sean

Members
  • Content count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sean


  1. So, what would have been the difference if Galt just handed his motor over to the State? The why I see it the State would have had to destroy it anyway, right? Not doing so would have put the State run power plants out of a job. That would mean there would be less bills to pay and in turn less bills to tax. I understand that he had every right to not do so, but I just don't see the harm in delivering non-violent solutions into the hands of your enemies. I guess this is why I'm for things like free trade with places like China.

    It's been a while since I've read the book, but I don't see how your question fits the events of the story. The motor was created for a private company. The company went out of business because of its own policies, and the motor was left to rot. So why would Galt go to some government office and give them his motor? How does that fit into anything? What do you mean by "delivering non-violent solutions"? What is the problem and what is the solution here?

    If a burglar were to break into your house and all he wants is to steal your computer, would you hand him your gun so he can shoot you, so as not to leave any witnesses?

    The problem is State power cost labor to produce and the violence comes when it's time to force people to pay for that lobar. Taking the labor out of it means less of a reason for the State to use force on people.

    And no, I would not let a burglar come into my house, but I might have a reason to give someone a computer free of charge. I can't think of any reason off hand, but there might be one out there. I just also believe there might have been a reason to just hand over a working generator to the State.


  2. Well, I guess the hope would be that people would sit up and take notice that there was an unlimited supply of clean free power and then ask themselves, why in the hell am I paying for something that comes free of charge? You might make a good argument with a business that suckers people into buying bottled water, but a government packaging and selling free power? Come om now, we would be talking conspiracy if that was the case.


  3. So, what would have been the difference if Galt just handed his motor over to the State? The why I see it the State would have had to destroy it anyway, right? Not doing so would have put the State run power plants out of a job. That would mean there would be less bills to pay and in turn less bills to tax. I understand that he had every right to not do so, but I just don't see the harm in delivering non-violent solutions into the hands of your enemies. I guess this is why I'm for things like free trade with places like China.


  4. I always get the "you don't like it, then MOVE. There are countries with low taxes rates" and was wondering how an Objectivist comes back at it.

    Richer countries

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...velopment_Index

    Poorer countries

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...rcentage_of_GDP

    (you can sort by the second column)

    Mexico: low tax rate, close to us, but it is 53 on the list standard of living list. The lowest tax rates seem to be Muslim, or at least Middle Eastern, countries.

    Could the argument be made that places like Mexico might have lower taxes, but no one is flocking there because because the threat of violence is greater when you don't pay up?


  5. Here's another long distance traveling story for you.... Last week I met a guy who was over here in the States from the UK, that is traveling form Philly to San Francisco and back on a loaded down 1964 smallframe 125cc Vespa scooter. My hobby is fixing and restoring old vintage 2 stroke motorcycles and Italian scooters, so when I got a call from him, telling me he just left Philly (heading for Pittsburgh) and was having clutch problems, I said, bring it on by and I'll have a look at it. He arrived the next morning, I took he's clutch apart and long story short, he had to wait 3 days on a new clutch. In the mean time we got to talking about why he was doing something most people would think he was nuts for doing. I ask, are you doing this for a charity? He said no, and we both agreed that there would be nothing wrong with doing so, if that's what he wanted to do. He then told me he's doing it for purely selfish reasons and yet again, we both agreed that was a good thing when applied with rationality. Wow, It's always nice to meet someone so honest with themselves and others about the world. We got to taking and I come to find out he's never hear of Ayn Rand. This was no surprise. A lot of people I have met in the Uk have never ether. We talked back and forth about the principles of Objectivism and he seemed very interested, so after we got the new clutch in, I give him a copy of 'We The Living' and sent him on his way. Before he left I strongly insisted that my labor and guest room would be free. telling him that his good company was enough payment. But would you know it, when I went up to clean the guest room, I found it had already been cleaned and on the night stand there was cash and one of his books (Death of a Salesmen) left for me. Ah, the world is a wonderful place.


  6. It most certainty is the reason. I may have not made it obvious form the start, but that was my intention. You have just failed to conceptualize what it is I'm getting it. The point I'd been trying to make is that people like this guy http://www.youtube.com/user/Tactikalguy1 are going to court, using the defense I mentioned earlier and winning and if more and more people continue doing this, then it will come to a point where in order to actually prosecute anyone we will have to seek the privatization of all public roadways. This is how I think it will happen IF it happens at all. What, do you think government is just going to handed over the public roadways to the free market without a reason? They'll spend us all into oblivion before that happens.


  7. It most certainty is the reason. I may have not made it obvious form the start, but that was my intention. You have just failed to conceptualize what it is I'm getting it. The point I'd been trying to make is that people like this guy http://www.youtube.com/user/Tactikalguy1 are going to court, using the defense I mentioned earlier and winning and if more and more people continue doing this, then it will come to a point where in order to actually prosecute anyone we will have to seek the privatization of all public roadways. This is how I think it will happen IF it happens at all. What, do you think government is just going to handed over the public roadways to the free market without a reason? They'll spend us all into oblivion before that happens.


  8. I know I maybe coming for as some sort of Libertarian nut case here, but every time I ask an Objectivist or a Libertarian how do we go from public force funding of the roadways to the free market privatization of them, the answer I always hear time and time again is 'somehow'. I thought that if I go to the extreme and show how and why we eventually will have to go by way of privatization I might start finding some real answers.


  9. ------------------

    How has he hurt? What contract did the driver brake? Where's the victim?

    So, if I see someone rob you or murder you, how was I hurt? Why should I testify or care about you? Where's the victim? Not me.

    Ah, that would be me. I would have been the victim of force. "Why should I testify or care about you?" You might want to read Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness. I'll save my "is it right to force someone who has forced no one to testify in your defense through the use of force" question for some other thread. Look, I do see where your coming from, but my point is cops, judges and the State by and large care more about what's in your wallet more then they do about your safety. I remember reading once about a police department that was prosecuted under the RICO act for racketeering by setting up speed traps. That is now case law. Hell, even my best friend's a cop and he'll admit it to your face that all he is supposed to do is generate revenue. I personally don't condone speeding or wreckless driving, but yes there is case law on the books about such stuff and if same jerk wants to get away with speeding, drunk driving or whatever, all they have to do is spend some time studying this stuff and their off the hook. http://www.youtube.com/user/Tactikalguy1


  10. So, you go to court for a speeding ticket and tell the judge that in order to have a far trail you must have the right to face your accuser. He then says, "I am your accuser".

    I don't quite understand this. What "accuser" do you want to face? Do you mean the officer who issued the citation? (He works for the state, too.) Is this judge proposing to replace the citing officer as well as replacing the prosecuting attorney? Where I live I've seen cases where there was no prosecuting attorney, but I've never heard of the judge trying to replace the citing officer as well. Where I live, the principle is, no officer, no conviction. Case dismissed, due to the officer not showing up. Lately, I also learned of a case, probably not uncommon at all, where the trial was simply postponed rather than dismissed, so that the officer could show up later. In that case, the officer still didn't show up, so the judge dismissed it. In my area, a defendant can also decline to "waive time" and insist on a speedy trial (within 45 days), in which case the judge may be constrained by law (and by a judicial policy of fairness) from postponing the trial more than once.

    Also, how can a judge offer any evidence in the trial if he didn't see the alleged crime and issue the citation? Are you talking about a case where the officer submits some kind of written evidence but doesn't show up at the trial in person? I would think you would have a very strong ground for moving to dismiss the case if there is no evidence against you, or no live officer to testify as to the evidence and submit to cross examination by you or your attorney (if you have one). In fact, in my area the defendant doesn't have to do anything if the officer doesn't show up. The judge will either postpone or dismiss on the spot.

    Ok then, the same thing would apply to the officer as well. He's a paid member of the State. He might tell you he works for you, but legally his duty is first and foremost to the State. I still don't see how this is not a conflict of interest. The same can also be said about any prosecutor and if I understand it correctly even "your" attorney you hire has to swear an oath to the State. So in the vain of Howard Roark I must now say, how can one present a defense when no defense is possible? Yes, I know that people beat speeding tickets all the time, but this only seems to be done by favor of both the driver and the State not understanding objective law. It seems if people understood property right (rights that do exist) Vs. State's rights ( rights that don't exist) the whole roadway system would have to be sold off to a private citizen in other to have a proper middle man for the State to point to and say, "Here's the person you victimized by breach of contract. Even if you can somehow argue that the cop works indiscriminately for both you and the State and if we can also overlook the "forced giving" it it takes to pay his wages, you still don't have a victim because no ones been hurt. You never had a contract with THAT man. The only thing that happen was,you drove on property that you were forced to pay for and some guy who you were forced to his wage is pulling you over. How has he hurt? What contract did the driver brake? Where's the victim?


  11. To be indifferent means to go without judging. With that context in mind I would be willing to state that indifference is not the opposite of love and or hate. In a certain context, for one to be indifferent they must choose to make no judgement at all, a middle of the roader.

    I still have to go with indifference by default I guess. We can both agree that indifference is the opposite of all rational judgment and human life without the faculty of judgment is the closest thing to a living death on earth one can experience. Death is of course is the opposite of everything a living life form can face in this universe.

    If the goal of one's life is to find your highest moral value on earth and by that of course, I mean to use rational judgment to find what it is and who it is that you love, then the only opposite would be the practice of the living death of indifference or of course death itself.


  12. Love as the Ayn Rand Lexicon puts it, is the respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another person's character.

    The opposite of this would be to allow anyone who put a claim on your virtue to walk away with full payment of all your highest values, regardless of whether he was a hero, a fool or a thug. A blank out while preforming a total sacrifice of ones own highest values.

    But isn't 'indifference' the absence of any feeling or acknowledgment, positive or negative, of any kind. Thus, indifference would be the "opposite" of all feeling toward or opinion of another person--indifference is ALSO the opposite of hate, compassion,... disrespect, affection, whatever?


  13. So, you go to court for a speeding ticket and tell the judge that in order to have a far trail you must have the right to face your accuser. He then says, "I am your accuser". You then inform him that he works for the state. He then says, "yes, indeed I do". You then make a motion to dismiss. He says,"on what grounds" You say, "conflict of interest".

    The question I have is objectively, should this defense work? Could anyone anywhere expect to have a fair trail if your accuser/victim is the one putting you on trail?


  14. "What is your Greatest Weakness?" I'm sure a lot of job seekers out there have come across this question. How do you answer that, and furthermore, who REALLY answers that truthfully? And to any employers out there, what sort of answer are you really hoping to hear by asking such nonsense? Do people really need to throw themselves under the bus to get a job these days??? Oh, and telling them that your greatest weakness is not having any weakness never seems to go far. ;)