Attempted bribery

53 posts in this topic


I know that people can evade and rationalize, but how does that invalidate the statement: "One should use reason in his decision making?"

If the bank robber used his reason, he wouldn't do it. That is good. If he doesn't, that is bad. So, why can one not say to anyone anytime: "One should use reason in his decision making?"

The goal of reason is to achieve a happy life. Because a bank robber limits his reason to a narrow goal, he does not achieve a happy life. What is the solution? Tell him: "One should use reason in his decision making"


You statement in Post 22 was "Can you give me an example where "use your reason to make decisions" would not apply?" If the decision is which bank to rob, reason will not apply: no decision as to which bank to rob will be reached. If they use reason, they would discover that they shouldn't rob any bank. This implies that the question would have been, "Should I rob a bank or not?" That is a different question requiring a different decision from the question that you asked. Reason does not apply to the decision in the former but does apply in the latter decision.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes all the difference here that it is not a trade. The other party initiated force and you are only acting to protect something you have a right to. You do not "offer up your sacrifice" because you are not in a position to make an "offer." The dictatorship is sacrificing you without your consent.

To continue this line of reasoning, it wouldn't be proper to call it a 'bribe' either, but perhaps a 'ransom': a sacrifice intended to secure the return of something taken from you by force.

So when is a bribe not a ransom? When it is wrong? Are bribe and ransom synonymous?

And thanks as well for the Galt quote, always appreciated. :rolleyes: Nice job remembering the use of the word 'offer' in that exchange.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nowhere in this quote have I found any indication whatsoever that the word 'objective' is " contextual " and has many " meanings." Stricktly speaking every concept is contextual, but in this case, the law is the context.

I believe you inadvertently made the error of; conversion by definition: You took a non-objective law, that " can be easy understood and obeyed," and defined it as objective. For example: taxation is understood and obeyed( it better be) . Can it objectively( by reference to reality) validated?-no.

Can it be justified on an altruistic premise?- yes. The law that compels one to wear seatbelts, is understood, and obeyed; can it be be validated it?- no.

Can it be justified on a socialistic premise?- yes: the law will ease the already overcrowded situation in our public hospitals.

The law forbidding the use of illegal drugs is understood, and obeyed. Can it be objectively validated?- no. Can it be justified on intrinsic and collectivist premise?- yes: drugs are no good, and society is paying for it.

As you see all those laws are non-objective, because they were based, either on altruistic, collectivist and intrinsic premises, yet they were both easy to understand and to obey. That is why they will always " necessarily " violate individual rights.

The concept of objectivity is at root the combination of metaphysics and epistemology, or reality and consciousness. That is why it can have only one meaning.

I guess that rules guiding sport might be called objective, in the sense that they are not subject to interpretation.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites