FuturistNow

Yes I am serious, and yes I said that. Just read anything about the "dark ages" and you will understand what I mean. With international pop-culture and genetic engineering on the horizon, the value of this concept continues to fade.

Is it just me or does this post seem poorly organized? I find it difficult to read. Also, do Anglo-Saxons even exist anymore? I don't know anyone who is descended from mostly English stock. Everyone I know who is white is a vast mixture of a variety of European ethnic groups, Ethnicity is a very temporary thing in history. It isn't relevant to political philosophy.

It isn't useful to label human action as violence. That is redefining the term out of existence. This reminds me of Nietzsche's opinion on justice.

This is one of those issues where even if it is true that the world's climate is changing due to our habits, none of the people claiming to solve the problem are going to do anything but fill their pocket books. Any greed you can attribute to the loan capitalist you should be fearful ten times over of capitalists and politicians. This is how I feel about war also. Even if we should go to war with Iran, Obama (or the next guy or gal) is just going to screw it up so bad we might be better off if doesn't fight the war.

Quite harsh, I believe. This poster is something of an institution at OL, and as much as he can be mischievous, incendiary and downright infuriating - I kind of like the cuss. A force of nature. He'll tell you he'd nuke the M. East if he could, but I sense he's a man who'd weep over a photo of a dead child. Basically, a mensch. Anyway, when he knows what he's talking about you learn something, but when he throws out his craftily contentious contra-O'ist assertions, in refuting them you learn something too. Win- win. Yeah I saw his post count. All that says is that the people on this forum are really tolerant. I am still waiting for him to say anything, much less something he knows about.

Quit feeding the troll. He has been banned from other forums for this stuff. Watch, he has still not even attempted to justify his statements and he is still posting.

Trolling eh? How do you account for the variety of ethical codes and principle all over the world and through time? 1 + 1 = 2 everywhere. But the definition of good and evil, proper and improper varies through space and time. If ethics could be -deduced- from an axiomatic basis how do you account for this? The question is fair and you have no answer. Some trolling. Right. Like I said. Doxa. NOT Logos. Now answer the question that I raised, if you can. Ba'al Chatzaf No, you want us to dance around trying to convince you of something that you already have decided against. You didn't raise any question in your OP, you just asserted stuff and asked us to prove you wrong. Just because something is controversial, does not mean that there isn't a correct answer. That doesn't follow. If anything you should start by referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_morals . Or maybe you should be talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism. As it has been pointed out, you have the burden of proof, not anyone else. In that case I am done. Ethics cannot be derived from either physics or mathematics. There is nothing in the -physical- universe that entails a system of ethics. Ethics, like language and custom is convention. You are doing exactly what I am talking about. You are making assertions with no arguments or evidence. At least borrow argument from the people who came up with these ideas. Here is a helpful article. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/#PreAgaMorSke

I wish all of the paranoid people out there could see what a paper tiger Obama is. That guy is a total whore ( I apologize to anyone who is actually a sex worker, it is just an expression). I agree with Boydstun. If someone like LBJ got elected again I think I might start seeing the US government as my personal enemy. Obama isn't capable of that because he is just the talking piece of a variety of interest groups.

Trolling eh? How do you account for the variety of ethical codes and principle all over the world and through time? 1 + 1 = 2 everywhere. But the definition of good and evil, proper and improper varies through space and time. If ethics could be -deduced- from an axiomatic basis how do you account for this? The question is fair and you have no answer. Some trolling. Right. Like I said. Doxa. NOT Logos. Now answer the question that I raised, if you can. Ba'al Chatzaf No, you want us to dance around trying to convince you of something that you already have decided against. You didn't raise any question in your OP, you just asserted stuff and asked us to prove you wrong. Just because something is controversial, does not mean that there isn't a correct answer. That doesn't follow. If anything you should start by referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_morals . Or maybe you should be talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism. As it has been pointed out, you have the burden of proof, not anyone else.

He just started a conversation where he made an assertion with no evidence or argumentation to back it up, and then demanded that others prove his idea wrong. This is basically trolling, and I don't know why you guys are even putting up with it.

EDIT: Didn't realize this was in the humor section. I thought someone actually had written this seriously.

1) Remember that the US military has been used to secure foreign markets in the past. A good example is that of Matthew C Perry, who bullied Japan into signing a trade agreement with the US, (I have mixed feelings about the treaty they signed). I don't mind that the military forced their dictator to allow his people to trade with us, but I do mind that the US military was used to perform a task that mostly benefited a few Japanese and American business men. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_C_Perry#The_Perry_Expedition:_Opening_of_Japan.2C_1852-1854 If capitalists (or other nations) want to expand trade zones, they should pay that cost themselves rather than forcing me to pay for it. 2) A standing army that did not fight in foreign wars but performed other important tasks (most likely anti-terrorism) would still be maintained. Beyond this the market for mercenaries would have to be strictly monitored and would still be subject to the UCMJ.

KacyRay, that tid bit about psychology has nothing to do with people's reaction to a war. The time scales and social situations are entirely different. Voting isn't a good analogy either. We live in a world where you actively see how much money a charitable campaign is earning, if the earnings stagnate people will notice. Beyond this there are shaming methods that can be used to help motivate people to contribute to their own defense. An example is that maybe a chamber of commerce will refuse to sell to people who don't have a card that says they donated enough money. As I mentioned above there is also the fact that the larges businesses that participate in foreign markets may need protection from those local governments. Those firms shouldn't get the protection of our intelligence agencies or military for free (that basically turns into imperialism), the should pay for it. This can help maintain the capital of the military. Lotteries and donations can do the rest.

I am really shocked that you can not separate your own ego from the military and the police. These institutions have serious problems. These things need to be talked about by people who do care about the military and police existing. The major problem with these institutions is that they are used by corrupt politicians to achieve goals that have nothing to do with their functions (re-elections). @Brant Gaede I mean "The people I care about". I was pointing out that the other's inability to come up with solutions to a problem does not mean there is not a solution. I can think of ways to defend the people I care about, even if you guys can't. I don't think the free rider problem is immense. Considering how frenzied people get up about war already, I can't imagine an Objectivist/Libertarian/Liberal population not getting the same way. In addition to this there are many private ways for defense contractors to maintain and improve capital while they are not performing purely defensive operations for the United States. As an example, I can imagine that an Oil Company that was having its rights violated by a foreign company could pay mercenaries to protect their assets. This isn't an action that the US Government could take by itself, but one that sanctioned mercenaries can take. Right now the costs of these actions (Iran) are passed down to others who have no interest in fighting a foreign government.

I would be surprised if this event provided us with any insightful information. The sensationalism of the event shouldn't distract people from more important information.

Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics - by Tera Smith I bought the book a few years ago. It is wonderful. There are so many things I didn't used to understand until I read that book.

So your wife told you some people on a forum are wrong and you conclude that those people are irrational and cult like? I am sorry you got banned by whoever but that wasn't a fair assessment of the on the forum. The content is generally good and I always get well explained opinions about various issues. No, it is not a place where you can post whatever you want, there are better forums for that. I did not mean to introduce a comparison between the two forums. I think that this forum clearly has its own purposes and a different kind of people. I am not asking anyone to change anything.

@BaalChatzaf Do nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them really require the massive amount of money that the military industrial complex uses? Probably not. @tmj Are you serious? Who has an army, a navy, and an airforce that is capable of reaching the US and isn't economically connected to us in a major way? Those problems with politics aren't going anywhere. Look up public choice theory. There isn't any incentive to buy things at a reasonable price if it isn't your money, but the taxpayers money.

You should move to Oklahoma (I like it here). Missouri is nuts (I have relatives who live there) .

Well that makes a lot of sense. I was wondering why so many posts were off topic. Well thats cool.

Let me tell you what would happen if the existence and maintaining of an armed force were totally voluntary. We would be open to invasion and destruction. I have no faith that enough people would voluntarily contribute to maintain an appropriate level of defense to protect the nation. Remember it is the nation that has to be protected. Defense is not a divisible service. Ba'al Chatzaf No one is going to invade the US. The real problem is terror states/rogue nations. We know who those people are, and yet nothing has been done to stop them. All in all this is just proof that involuntary methods have not led to an appropriate level of defense of our nation. Yet the defense contractors make money, because they don't have to negotiate with the people who pay them. @Brant Why must I belong to a tribe? I don't understand your question.

I am not glad of it but the lack of an army is worse than the burden of supporting the army. Military might in the world as it is, is a necessary evil. Use facts and reason to convince people that they need to financially support wars and then they will do so voluntarily and will not need to be forced. Then there are the "free riders" who do not mind getting a benefit they should pay for, for free. You are very naive. Ba'al Chatzaf Several tens of millions. I can't do it. If it were not for withholding few would pay their taxes period. And that means all the taxes. In America it is considered irrational not to get something for free, if one can. I pointed out that just about the only way to have a voluntarily paid for armed force is for rich guys to pool their resources and build a dooms day device. Then they could name their terms. Are you ready for people who possess arms to impose their will upon you with no accountability? I'm not. I will put up with the tax to assure that we have the means to destroy anyone who attempts to destroy us. Ba'al Chatzaf People who possess arms already impose their will upon me with no accountability. Its called taxation and its wrong. If you want someone's money earn it. I can think of plenty of ways to defend my people cheaply and effectively, if you can't that is your problem.

If we are going to talk about hedonism we should first talk about who actually argues for hedonism. Epicrueanism for example basically states that the best thing for a man or woman to do is to avoid pain and to seek pleasure. Overall it encouraged temperance not excess because excessive pleasure usually led to a net loss so to speak. When we say...that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. - Epicurus This is similar to Buddhism, although Buddhism makes things more complex by focusing on "Suffering" (which is a higher order phenomena than pain). Ayn Rand did not think that pleasure, pain, happiness, or suffering were the proper meta-ethical standard. The goal of her ethics was to create a set of ideas that could help people make decisions. None of those concepts help you actually make decisions. The concept of "Life" gives me reference to some facts of reality that my thinking can be based in. Hedonism basically puts the cart before the horse by making the goal the standard. (Doing whatever you want is not an ethical idea, if that was actually a good idea, or the only idea, then ethics is an invalid or pointless pursuit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales This guy is an Objectivist.

Hello everyone! I usually post on ObjectivismOnline, but I heard about this website and wanted to check it all out. I was required to give my actual name here so I will not reveal my other alias. I hope that doesn't bother anyone too much, but I am at the point where too many of my aliases are connected and I am uncomfortable with that. If any of the mods think that is important information (in the interest of honesty or something) I can send them the info in a private message.