1." Nothing in reality can occur causelessly."
No,some entities,like existence,have no cause. ( See Peikoff's qoute )

Some people see existence or non-existence as the property of an entity, not another entity itself.

2."Everything which exists is finite in size and duration"
Entity could be infinite potentially,but always finite actually in the context of our present knowledge. Take Mobius' loop,for example,its lenght is potentially infinite. Take a circle and try to define where its diameter starts and where it finishes-you cannot do that,but it doesn't mean it's infinite.

Pi is a repeating decimal which never forms a pattern. It’s part of a circle which is infinite.

3." Causes always precede their effects."
Not always.Not every cause is antecedent to the action.What is antecedent cause of radioactive decay? What is antecedent cause of the process of life? What is antecedent cause of fusion reaction in the stars? There are causes which are inherented to certain entities

Radioactive decay is caused by instability of atoms and their parts. There is constant movement and forces acting on each other at the sub-atomic level. Nuclei are positively and negatively charged and attracting and repelling other nuclei. The smallest disturbance from this may cause a reaction such as radioactive decay. As far as we can see from our macro-view, it is random and unpredictable up to a point, but this doesn’t mean it started without a cause. Also, it is theorized that life started when certain elements came together in a primordial soup under just the right conditions. It may never happen again, but it only needed to happen once. Evolution, adaptation and adjustment, took over from there. We don’t really have all the answers yet, but this doesn’t mean the answers are not there.

There is a different kind of first cause required for human free-will, and I tried to explain this with reference to our human language, the ability to manipulate symbols in a structured form, and Chomsky’s creativity principle, which allows us to come up with meaningful thoughts never before thought. When we act on our thoughts, we cause things without having been caused to do so. We break with patterns other animals and life forms repeat generation after generation. This is evidence that we are different in kind, not just degree. We are free, not bound by a fixed nature. Thus, we require morality, “oughts”, and we must take responsibility for our actions.

Bis bald,

Nick

"InfinityThere is a use of [the concept] "infinity" which is valid, as Aristotle observed, and that is the mathematical use. It is valid only when used to indicate a potentiality, never an actuality. Take the number series as an example. You can say it is infinite in the sense that, no matter how many numbers you count, there is always another number. You can always keep on counting; there's no end. In that sense it is infinite—as a potential. But notice that, actually, however many numbers you count, wherever you stop, you only reached that point, you only got so far … That's Aristotle's point that the actual is always finite. Infinity exists only in the form of the ability of certain series to be extended indefinitely; but however much they are extended, in actual fact, wherever you stop it is finite.
Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism"
lecture series (1976), Lecture 3.

Potentialities are no less important than actualities. We make predictions based on actualities, but those predictions are potential. They haven’t happened yet. Still we make decisions as best we can on what we think will happen. It is inductive thinking. It requires leaps of faith, even if we can be fairly certain.

If we are in a process of becoming, and if reality is also in process, then only that which has happened can be identified. A is A can only be said about the actual, not the potential. The potential can only be surmised, hypothesized, not known with certainty. Only after it has happened can it be known with certainty.

Man’s nature is not yet completed. It is still potential. We can make some predictions, based on what we know for certain, but we can’t know what isn’t actual, and the Heraclitian river into which we can’t step twice is still flowing.

Infinity is an important concept, even if it only deals with potentiality. The ratio of a circle’s diameter to its circumference is an infinite number which never forms a pattern. Yet, it is there. The infinite points on a plane may not be counted, but they are there. Is our potential already there? Are we bound by our nature and without freedom to affect it?

Bis bald,

Nick

"The problem is that some self-evident axioms, such as that human flourishing is good, aren't self-evident to everyone."
But,obviously, this is NOT an axiom,that is not irreducible primary.The question of what is good or bad depends on the question: " good for whom or for what?" If one holds human life as standard of value then human flourishing is good for him.But suppose you are dealing with suicide bomber.For him standard of value is death and therefore human flourishing is bad.He considers as good to die in the name of Allah,to go to the paradise and to sleep with 72 virgins.Or consider devoted Nazi who holds the purity of race as suprime value.He will die and kill millions to achieve this purpose.

Moral relativism is the view that ultimate value is relative to each individual. If human flourishing is not an ultimate value to person X, then it doesn’t have to be. It is whatever person X deems it to be. He or she may choose suicide to live on a higher plan or purity of race. Value is not objective, independent of wishes and whims and out there to be discovered rather than created. No, with moral relativism, the bigot at the bar is no more right or wrong than those who disagree with him or her. Each person decides what is right or wrong. If we disagree, we are, they say, trying to impose our views on them.

Objectivists are not moral relativists. They hold that life, flourishing survival, is the ultimate value for all humans, and this is a universal fact independent of individual assumption or belief, wish or whim. It may not be one of the axiomatic concepts, but it is a self-evident truth stated in the Declaration of Independence, a document with which Objectivists agree, which states that all humans are equal qua humans and have natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If some people disagree with this, it doesn’t make it untrue, even just for them. They don’t determine objective truth. They don’t decide that the concept of value does not require a fundamental alternative such as life and makes sense without this as a standard. Nature determines this. Individual opinions will not alter natural and logical facts. This standard is out there for us to discover. We may be free to determine what will make our lives flourish, so long as we respect the rights of others to also determine this, but we are not free, morally, to determine that something other than flourishing survival, something which may violate someone else’s flourishing survival, is the ultimate value.

bis bald,

Nick

Richard
1." Nothing in reality can occur causelessly."
No,some entities,like existence,have no cause. ( See Peikoff's qoute )
2."Everything which exists is finite in size and duration"
Entity could be infinite potentially,but always finite actually in the context of our present knowledge. Take Mobius' loop,for example,its lenght is potentially infinite. Take a circle and try to define where its diameter starts and where it finishes-you cannot do that,but it doesn't mean it's infinite.
3." Causes always precede their effects."
Not always.Not every cause is antecedent to the action.What is antecedent cause of radioactive decay? What is antecedent cause of the process of life? What is antecedent cause of fusion reaction in the stars? There are causes which are inherented to certain entities

4.The Big Bang
Observe that astrophysists tell us in great details what happened millionth of femosecond after Big Bang but never dare to speculate what happened before it. There are few plausible explanations to background microwave radiation and expanding of Universe except Big bang theory. I quote my article " Reading Cosmology" which I published on the website "Rational argumentator": Why the Big Bang? “What did God do before he created the universe? He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions.” In 1929 Edwin Hubble made the observation that distant galaxies are moving rapidly from us, in other words, the universe is expanding. This discovery brought the question of the beginning of the universe, the famous Big Bang. Here we have very clear demonstration of the philosophical void of our times. As it had been demonstrated in the “Rational Cosmology” and by other objectivists the notion of the beginning of the universe is contradiction in terms. For example if time didn’t exist before Big Bang and nothing was changing than how this alleged explosion took place? Time is a measure of the change and an explosion is very rapid change of the matter by definition. Philosophically Big Bang’s theory belongs to the category of concepts known as Primary Cause-like primary mover, intelligent design, God etc…Primary Cause allegedly causes everything of its kind or everything at all. However this concept has intrinsic contradiction. If Primary Cause is the cause of everything, then it has to be the cause of itself and that leads to infinite regression. If Big Bang is the cause of Universe then what would be the cause of Big Bang? Evidently it has to be another Big Bang and so on ad infinitum. Since infinite regression is logical fallacy, the concept of Big Bang is not valid. So why such a contradictory theory had become so widely acceptable? I think it’s because that Big Bang theory has strong religious connotations. The Catholic Church for example officially pronounced in 1951 that Big Bang theory is in accordance with the Bible. However astrophysicists were looking for some other non-contradictory explanations of the phenomena of expanding universe and background microwave radiation. For example nothing in the laws of physic or philosophy contradict an idea that total gravitational pull of the universal matter may cause compression of this matter and explosion like gigantic Super Nova star. But such an event doesn’t have to be the beginning of the universe or its end. The other possibility is the steady state theory which postulates that as the galaxies moved away from each other, new galaxies were continually forming in the gasp in between… And finally I’d like to quote the author of Big Bang theory himself. Stephen Hawking says in his book “A brief history of time”: “It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity” Singularity is contradictory mathematical fiction which describes entity without identity and which is prerequisite for Big Bang.

If eternal is 'without beginning or end', and the concepts beginning and end are temporal concepts (in this context), then that definition is incompatible with the literal definition of eternal given by Peikoff. It is not that the universe does not have a beginning or an end. For the universe the concepts 'beginning' and 'end' do not apply.

Wm

You repeat the stolen concept again in your assumed definition of eternal.

I still don't see it.

What concepts do beginning and end depend on?

'Beginning' and 'ending' are temporal (or spatial) concepts.

Why is Peikoff's definition and your assumption incompatable?

Which definition? I'm sorry, but you're going to have to spell it out for me. And the stolen concept. I wasn't aware it had been reported missing.

You repeat the stolen concept again in your assumed definition of eternal. What concepts do beginning and end depend on? Why is Peikoff's definition and your assumption incompatable?

Wm

Peikoff says that time applies only within the universe, and that "the universe is eternal in the literal sense: non-temporal, out of time." Let's assume that eternal means without beginning or end. That captures both Peikoff's non-temporal universe, and things within the universe that are temporal but infinite.

But the latter kind of eternal entities cannot exist if everything (within the universe) is finite in duration.

No, I don't see the stolen concept in (2). According to Peikoff, everything which exists is finite - including the universe.

I am sorry Mr. Goode but I can't get into a non-existence proof about eternal entities. Let's look at the question another way. What in principle precludes eternal entities? What are we (well, you) defining eternal to be? Do you see the stolen concept in (2)?

Wm

Piekoff says,

An entity may be said to have a cause only if it is the kind of entity that is non-eternal; and then what one actually explains causally is a process, the fact of its coming into being or another thing's passing away.

He gives "the universe as a whole" as an example of an eternal entity - one which does not come into being or pass away. But are there any other examples? If not, then everything which exists - excepting the universe as a whole - is finite in size and duration. Thus, everything which exists - excepting the universe as a whole - has a coming into being and, therefore, a cause.

I don't agree with statement (1). No action can occur 'causelessly' to use your fast and loose diction. Stated more correctly, every action has a cause. This does not mean every entity has a cause. I think you should re-read Leonid's post below.

Wm

(1) Nothing in reality can occur causelessly.

(2) Everything which exists is finite in size and duration.

(3) Causes always precede their effects.

Leonid, do you agree with these three statements? Surely, they cannot all be true! What is an Objectivist to do?

Leonid

Richard

"But, if those boundaries are to all existence, then there is, by definition, nothing on the other side. There can be nothing before the Big Bang because "before" is a temperal term, and time didn't exist until after the Big Bang.

I agree. But try telling this to an Objectivist!"

You can try,Richard, and that what Objectivist would say:

"The Law of casuality does not state that every entity has a cause...The concept of "cause" is inapplicable to the universe; by definition, there is nothing outside of totality to act as a cause...not every entity has a cause but every action does. (L. Peikoff,OPAR,pg 16)

" The universe is the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the "cause" of the universe …

Is the universe then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe. What then, you ask, is outside the universe, if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase "outside the universe" has no referent. The universe is everything. "Outside the universe" stands for "that which is where everything isn't." There is no such place. There isn't even nothing "out there": there is no "out there."

Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism"
lecture series (1976), Lecture 2.

"InfinityThere is a use of [the concept] "infinity" which is valid, as Aristotle observed, and that is the mathematical use. It is valid only when used to indicate a potentiality, never an actuality. Take the number series as an example. You can say it is infinite in the sense that, no matter how many numbers you count, there is always another number. You can always keep on counting; there's no end. In that sense it is infinite—as a potential. But notice that, actually, however many numbers you count, wherever you stop, you only reached that point, you only got so far … That's Aristotle's point that the actual is always finite. Infinity exists only in the form of the ability of certain series to be extended indefinitely; but however much they are extended, in actual fact, wherever you stop it is finite.

Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism"
lecture series (1976), Lecture 3.

An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 22.

Leonid

Richard

"The problem is that some self-evident axioms, such as that human flourishing is good, aren't self-evident to everyone."

But,obviously, this is NOT an axiom,that is not irreducible primary.The question of what is good or bad depends on the question: " good for whom or for what?" If one holds human life as standard of value then human flourishing is good for him.But suppose you are dealing with suicide bomber.For him standard of value is death and therefore human flourishing is bad.He considers as good to die in the name of Allah,to go to the paradise and to sleep with 72 virgins.Or consider devoted Nazi who holds the purity of race as suprime value.He will die and kill millions to achieve this purpose.

Regarding your comments here, here and here.

I had been meaning to respond to your earlier comments, but you know how it is. So many threads, so little time.

One need not have justifications for everything, Richard. If one did, there would be infinite regress. Asking why flourishing survival is good is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Flourishing survival is the ultimate good, the intrinsic value which is good in and of itself and makes other values instrumentally good, good in so far as they bring about a flourishing survival.

I agree.

Why is human flourishing good? "If you've gotta ask, you ain't never gonna know" (allegedly the answer given by Louis Armstrong when asked to define jazz).

Just think, why is money valuable? It doesn’t really have intrinsic value. It is only good if it can be exchanged for food, clothing, shelter, entertainment etc. Why are these other things good? Because they contribute to our flourishing survival. Why is a flourishing survival good? Well, it is just good in and of itself. It is the standard which makes other things good or evil. That which promotes and protects it is good, and that which threatens and destroys it is evil.

I agree.

The Objectivists avoid infinite regress by starting with axioms. Those self-evident axioms are not proven, justified. They just are.

The problem is that some self-evident axioms, such as that human flourishing is good, aren't self-evident to everyone. Those to whom it is not self-evident that human flourishing is good will insist on asking for justification. Thus, Reed is correct when he says, "We don't need a justification for everything but to be honest with ourselves we have to recognise where our explanations stop and acknowledge assumptions/beliefs."

My point is that we need not justify a value which is valuable in and of itself. It is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Flourishing survival justifies all other values but need not be justified by something else which needs justification from something else and so on into infinity. We can start with flourinshing survival and go from there.

I agree.

When our children ask us why we go to work, we say we need to make money. When they ask us why we need to make money, we tell them it is so we can buy them food and clothing and toys and things. When they ask us why we need to buy them food and clothing and toys and things, we say it is so they can have a good life, a flourishing survival. When they ask us why it is important that they have a flourishing survival, we just shrug our shoulders. There is no reason to justify a flourishing survival. It is the end toward which all else is the means. It is not, itself, a means to any further end.

I agree.

There are infinite series in mathematics, and there may be infinite regress in other models. However, we are accustomed to thinking everything must have a cause and, if it doesn't, then it is an assumption or unjustified belief. This could be just a mental tick. We think of the universe as something contained, as in a container, and we wonder what is on the other side of the boundaries. But, if those boundaries are to all existence, then there is, by definition, nothing on the other side. There can be nothing before the Big Bang because "before" is a temperal term, and time didn't exist until after the Big Bang.

I agree. But try telling this to an Objectivist!

So, you see... everyone's a winner.

Glad to clear things up. The "you" was intended as a way of involving everyone who reads the words. Something to make the idea a bit more visceral and personal.

I am trying to break into comics so forgive this stylistic point. But your expansion clarifies my comments to where they're much more technically sound so thanks.

---Landon

The price of liberty is eternal VIGILANCE.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

Oh, I'm sorry. Your posts are very brief, and sometimes I misinterpret. Very few people on this board ever agree with me. When you were talking in the second person, I assumed you were refering to me. It's my paranoia. I apologize.

It does make sense now that people who violate the rights of others lose any rational defense against other people violating their rights. So, if I treat JamesHughes as he treats others and me, I am not technically violating his rights. He sort of sets the standard for how he expects to be treated. It's also the reason why criminals have no rational defense against just punishment. As soon as someone knowingly violates the rights of an innocent person, he or she automatically earns, morally, the punishment which is equal to the offense.

bis bald,

Nick

I was AGREEING with you.

---Landon

The price of liberty is eternal VIGILANCE.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

That's really the point isn't it. If you don't respect rights, you have no expectation of having your own respected. Effectively you have none.

Are you critizing me but not JamesHughes, Landon?

I don't initiate the use of force against others, Landon, but I don't feel guilty about retaliation or self-defense, neither does Ayn Rand. If someone even calls me a name or insults me first, I don't feel guilty about returning the insult. You, however, seem like a hypocrite. You don't criticize JamesHughes, who brags about violating rights, yet you criticize me for trying to teach him an object lesson. Don't you think that makes you just as bad as he is?

You don't have to answer. Just evade like he does.

bis bald,

Nick

That's really the point isn't it. If you don't respect rights, you have no expectation of having your own respected. Effectively you have none.

---Landon

The price of liberty is eternal VIGILANCE.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

The nice thing about dealing with someone who doesn't respect individual rights and even brags about violating them is that I don't feel obligated to respect his or her rights. He or she would have no rational defense against my not respecting his or her rights. Normally, if I want to copy a dialogue from one place to another, I'd ask permission of the participants and respect their rights to be in control of the information about them. Even if, legally, those who post on the internet have no expectation of privacy. It's a matter of ethics, not law. However, in your case, I won't ask permission. I'll steal your written words, just as you steal from artists from whom you download, and post them in places where others can see how amazingly mature you are.

Bye,

Nick

Said:

I understand that life is the primary value to a human being, but I don't see how using force (theft, murder etc) would be contrary to that goal.

Of course you are 'playing games' and you are being 'obtuse' because this thread has been a piss take from the beginning.

But, for your edification, two quotes from Rand, because I'm certainly not wasting any more time on this thread than that.

Quote 1.

From Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 133 (Via the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

'Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.

Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no "right" to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him in a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: "Your money or your life," or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: "Your children's education or your life," the meaning of that ultimatum is: "Your mind or your life"—and neither is possible to man without the other.'

Quotation 2.

From "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 23, via The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

'The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man.'

Wow, you are amazingly immature. Bye.

I appreciate your invitation, Richard, but I also addressed one of your concerns below, about the intrinsic value of flourishing survival as a foundation for morality, and I clarified it again for Reed when he questioned me about it. Yet, you have not responded to that. Again, I think I made a good point which is not being answered, a prima facie case for flourishing survival as an objective standard and basis for morality which is as yet unchallenged. I’ve also tried to start my own threads on this issue. Check this:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/3000

I see nothing wrong with my reasoning, and nobody seems willing to point out anything wrong with it for me. So, I have to assume, so far, there is nothing wrong with my reasoning. That I am right.

Bis bald,

Nick

im not trying to be obtuse, im trying to find a solid case for this morality.. what is the foundation, thats what im wondering.

Philosophers have been trying to find a foundation for morality for millennia... with no success thus far. Objectivists, however, disagree. Consider joining us discussing this and related issues on "the Hume thread". You too, Nick.

Winning a point in a discussion such as this is not winning a game in the way you try to portray it. I was responding to your question with reasoning which you ignored. I see now you are not interested in learning. You are inauthentic, dishonest, and a bit cowardly. You don't have a decent response to my argument, so you evade it. Be happy living in your phony dream world, James. I'd rather talk to adults who see value in honest debate.

Nick

What did you win a cookie? I'm sorry, if its a game, with the matter of winning and losing you seek, I withdraw. I'm here to learn something, not play games. If you are interested in discussing the issue, with the goal of a solution in mind, not a conflict, I'd be more than happy to proceed. Depending on your answer, I'll know whether or not to actually consider your post for a response.

James, I am waiting for you to respond to my argument in the "Say it ain't so" post lower in this thread. I made an argument based on rational egoism.

Would the rational egoist rather live inauthentically and at risk of severe punishment and shame equal to his or her transgressions against others, or would he or she rather live within a moral community and be moral within it, acheiving things honestly and justly? I think the later option is more defensible than the first, and I think I made my case. If you ignore me, I'll have to conclude that I won this point.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid

James, to answer you I have to return to your original question. You asked:” I understand that life is the primary value to a human being, but I don't see how using force (theft, murder etc) would be contrary to that goal."

You see, not just life is primary value to human being, but human life, that is existence of man qua man. Consider a situation in which you can live 1000 years in ICU, in coma, connected to the drip and respirator. I know it's unrealistic, but consider it just for sake of argument. Would you choose this kind of life? I doubt it. That to demonstrate that not any sort of life is primary value to man. Every living organism has his own means of survival. Humans live by mind. Look around you and on yourself. Your entire environment, every single detail of your clothes, everything has to be invented and created. Take the mind out of equation and you find yourself naked in the wilderness. For how long you think you'll survive? Your question essentially is “Why I cannot live as parasite by violating rights of others? Many people, namely criminals, do that!" True, they do. Do they live comfortably this is another question.I, for one, have my doubts and these are my reasons. First the principle of rights cannot be violated selectively. By violating rights of others you undermine the whole concept as such and therefore your own rights. It is no such a thing as right to violate rights. This is contradiction in terms. Therefore you become rightless person. As such you cannot possess any value by right, only by force, creating situation in which "might is right." By living as parasite you are not living by right but only by permission of others who let you fool and rob them for time being. And what if they will not? How safe is the life which dependent on the people whom you fooled and robbed? How safe is to be depended on fools and to live in faked reality.How comfortably you'd feel,living in constant fear? Would you consider this to be in your best interests? Second, by living as parasite you are also living mindless life. You don't create anything; exist on preconceptual level, like an animal. What that would do to you as a person? What would happen to your self-esteem? Would you really enjoy your stolen values, is it millions of dollars or just music and DVD's? To enjoy something you have to love your life. Can you really love your existence as mindless,worthless parasite? I don't think so and you, I’m sure also don't. And the last thing. You said “But again I'm not talking about politics or a collective form of ethics"-but human inalienable rights like right to live or right to property are issues of collective form of ethics. Rights are ethics applied to social conduct. You don't need any rights, living alone on isolated island.

"Do you want to live temporary?"

No, but I don't think I have much choice in the matter given the present state of medicine and human lifespans.

"Without to make any provision for the future?"

Has no one made a million dollars and lived comfortably by dealing with scoundrels? Do you mean to argue against the empirical evidence that regardless of bromides, crime does pay.

"For how long you think you can survive without producing any values and without having around to rob or kill somebody?"

Again this is unrealistic. In my lifetime, say 60 or 70 years make, given that I am 22, i could never deplete the 6 billion people of all their resources. Now if an entire culture acted this way, on principle, then no it could not and would not last. But again I'm not talking about politics or a collective form of ethics, i'm just considering what is in my best interest. Is it more effecient for me to work, or to rob? What is the moral priniciple that makes the latter a bum deal? 

"By pirating CD's and DVD's you cause that producers of those values don't get their reward."

again, i agree that if everyon pirated music, dvd's and software it would not have a positive impact on the industries, but given the fact that most people pay for these, and one, myself, does not, the effect is negligable. And for me personally, I have over 10 decades of music and movies to enjoy, even if another movie was never made, i could still never watch them all. Why should I care? 

im not trying to be obtuse, im trying to find a solid case for this morality.. what is the foundation, thats what im wondering. 

Ok, what have you done with the real Nick Otani? ...because existence exists there is infinite regress.
James' premise and the objectivist' premise are without justification. We don't need a justification for everything but to be honest with ourselves we have to recognise where our explanations stop and acknowledge assumptions/beliefs.

The Objectivists avoid infinite regress by starting with axioms. Those self-evident axioms are not proven, justified. They just are.

My point is that we need not justify a value which is valuable in and of itself. It is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Flourishing survival justifies all other values but need not be justified by something else which needs justification from something else and so on into infinity. We can start with flourinshing survival and go from there.

When our children ask us why we go to work, we say we need to make money. When they ask us why we need to make money, we tell them it is so we can buy them food and clothing and toys and things. When they ask us why we need to buy them food and clothing and toys and things, we say it is so they can have a good life, a flourishing survival. When they ask us why it is important that they have a flourishing survival, we just shrug our shoulders. There is no reason to justify a flourishing survival. It is the end toward which all else is the means. It is not, itself, a means to any further end.

There are infinite series in mathematics, and there may be infinite regress in other models. However, we are accustomed to thinking everything must have a cause and, if it doesn't, then it is an assumption or unjustified belief. This could be just a mental tick. We think of the universe as something contained, as in a container, and we wonder what is on the other side of the boundaries. But, if those boundaries are to all existence, then there is, by definition, nothing on the other side. There can be nothing before the Big Bang because "before" is a temperal term, and time didn't exist until after the Big Bang.

Hey, I could go on and on, but we don't need to have infinite regress right here, do we?

bis bald,

Nick

Nick -

One need not have justifications for everything, Richard. If one did, there would be infinite regress.

Ok, what have you done with the real Nick Otani? ...because existence exists there is infinite regress.
James' premise and the objectivist' premise are without justification. We don't need a justification for everything but to be honest with ourselves we have to recognise where our explanations stop and acknowledge assumptions/beliefs.

Cheers,

Reed.

Leonid doesn't know what he is talking about sometimes. Value does not require free-will and conceptual thinking. All living things value life. Morality requires free-will. Without it, the promotion and protection of values would be descriptive, not prescriptive. We don't use "oughts" when we talk about trees. We use them when we talk about humans. We know that humans do not always act as they ought to promote and protect their flourishing survival.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
"You see, Objectivists have no argument for the conclusion that man's life is the standard of moral value."

Value presupposes valuer.Rocks and landscapes don't value. Even primates have very limited ability to value.Valuation presupposes free will and conceptual thinking,in other words-human mind.Without human life no morale or value is possible. Hence,numan life is the standard of value. How that for argument,Richard?

Leonid
1."My use of force doesnt necessarily mean that I have givin up my mind."

No,it does.If you weren't give up your mind you would be creator,producer of values and therefore you wouldn't have a need to use force.Besides,as I explained before by force you cannot obtain and rightfully keep any value.

2."And it only stops another mind for the duration that it is being used."
By resorting to force you stop your mind in the first place.

3."I still do not see why I should not use it against another person as sometimes might be te case that it is the most effective way to obtain a particular value."

Suppose, you obtained this particular value by force ,and then I came along and took it from you by force. What you'd do? Call the cops? Think,James!

Leonid
"Sure, It won't last forever, butit would still be temporarily be better that what I had or could have hoped to have had give the implied character"
Do you want to live temporary? Without to make any provision for the future? What is your life span,then? A day,a week, maybe a month? For how long you think you can survive without producing any values and without having around to rob or kill somebody? The case I brought is not unrealistic.First,many people live in small,isolated places.And second, even if you multiply this situation by million, the result would be the same-with one difference:you'll have to compete with other predators.That will make your task even harder.For prove read criminal section of any newspaper.By pirating CD's and DVD's you cause that producers of those values don't get their reward.How, you think, they suppose to carry on their production? If you'd read "Atlas shrugged" you should know the usual answer of any parasite: "Somehow. They will do something."

You see, Objectivists have no argument for the conclusion that man's life is the standard of moral value. When asked, Why is human flourishing good? or Where's your logical proof or material evidence? they have no proper answer. Usually, all you get is a parrotting or paraphrasing of Rand. If you're lucky, they'll tell you that if you choose life, then you ought to, e.g., eat food and respect the rights of others. They equivocate. They confuse their shabby, hypothetical oughts with genuine, moral oughts.

One need not have justifications for everything, Richard. If one did, there would be infinite regress. Asking why flourishing survival is good is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Flourishing survival is the ultimate good, the intrinsic value which is good in and of itself and makes other values instrumentally good, good in so far as they bring about a flourishing survival.

Just think, why is money valuable? It doesn’t really have intrinsic value. It is only good if it can be exchanged for food, clothing, shelter, entertainment etc. Why are these other things good? Because they contribute to our flourishing survival. Why is a flourishing survival good? Well, it is just good in and of itself. It is the standard which makes other things good or evil. That which promotes and protects it is good, and that which threatens and destroys it is evil. (I just finished debating with a Scientologist who holds that our spirits are immortal, and I maintained that such immortality would destroy the basis of morality. As Rand said, “An indestructible robot would be amoral.”)

Bis bald,

Nick

Hi James! It is good to see that you finally showed up to follow-up on your initial post. I’d like to respond to some of your responses to my responses:

First, you agreed with me that the rational egoist would rather live in a community where there are laws against the initiation of the use of force, but you say you may find it prudent to ignore those laws yourself. Second, you maintain that it does not make you a hypocrite to hold that it is okay for you to murder and steal but not okay for others to steal from you, because, you say, your standard of value is your life, not human life as such. However, James, the very definition of a hypocrite is one who thinks it is okay to do to others what he would not want others to do to him. It is why a criminal, one who initiates the use of force against others, has no rational defense against just punishment, the use of retaliatory force against him or her. Imagine a murderer who claims that murder is justified but capital punishment is not. Also, no rational egoist would risk punishment for an inauthentic reward. Remember, I said winning the race honestly is qualitatively more pleasurable than cheating, faking reality, to win the race dishonestly. Would you rather actually accomplish great things in life or live as a brain in a vat having senses stimulated to make you think you are accomplishing great things? And, is it better to live as a parasite or as an independent being? Ask some of these athletes who have been caught using performance enhancing drugs if they thought the risk was worth the shame? Even if they wouldn’t have been caught, was their phony reward better than a real one?

James, the rational egoist also realizes that his or her flourishing survival is intertwined with the flourishing survival others. He or she is better off in a society where people are secure, where predators are discouraged. To be a predator, himself or herself, in such a society, to work against the security of that society, is not in the ultimate rational self-interest of the egoist.

Bis bald,

Nick

"You do not recognize rights qua man--only your own."

I really don't think that I have rights per se, just things that I either am allowed to do, or otherwise am able to get away with.

"If you really hold to such premises, why don't you steal from the first
weak looking person you see? Then get back to us on whether it was
really good for you."

 I do this all the time, and it is good for me. I violate the rights of countless artists, producers, actors, engineers and designers when I download pirated movies, music and software. I think that this is good for me to not have to pay for these items. Of course it would not be good if everyone did it, because the producers might stop. But im not talking about a collective morality, or a guide to action for all people; just me.

 I like I said, I'm not new to Objectivism. I loved Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. I have read most of Rands nonfiction. I donate to ARI. I have taken a course with the OAC. This is just one issue that I don't understand. Another is sex and gender roles, but, I'll get into that in a different thread.

Firstly, Objectivists hold that man's life qua man is the standard of the good.

Secondly, Objectivists claim that the acknowledgment of man's life as the standard of value leads to each man valuing not only his own life, but the lives of other men as well. Which, in turn, leads to the Objectivist prohibitions on force and fraud, etc., etc. And, such an acknowledgement gives birth to a sense of benevolence (at least in the mentally healthy).

Unfortunately for Objectivist ethics, there are a couple of problems here.

The first is under discussion on another thread. You see, Objectivists have no argument for the conclusion that man's life is the standard of moral value. When asked, Why is human flourishing good? or Where's your logical proof or material evidence? they have no proper answer. Usually, all you get is a parrotting or paraphrasing of Rand. If you're lucky, they'll tell you that if you choose life, then you ought to, e.g., eat food and respect the rights of others. They equivocate. They confuse their shabby, hypothetical oughts with genuine, moral oughts.

The second problem is the one that you, James, have so disarmingly demonstrated here. As you say, your standard of value is your life, not human life as such. And no recognisably moral prescriptions follow from this simple egoistic premise. However, your choice - your declaration that your own life is your standard of value - is what makes you an Objectivist.

How Scott could mistake you for an Objectivist-baiter eludes me. Not that it should matter if you are one. Linz, our host, tolerates them. Hell, he even tolerates the likes of Billy Beck. Or, perhaps, he just hasn't read Billy's comment on this thread. The man suggests that you go commit a murder - and, no, he's not kidding. If you do take him up on his suggestion, I'm sure an appropriate victim won't be hard to track down.

...difficult to say the least.

First, you do not hold to an objective morality. Morality is subjective and pragmatic in your view.

The standard of good is the good for you, right now, this second.

You do not recognize rights qua man--only your own.

You do not respect property rights.

Beck called it in one. If you really hold to such premises, why don't you steal from the first weak looking person you see? Then get back to us on whether it was really good for you.

If you truly hold to such premises and do not act on them, you either have no integrity, or you are a coward, or both. Or, you are just here to Objectivist-bait.

Knowledge has a hierarchy. That means you must understand the basics before you can understand and arrive at a correct conclusion.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

"Gee, James, you don't see how murder can be counter to the goal of
life? If people need certain property rights to pursue life
effectively, isn't theft counter to the effective pursuit of life?"

I can see how it is counter to the goal of my life it used against me, but no, not if I am the one initiating its use. 

"Tell me, James, if you are a rational egoist pursuing life, where would
you rather live, in a community which allows theft and murder, where
you can't be secure as you sleep, or in a community where such things
are not allowed, where people respect individual rights?"

Certainly I would rather live in a society with laws against the use of force, but that does not mean that I might not find it prudent to ignore them myself.

"Do you mean that if you are successful in murdering and stealing from
others then your initiation of force against others is not counter to
your life?"

No, it is not counter to my life, otherwise I would not have acted in such a fashion. 

 "Does it make you a hypocrite to hold that it is okay for you to murder and steal but not okay for others to steal from you?"

 No, because my standard of value is my life, not human life as such.

"Do you believe you are not equal, qua man, to other humans, that if you have rights, so do they?"

It is the issue of rights that is being brought into question here really. Noone has any rights except what others are willing to let them have. Yes, i understand that rights are derived from the natural requirements of human survival, but that does not mean that they are automatically respected, because they are rights. 

 If i see that repecting anothers rights is advantagous, then I will do so. However, if not, then not.

"Do you think the retalitary use of force is worth the risk?"

Its a case by case basis. Of course, I wouldnt try to steal from 20 armed soldiers. But there may be cases where the level of risk is acceptable or managable. 

"A free trader no long earns a living when all know he is a cheat or thief.

No one wants to associate with a violent murderer, nor can one be trusted."

Of course, thats why you don't let anyone know. 

"There are laws against the unprovoked use of force."

I'm discussing the moral issues involved, not the legal ones.

"Even if they are kept a secret and one is never caught or punished,
there is psychological baggage associated with carrying that sort of
secret, and implications for the individual in the future if he or she
holds premises which allow him or her to exhibit such behavior or
consider such behavior within the realm of the accceptable."

I understand where you are coming from here, but what if there isn't. What if the person involved had no regrets, no guilt, because he truely didn't think what he had done was wrong? 

I don't like to use unrealistic cases for ethics, but given the situation, that I was a worthless bum, what would i really have to lose by killing him and taking what he had. Sure, It won't last forever, butit would still be temporarily be better that what I had or could have hoped to have had give the implied character.

Are you insinuating that no one has ever committed murder or theft and were not caught by the authorities? If so, I would like to refer you to the millions of unsolved cases every year.

I'm not saying to live without the mind, though. I understand that the mind and force are opposites, and that the use of force stops the mind. But only against the person its being used on. You see what I'm saying. My use of force doesnt necessarily mean that I have givin up my mind. And it only stops another mind for the duration that it is being used. It does not some how destroy what has already been produced by that mind.

From your argument I can see why I wouldnt want force to be used against me, but I still do not see why I should not use it against another person as sometimes might be te case that it is the most effective way to obtain a particular value. 

It doesn’t look like James is going to return to this discussion. He’s not really taking much of an interest, is he?

We should remember that I spoke not only about the clichés which Leonid tried to pass off as his own words, from his prior article, but the Rand quotes which he attributed incorrectly. BTW, the Biblical quote was a quote from Jesus in Matthew. It wasn’t a proverb. I just thought it ironic that Leonid was talking about the evils of being a parasite when he was, himself, leaching off of others.

Anyway, Leonid constructs an extremely unlikely scenario of two people sharing an island and then tries to make it a microcosm of what happens in ordinary, real life. It’s what we call a “life-boat” scenario. Rand said, in the “Ethics of Emergencies,” another essay in VOS, that we shouldn’t base life philosophies on such unlikely situations. And, we could tweak the situation a little and make the lazy guy the one who owns the only fresh water source on the island. What does the hard working guy do then?

Even in the current United States, we do not live in a perfect libertarian or Objectivist economic model. We pay taxes under threat of going to jail. This is an initiation of force by the government, a violation of our natural rights to determine for ourselves how we wish to distribute the fruits of our labor, yet we still live. Objectivists may argue that we would flourish more if there were no violations, but that is still arguable. We are in the situation, right now, where we must deal with insecurity. We depend on incompetent government officials who disband the Iraqi army and promote more than reduce insurgency there, killing our troops and giving us no end in sight. We pollute our world, which could lead to our extinction. We ignore what is happening in Zimbabwe. We wring our hands over a leader in Iran who may someday have nuclear power when Pakistan does have nuclear power and potential leaders who could help us catch Osama are being assassinated. Things are absurd, yet we can still live. We are not victims of our environment. We can make our lives matter. We have freedom within parameters. We can do our part to make things better or hide our heads in the sand and pretend that everything is best in this best of all possible worlds.

Bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
Hi, James
Our discussion has been interrupted by ubiquitous Old Nick who wanted me to give references to common catch phrases and biblical proverbs. Here is another one for Nick-"Against folly gods themselves are powerless" (Faust, Goethe)
But I'd like to return to subject-matter. You’ve said "I understand that life is the primary value to a human being, but I don't see how using force (theft, murder etc) would be contrary to that goal." Nick also said "Yes, people can live by initiating force against others"
Let examine these propositions. Objectivist ethics teach that man has to live primary for himself. If it so why one cannot initiate force to promote his own well-being? Suppose you are sharing island with another person. There are nobody else on this island except you and him. Suppose he is hard working, successful and rich farmer, and you are lazy, half-starved bum, barely surviving on roots and occasional catch. Wouldn't it be in your best interests to kill the guy (nobody would ever know), to take his farm and his wealth and enjoy for the rest of your life? Mugabe's government in Zimbabwe actually did just that.

Yes, you can do that but will it work? What would you do after you finished eating your victim's stock? You, yourself cannot create any value-that why you had to kill the guy in the first place. You don't know how to produce and you don't care. There nobody else around to rob and kill. You are back to the square one- minus possibility to engage in any trade or to learn any skill. You are doomed to perish. That what is actually happening today in Zimbabwe.

But suppose you didn't kill the guy, only robbed him and on gunpoint forced him to supply you with goods and services. You became ultimate parasite, your life and well-being completely depends on him, on the person whose life you've throttled and destroyed. How safe are you now? How much happiness and joy you will get? What if this guy will get better and bigger guns than you have? And he definitely can, since he is a creator. You will live in constant fear. Would you argue that such a life is in your best interests? Hardly. Contrary to what Nick said man cannot live by force qua man. As I mentioned before man can obtain values only by using his mind when he acts within his inalienable rights.

First, Leonid did not provide attribution for the quotes in his post below. He referred, at the end of that post, to his article, "Values, Reason, Rights and Freedom” on the “Rational Argumentator” website. In that article, he indicates that the sentence, “A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom to act within a social context,” comes from the article “Man’s Rights” in the Virtue of Selfishness. He does not identify the rest of his paragraph in that article or in his post as coming from that source. Since those other sentences differ only slightly from the sentences in Rand’s article, Leonid’s attribution for only that first sentence is improper. He should have done a block quote or used quotation marks, kept the original wording instead of changing only a few words, and given Rand full credit for everything she said.

Second, at the end of Leonid’s post below, he makes the statement, “…But who is living by sword will perish by sword and nobody can fool all the people all the time.(passage from my article "Values,Reason,rights and Freedom.See full article on "Rational Argumentator website)”(sic) The sentence he seems to be saying is from his article is no place in his article. However, the clause, “…for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” is from Matthew 26:52. The statement, “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time,” is from Abraham Lincoln. This is not mentioned in Leonid’s post or article or reference list.

Leonid cannot escape the accusation by calling me a scoundrel, but let's not forget how many baseless accusations he has made about me which I have explained and he has not defended. If anybody is interested, he or she will check this out and see who the real scoundrel is.

bis bald

Nick

Leonid

Everybody who is honest and genuinely interested would check the list of references of my original article on "Rational Argumentator" before making accusations in plagiarism.

References
1) Tracinski, Robert. “Horrors of the Drowned City.” The Citizen. South Africa. 2 September 2005.
2) Rand, Ayn. “Objectivist Ethics.” The Virtue of Selfishness, 5 ; Pb 15.
3) Ibid ; 7Pb 17.
4) Parson. Religious Organization in the United States., New York : The Free Press, 1961, 311
5) Eckhard. “The Values of Fascism.” Journal of Sociological Issues, Vol. 24 (1968), 547-49.
6) Ethel M. Albert: Values and Value-Systems in David L. Sills’ OP.CIT: 287-91
7) Jr. Landes: “Moral Value-Structures of Laborers and Penitentiary Inmates: A Research Note.“ Social Forces, Vol 46 (December 1967): 269-74
Epstein: “Linguistic Orientation and Changing Values in Puerto Rico.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology: Vol. 9 (March 1968) 61-76
9) John Ku: “Objections to Objectivism – Is Selfishness Good?”: 2001
10) Rand: For the New Intellectual: 188: Pb 151: 1961
11) Leon: “The Value and Scope of Freedom”: 1999: The Southern Journal.
12) Rand: “Man’s Rights.” The Virtue of Selfishness, 124; Pb 93:1964
13) Rand, Ayn. “Objectivist Ethics.” The Virtue of Selfishness, 5 ; Pb 15.

Baseless accusations,however, are trademark of scoundrel.

Otherwise, it's plagiarism, a form of theft.

Objectivists will recognize where he plagiarized Rand from "Man's Rights," VOS, pb 93. He changed a few words but not enough to make them his. He also took from the Bible and Abraham Lincoln, without giving attribution. Is he trying to give us the impression he made-up these cliches himself?

Shame on Leonid.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
Landon,I agree and that what I want to add.
A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom to act within a social context .Only one fundamental right exists—namely, the right to live. All other moral principles that qualify as rights are corollaries of this. To sustain, benefit, and enjoy his life, man has to obtain values.
All values—material and spiritual—have to be created by purposeful action or obtained via free and fair exchange.
Creation is a function of the mind. Since there is no such a thing as a collective mind, all values are properties of the individual that created them. Therefore, property rights are inalienable exactly as right to live.
Without freedom, no creation is possible, since the mind cannot function to its full capacity under coercion. Thus, the right for freedom is essential for human life and inalienable as well. Man can obtain values only when he acts within his own rights, which means without coercion. There is no such thing as the right to violate the rights of other people. Using physical force or fraud to obtain valuable things will render the thing obtained, and indeed the person himself, valueless, because he does not have a rightful claim on what he obtained.
In conclusion, values can be obtained only by rational action while a person is acting within his own inalienable rights. Freedom is the precondition to such an action. Everything which one may obtain by any other means will render the thing valueless.If person is living by charity, he does not posses any values by right; he is living by the permission of others. If a person is a slave or living under a dictatorship, his very life belongs to the master or to the state. For him, no values are possible. In the case of the welfare state, wealth redistribution renders donors of the wealth valueless, since their property rights are violated by the use of physical force (tax collection). The recipients are valueless as well, since they are living by the permission of the state, which can be revoked any time.
That makes the difference between a salary and a welfare check and it amounts to the difference between slavery and freedom. People who live by force or by fraud fool themselves and some others that they exist as human beings.They are parasites who totally depend on their victims.But who is living by sword will perish by sword and nobody can fool all the people all the time.(passage from my article "Values,Reason,rights and Freedom.See full article on "Rational Argumentator website)

Violence qua violence is a very useful tool of man--indispensable, really.

Unprovoked murder, fraud, or theft are not in an individual's long term survival interests.

Cooperation, free trading of value for value, and a sense of benevolence born of the acknowledgment of man's life as the standard of value--which leads to each man valuing not only his life, but the lives of other men as well. This is the very definition of a healthy psychology.

You can always tell an unhealthy psychology where there is constant criticism of everyone else, and an inordinate concern with what others are doing. A healthy mind understands that we each have a responsibility to ourselves, and how we choose to exercise that responsibility, so long as it does not affect us, is up to each individual, no matter how wrong-headed they may be.

A free trader no long earns a living when all know he is a cheat or thief.

No one wants to associate with a violent murderer, nor can one be trusted.

There are laws against the unprovoked use of force.

Inherent in your question seems to be the premise that murder and theft are actually GOOD for those who perpetrate them. They aren't.

Even if they are kept a secret and one is never caught or punished, there is psychological baggage associated with carrying that sort of secret, and implications for the individual in the future if he or she holds premises which allow him or her to exhibit such behavior or consider such behavior within the realm of the accceptable.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

"I understand that life is the primary value to a human being, but I don't see how using force (theft, murder etc) would be contrary to that goal."

I have a suggestion:

Why don't you go commit a murder and find out for yourself?

I'm not kidding.

I've been having a lot of discussions along this line with a friend from work lately. It's along the line of theft, murder, taking government aid, "playing the game" in business (either as management/an entrepeneur or an employee). I've basically conceded that it actually seems to be better off long run.

As long as you get away with it you will be more successful using evil means than honest ones. But the whole foundation is built on shakey ground. If you're a simple theif, you're at the mercy of the victim pool. They may learn about your tactics, and avoid the area in which you opperate or worse, they may arm themselves and end your parasitic little life (I'm speaking of course as if I was actually speaking to a person who survived through theivary).

If you take government aid you're at the mercy of some bearaucrats whim. You might be getting more and more money with each child you produce one moment, and the next cut down to a one time allowance. You might be offered food stamps, but know you'll have the offer revoked if you want to work for spending money. You may be comfortably raising your child and or relaxing 24/7 one day, and then legally obligated to work somewhere the next.

As for murder, there isn't much reason that it would actually further your life or sustain it the same way theivary does. Unless of course you're a canibal, and in this day and age the only living canibals in civilized society have it as more of a sexual fixation than a legitimate means of keeping themselves fed. But the key thing here is that by violating the right to life of others you void your own. Anyone who makes an attempt on your life at that point is completely justified in doing so because you are a dangerous person who no longer deserves to be treated as human. There are of course exceptions to this rule along the lines of men who use retalitory force soldiers following the rules of engagement, some law enforcement officials and individuals who defend themselves against other individual attackers.

The key factor is that rights can only be excercised and protected in the absence of force. That is the condition of rights within society. If someone can use force, anyone can use force at any time and no one is ever safe to go about their lives in any genuine capacity.

But as for theft as a way of life. I think even Rand as much as admitted that in the current society, it is easier to live that way initially, but eventually you'll start to notice that there's something very very wrong with the world around you. And by the time you realize this, it's often too late to do something about it because you've become a huge part of what's wrong with the world around you.

---Landon

The price of liberty is eternal VIGILANCE.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

Let’s examine this statement by Leonid:

Life is the primary value,but human being can live only as human being,namely as rational animal.That means he cannot survive as animals do-by using force. Physically man is no match to animals and will not survive without mind. By using mind man adjusts his environment to his needs and creates artificial environment (noosphere) in which he can live.Now mind and force are antagonists. Fear paralises mind. Nobody can invent or create anything new,even as much as nail on gunpoint.Initiation of force therefore is anti-mind and anti-life (life in human sense).

Is it true that man cannot survive as animals? Many humans seem to do so. They work at jobs which they claim trained monkeys could do. Some don’t even do that. They eat and sleep and produce waste, or one might say they give back to the earth. They also produce greenhouse gasses, but so do cows. And, do cows and carnivorous animals use force? Not really. They eat grass. They don’t bother anyone, other than producing greenhouse gasses. Most animals adjust their environment to their needs. Birds build nests. Beavers bui