Dan Haggerty

Indeed. I feel like I'm holding my breath as if this judgment is going to say a lot more about society and it's direction than the law even...

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Unborn are "un-persons" as you put it. That was the point of my post, I was showing the consequences of treating something as a human life with rights since as a result of giving them legal protection. In this case if an unborn non-person has rights, a women has more rights before she is born than after she is born. Slippery slope indeed.

Dan/Bob,

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act might interest you [bolded part in italics mine]:

http://en.wikipedia....of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".^[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

That is interesting. I did not know about that but it does not surprise me. Frankly, it looks like one of those Laws conservatives get on the books because it looks reasonable but is simply a Trojan Horse to get the idea of legal rights for fetuses established. I’ll have to research it more however to derive a better opinion.

I can understand the argument that a fetus is human life in the third trimester since it is formed and capable of living outside of the womb, and would grant that is a possibility, but otherwise a hunk of protoplasm that has the potential to be a human is no basis for rights. Until he becomes a tax right-off he is a part of his mother’s body and hers to direct.

It's environmentalism on steroids.

You had me at the first two words. The second two are scary.

The unborn are un-persons. Since when do un-persons have rights?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm not sure if this was directed at me. If so...

Unborn are "un-persons" as you put it. That was the point of my post, I was showing the consequences of treating something as a human life with rights since as a result of giving them legal protection. In this case if an unborn non-person has rights, a women has more rights before she is born than after she is born. Slippery slope indeed.

Do you really think a mother should have more rights before she is born than after she is born? Think of that and its consequences, and the issue becomes clear.

A floating contradiction that sits outside the universe to dispense reality bending whims and punishing its inhabitants at will? Lovecraft did it better and with a lower body count.

Well, this at least gives me some hope for the future.

A fine victory for a superPAC

A.K.A. "free speech."

Ghs

It's still good to see the right thing get done once in a while. After the last couple of years we could use some real "hope".

TY Dan. If a person spells worse tan I do at a time of my loss of several letters, I must deduce an inattention to detail , maybe a lack of information.

Or I was typing while cleaning charcoal marks off of my hand and more concerned about that

/Guilty

jts, please. I do not click on links because often tey do not work and also I do not know if I will be iinterested and cannot take time to find out. Please include a brief synopsis of material you pass on to us. Actually a text version would be even better.

TIA

Carol

I had a view idle moments while waiting for my grill to reach the proper temp so I checked it out. It appears to be a community of websites dedicated to altruism. The front page holds the usual montra of nonsense:

"We are an optimistic, positive community with members from both the under an-d the over-developed world. We are united by our commitment that a money-sentered struggle for personal gain is no way to make the world a better place. We try to ignore money but put people at the heart of what we do, concentrating on what will be of real benefit to others. "

[sigh] Really, William, you should put more trust in your fellow man -

and his self-interest, too, of course.

I will give it some thought. At the moment, my trust circles radiate outward in levels of strength and automaticity: Me, My Immediate Family of upraising (meaning my co-reared cousins and my co-reared half-siblings), My Immediate Family's Spouses (no kids), my cul-de-sac (except for 1728, whom I have known for almost forty years, my Drive (Lilac), my estate (Alderwood, though not the 'renters'), my community hockey team (a lie), my community (bullshit), my region (ha!), my hockey team (double Ha!), my doctor, my optometrist, Raj/Gary, Parm, Sukvinder, Mr Pokay-Bombo, The Peach Arch News letters section.

Beyond these circles there is treachery and deceit and conspiracy. One must be vigilant, given our history.

I don't know if I recall any tainted milk scandal, if that's what you have in mind? In which case, I'm guessing the gallant State rescued the people from a plot to poison them by evil Business, or something.

Or something.

Indeed, Tony, communication is fitful with this poster. He can only pass on samizdats from his self-built Lubyanka cell in a malevolent universe.

Totally unfair and uncalled for. Totally. A reading, writing, communicative chimpanzee must not be mocked, especially by a gun-toting socialist monstress like you. Next thing we know you will be blathering on about Peace, Order and Good Government and experiencing Total Fusebox Burn when contrasting this to Stephen Harper.

Tony says some family wit suggests: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Which is a pithy take on William of Ockham's pithy take on Endless Plots Most Beautiful.

I am sure that maintaining skepticism (much less total rejection) of most information input from the universe around us is beyond tiring, more so than mere critical thinking. I remember a poster on Oonline saying that thinking was "exhausting"; and consistently negative thinking must be unrelenting effort. It goes against the tendency of normal human psychology, which is to be slightly, irrationally optiimistic.

Normal Human Psychology, happily or not, is not the Norm. Not even normative. Some otherwise well-normed individuals are subject to what we call in the trade "WILD VARIATIONS." Upon these sports of nature and delusion are the next generation of replicators. See 9/11 'Truth' and the aforementioned Endless Plots Most Beautiful.

Do you really think private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs would have dunnit better, faster, and more impartially than government dunnit?

Actually yes as it already happens daily.

[ ... ]

Good thing it wasn’t one but if it was it’s great to know that a competent private sector for-profit company was involved to handle the issue.

Very good points supporting and yet not supporting Tony's points about Always Better Private.

The line between governance and government is one that appears to me to be increasingly hazy. But in this instance, as in so many others where 'private' regulation precedes and sometimes outscores 'public regulation,' no differential calculation or comparison can be made, as an absence of public regulation is rare to vanishing on this earth.

That said, it aids our wisdom to contemplate things like the tainted milk scandal in China, in depth, to list and learn the lessons of Dan's example. And by learning, I mean New Learning, not re-reading Lexicon entries and climbing the Cherry Tree for confirmation fruit alone.

The lack of a regulatory structure in Chinese public bodies, the corruption in the private sector, the evasion, collusion and actual conspiracy to defraud -- these list items are on the table for comparison to the Wonderland where all cherries are sweet, all humans are named Norm, and all dissent and criminality will wither away like the State under communism.

Consider in passing that odd phrase comparning chalk and cheese, and consider its relation to the great Milk and Bread purity debates that long-preceded any FDA or CFIA or WHO, etc, long before circles of trust and guarantees and corporate extensions of good governance of the food supply.

What is in that 'milk' sold from a bucket in Whitechapel, or the 'white bread' sold in The City?

Consider another incident in the history of so-called Public Health, public inspection of fountains and wells in The City, in the time of cholera.

Indeed, consider cholera and the aftermath of any disaster. Consider, oh, one more: Walkerton.

Where in the Ayn Rand Lexicon do you see that we have a right to know what is in the food we eat?

It's not actually found in the bible, but in other, lesser sacralized publications.

Ingredients will be listed. How will you know that the list is complete? Maybe the food has rat poison in it. And for those who are concerned about GMO (by Monsanto), how will you know whether it's Monsanto stuff? You have no right to know if that means someone has an obligation to tell you. Tough luck. Rats!

Easy for a talking chimp to say! Maybe the food has rat poison in it, maybe not. Maybe it has Talking Chimp/Missing Link poison. Spin the bottle and step up to the plate, Oh-Primate-Who-Dances-With-Labels ...

I agree that it can appear to be apples and oranges to determine private versus public control of safety. While I do think private will be more successful in the long run that would be an argument from utility. I'm pointing out that privatization can work if you demand freedom on ehtical grounds. We have proof it works so do not leave your health to government regulators that I have witnessed be unreliable and disconnected, but engage the process and demand accountability from others in a moral system of property rights. For me, the demand for regulation by a thrid party is just a confession of the individual to not want to be responsible himself. I'd rather be engaged and take the couple of seconds to know what I'm buying, which if you think about it should be the standard for anything we put into our mouths.

I wouldn't be too confident in Michigan. While Detroit has been tumbling in ruin slowly since the 60's heyday the fact is the unions and apparatus there still is a force. Outside of a few counties on the west side of the State where I live, it is all red so the east side weighs heavily on the general vote. There is a reason Obama spends most of his time over there outside of a flyby for his alternative energy *cough* corporate welfare *cough* program. The silver lining to the fact we keep loosing people (we actually have negative population growth) is that the UAW here effects elections less than they use to.

This is what you guys are concerned about?

In all fairness our news is little better. Good Morning America has become "Entertainment This Morning" with some light news tossed in if required. As an example, today they spent more time covering Prince Charles doing the weather in England (as a cameo) then they did covering the actual weather here.

This is the woman who danced the Tango with him in the remake...she looks quite different than in the movie...

Anwar at the Genesis Awards, California, 28 March 2009 Born 4 February 1970 (age 42)

Laleham, Middlesex, England Occupation Actress Years active 1986–present Spouse John Verea (divorced; 2 children) Partner Craig Sheffer (late 1980s–1990s; 1 child) Children Willow Sheffer

Hugo Verea

Anwar is also great in the TV show Burn Notice. I don't watch meany shows but that one has me sucked in.

Well, yelling GARDYLOO! would not only be curtious to others but likely the only intellectually honest thing said as well!

Do you really think private, for-profit, competing consumer organizations and labs would have dunnit better, faster, and more impartially than government dunnit?

Actually yes as it already happens daily. AIB is a for profit program instituted by and used for commercial food companies in a similar way other industries use United Laboratories. Most of the big food companies (like Green Giant) require food producers who use their brand name to use them for self-auditing. They require standards that are above Government minimum standards and getting a superior rating is considered a marketable achievement for food manufacturers.

I developed the trucking division for a food manufacturer (up until two years ago) and they used them. I had to make sure the truck cleaning schedules and training was documented for the AIB tests. The government requires no such thing and the Department of Agriculture *may* inspect a truck during an inspection but doesn’t make it a priority (in ten years they checked one truck once and only because it happened to be at the dock during an inspection).

Several years ago when the Peanut Butter scare happened that was an AIB plant. They knew about the problem as it was announced, got the company to track and recall its product, and had people inspect all other companies nationally that week to insure that if the problem was an inspection or process error no other food producer had the same issue. Literally weeks after the AIB team handled it promptly, not only to save lives but as a company to show the food industry it was still the premiere outfit for food safety, the Government inspectors started to go to food companies do their own inspection. I cringe to think what weeks of delay would have done if it was a real crisis. Good thing it wasn’t one but if it was it’s great to know that a competent private sector for-profit company was involved to handle the issue.

Dan,

Welcome to OL.

I agree that the culture of Objectivism, so far, is disappointing. OL is an island of civility and levelheaded discussion (for the most part) surrounded by a sea of preposterous platonistic posturing by pretentious pigf**kers (pardon the language). Which is why this is the only Objectivist discussion board I can deal with.

It is relatively drama-free, so the majority of the time ideas are discussed without personal attack.

Basically, you can relax here. You don't need to feel like every single post you make is being monitored to try and find flaws in your character that betray philosophical impurity.

There is a story there but I'll ask another time. Thank's for the welcoming!

lol... Bizarro Atlas Shrugged.

Next, all those claiming welfare sneak off to form their own society where they are free from those that pay their way.

Anarchy?

--Brant

the universe is weird

The economic version of reality TV?

Viewing party at my place.

Well it’s also Hitler’s birthday. So long as you’re not actually celebrating that there are still deeper depths to which you could sink.

While I'm thinking of it, today's a day you can celebrate, sort of, if it suits you. It's the anniversary of Schickelgruber's demise.

As the kids say these days - WTF? I'm missing something relavent here.

The default context of OL is freedom and personal responsibility. That homeowner was so used to being taken care of when needs arose he forgot to take care of himself. He was seduced by the culture he lived in in which, yep, by golly!--if my house catches on fire the fire department will put it out. He also had his idiot son burning trash. The problem for him is that culture had cracks in it and he fell into one of them.

--Brant

I'd also like to add that this assumes that firemen have a duty to simply jump and do without thought. It sounds like someone is merging the idea of a Fire and Rescue Service (classic term) with the generic idea of Public Servant (emphasis on the last word). I don't care for the direction that line of thinking goes.

Firememen do have a duty. A professional duty. http://fireprep.com/..._a_firefig.html

Every fire also has the danger of harming lives, and doing everything in their power to save lives is part of their job. Just imagine someone had been trapped in that burning house and they would have stood there doing nothing and said "No pay, no spray!"

People have a duty to risk their life when the other party refuses to uphold the agreement?

Adding a person to the house and assuming the same response is a non sequitur. There was no threat to life here and if there was the ethics of how to deal with that is another situation (and would fall under the ethics of emergencies).

The reality is that someone shouldn’t be forced to be the responsible party when the other party was irresponsible twice: Once in not paying the very cheap price to have access to the fire service and the other was burning trash next to their house when they had no protection.

On the business side, I can also imagine the result of rewarding such irresponsibility. No one would pay the premium since they could just wait for the “need” and sue if the fire service didn’t perform their “duty”. Then where would the fire service be? Living on alms since they have a duty to show up anyway? The men who do this incredible job deserve better than that.

First I read this embarrassing thread on OO.net then came over to this fun thread with this timely observation.

The only people I see oppressing Objectivists are other Objectivists.

Can't... Resist...

**Sung to the tune of the Dr. Pepper jingle**

I criticized Dr. Peikoff and I'm proud

I used to be alone in a crowd

but now you look around these days

there seems to be a Dr. Peikoff Craze!

I'm oppressed, he's oppressed, she's oppressed

We’re oppressed, wouldn't you like to be oppressed too?

I'm oppressed, he's oppressed, she's oppressed,

If you don’t agree with Dr. Peikoff you're irrational too!

Us oppressed are an interesting breed

We say Independence is a virtue we need

ask Checking Premises and they'll say

Only a subjectivist thinks that way!

I'm oppressed, he's oppressed, she's oppressed

We’re oppressed, wouldn't you like to be oppressed too?

I'm oppressed, he's oppressed, she's oppressed,

You live on a lower rung in hell if you disagree too!

Be intrinsic, criticize Dr. Peikoff,

Be subjective, criticize Dr. Peikoff. (Come on!)

Be a mystic, criticize Dr. Peikoff,

Be a Kantian, criticize Dr. Peikoff (Alright!)

*repeat and fade out*

You've been here long enough to know how to think in principles and how they are hierarchical. How's this? Freedom and individual responsibility trump "duty."

--Brant

apply

The issue is not whether principles and values are hierarchical. No one disputes this.

The isuse is how the hierarchies look like.

Here is are examples of a hierarchy of principles that differs from your own.

http://www.msnbc.msn...n/#.T5wXy8WqlLU

"The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

The default context of OL is freedom and personal responsibility. That homeowner was so used to being taken care of when needs arose he forgot to take care of himself. He was seduced by the culture he lived in in which, yep, by golly!--if my house catches on fire the fire department will put it out. He also had his idiot son burning trash. The problem for him is that culture had cracks in it and he fell into one of them.

--Brant

I'd also like to add that this assumes that firemen have a duty to simply jump and do without thought. It sounds like someone is merging the idea of a Fire and Rescue Service (classic term) with the generic idea of Public Servant (emphasis on the last word). I don't care for the direction that line of thinking goes.

I think it’s a great idea.

I went through VOAR real quick to see if I could pick up some more information to support the idea and came to a startling conclusion real fast. The subject is dealt with as an aspect of the other subjects. Metaphysics deals with the consciousness of man and it’s relation to reality, epistemology deals with man’s cognition along with objectivity and freewill (as aspects of man). Psychology and self-esteem are derived from it. Ethics moves on from there. Etc.

As whYNOT said, it might have been treated as self-evident by the parties involved (outside of where Peikoff does take it head on) since it was dealt with in each subject, but the more I think about it this subject really does deserve its own exploration. Considering that a good deal of Objectivist philosophy deals with the consequences of man’s nature it’s amazing to think that this territory has not been explored in detail.

Actually, I don’t know who Perigo is. I just assumed Jonathan was making light of the references I alluded to in my post.

He used to be pretty influential, but his demons got the better of him. Here you can see him unloading on all the music he hates. You might think it’s all tongue in cheek…well, believe it or not, it’s not.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4585

That was somewhere between sad and funny.

"The 411"? Ha, radio code I guess.

Hi Dan.

I'd been enjoying stuff written by you at O.O - now, great to see you pitch up here as well.

Some similarities between us in being outside the O'ist loop so long.

I entered 3 years ago, I'm sure even more naive then you describe yourself, and it was

some catching up to do, on all the inner doings of Objectivism: Amazing! I didn't know anything.

Babe in the woods back then.

I've been having the sneaky feeling that it's no great disadvantage, though - to have not lived through

all the turmoil, personalities, politics etc. It could have been distracting from what it is all about in the end.

Welcome.

Tony

It helps to know I'm not the only one who went through this. Thanks man and looking forward to talking to you!

When I was in High School they showed pictures of clean lungs versus a smoker’s lungs. It pretty much grossed the idea right out of me. Well, mostly, I’ve enjoyed a good cigar now and then with a proper cocktail but you get the point.

Rand always was about linking facts to the perceivable; I’d just file this under Exhibit A