lights it brings more joy to your life than you can imagine, you also are happy in your own rightness. If you are truly committed to the God Truth you are just as happy in your wrongness because you can correct your errors. And most of all you are happy because your life is your own. I had a very tight inner circle of aquantinaces and the best times were when we would get into debates on any subject. I wish I had discovered Rand at that age because if i had than perhaps I would have started and Ayn Rand Society on campus. The one thing to remember however is that you unlike the sheeple can be happy, where as they can never know happiness no matter how much they pretend. "Fake it until you make it" is a fraud fools gold does not become real gold.