Michael Archer

QWERTY was never designed for touch-typing, Alyxx. It's normal to have to look down. While learning, I printed out a layout of Dvorak and put it beside my keyboard; the alternative was buying a Dvorak keyboard, but I didn't want to get used to looking at the keys. I forgot to mention that there's no solid, empirical, peer-reviewed evidence that Dvorak is better than QWERTY. But I'll take Dvorak since at least it was designed with efficiency in mind, as opposed to QWERTY.

..... I now feel personally offended that I'm not a mod.

Ross, we won't be mad at you if you choose to not put out a Freeman's Mind every week and choose to work on Civil Protection. You're the creator and the artist, you shouldn't let your "fans" tell you what to make (ironically, if you don't WANT to work on Civil Protection, I'm way out of line lol) You took three years to make the last episode; it was worth every second. You should make what you want to make and don't let people tell you how to create. Everyone else, post here if you agree. Or disagree, to generate discussion.

Very funny episode! I don't know how much I like mellow Freeman though.

I hate Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time; not in the sense that "these games shouldn't have be made, they're so bad" but in the sense that "these games are incredibly frustrating and the puzzles unintuitive and I can't sleep until I beat this damn game." Maybe the games get better on the second playthrough. But some of those puzzles temples have no right to exist; fuck you, Great Bay Temple. Call of Duty is a mindless shooter, anyone who tries to get anything more than that out of them is going to be disappointed. If people hate Team Fortress 2 because of the hats and because of the fact that Valve ruined perfectly good gameplay design, I seriously don't blame you. I don't like the hats either, but now that they're there, I HAVE TO HAVE THEM.

Yup: Mother Theresa or baby-eating, as Yahtzee put it. We'd all like a baby-eating Mother Theresa grey area. I never played System Shock 2; maybe that's why I thought it was fresh and original. No offense Ross, but I find that the only people who think Objectivism is flawed are people that don't fully understand it. I've heard "doesn't work with reality" before; Objectivism states that reality exists independent of reality and is objective. To say it doesn't work with reality is to say that reality is subjective and created by the human mind a.k.a. the plot of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Really? The dialogue is one of my favorite parts. I love it when Dagny or Hank tell off the socialists and subjectivists. Or I hear there's this great speech at the end...don't spoil it!

What keyboard layout to you use? Right now, the de facto layout is QWERTY. A few years ago, I made the decision to Dvorak; it's one of the best decisions I've ever made. I'm now typing on a keyboard that shows QWERTY letters, but outputs in Dvorak e.g. when I press the "h" key, it outputs a "d". Just think: if Dr. Dvorak patented the design during the roaring 20's it could now be the de facto layout. Instead, he had to patent it during the Great Depression. I'm tempted to learn Dvorak for left-hand. Does anyone use this? Is it good?

Well, from a certain point of view, being anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty requires less cognitive dissonance than being pro-abortion and anti-death-penalty. Not really. Death penalty is killing a human being. Abortion is not killing a human being, since it does not exist as a separate entity and by definition, has no rights. I'm ambivalent on the death penalty thing though; morally, it's correct but epistemologically, it's too dangerous and we have too much to lose than gain. Workers aren't the only money expense; what about supplies? If they're also provided by free will, you're pretty much describing charity: an institution I have no qualms with. Some people (myself included) would rather see the postal system and education run by the profit-making industry where they compete for our business; rather than the government creating harmful monopolies by outlawing all their competition, getting to decide what's taught to the kids and where the parents can't decide what education is best for their kid. Most people (myself included) don't want their money physically extorted to pay for someone else's kids unearned benefit. Does he have the right to shoot them if they attack his property? I disagree. A fetus has no concept of "fair" or for the well-being of its host; it will suck out all the nutrients it needs, even at the expense of its host. Before modern medicine, many mothers died because of child birth and poor nutrition. It's only an attack if the host does not want it. "The betterment of the people/community" is an undefinable term, since all a "community" is, is just a collection of individuals. Almost no one has a universally common interest except freedom. That's what the government secures. I also don't think I need to remind you that due to the subjective nature of "the betterment of the community", it has been used throughout history as a justification for many of the greatest evils ever brought upon man. Human life is the standard for all rights. What's needed to sustain life is good; what destroys it is bad, in a moral sense. If one's life (fetus) destroys other life (mother), then the destroyer has no rights. Even if it wasn't destroying a life i.e. the mother wants to raise a child; it still has no rights, since rights are absolutes and do not exist by permission. You say tomato; I say, "shitty working conditions that should be remedied by more economic freedom and not by the government hindering production which made life livable in the first place." Sperm and egg and just as much a stage of human life as the fetus. Just because it's unavoidable fact that fetus needs to be carried, does not a mean a human being is under obligation to see that through. If there was an obligation, that means that a human being does not exist by right for themselves, but exists to serve society. I wouldn't say "humans have the right to torture animals", but I would say "animals have no rights and get no government protection." That's all. Again, you're making the mistake of equating the potential with the actual. There's huge metaphysical difference between between a fetus that may eventually be a full grown adult with rights, then a full grown adult who actually does. Potential is not the actual (for example, two people independently create the exact same thing and they both rush to the patent office at the same time, but Person A trips and falls and doesn't make it to the patent office and Person B gets the patent does not mean Person A is entitled to anything; the fact that Person A could have been first, does not change the fact that he wasn't. Can you imagine if Person A tried to sue B? "I want royalties for this product that I patented after this guy, because I could've invented that!") and nature forces us to treat them differently; even if you don't like that, you can't do anything about it. The same applies to any natural law e.g. even if you don't like gravity, there's nothing you can do about it. Also, that hypothetical scenario I posted is not too far from removed from reality. Ever hear of a guy name Antonio Meucci? Neither has anyone else. He put in the patent for the telephone before Graham Bell, but he was too poor to pay the fee. When Bell put in his patent, Mucci sued him, but died before the trial could finish. That's why Graham Bell gets the credit. When you adopt a child, you're voluntarily assuming legal guardianship. It's like a contract held in force, but like all contracts, it's initially agreed to voluntarily.

[quote]How about answering the question?[/quote] I've always advocated individual rights being upheld; this is no way comes with the right to own slaves. [quote]Also, what gender is Walmart?[/quote] Do you have Asperger Syndrome? I ask, because people who do take things extremely literally. Walmart, [i]for all intents and purposes[/i], is a person i.e. it has the same rights as a person; no more, no less. [quote] I know, in the interests of Democracy, let's advocate for stripping ALL such groups of these powers! Not just the ones that will donate mainly to our political opponents![/quote] Democracy? Are you a statist, Doom Shepard? [quote]I voted for anarchy, it only comes nearest to what I want though (the classic anarchy is to crude imho). What I like would be a 'gift economy'. There is probably a fancy name for it, but I don't know it. In short: Everyone gives what he can and everyone gets what he wants.[/quote] Anarchy is indeed, statism. But that's not anarchy; "from each, according to his ability" is communism.

Let's look at reality and then the speculation and then moral issues: There is some legitimate evidence that the global temperature is rising and melting the ice caps, but there's no solid evidence linking human emissions that are causing it; this is reality. There is no "conspiracy", although some groups are using this to their advantage. The environmentalists hate capitalism and human production; that's why they protest every factory they can. This is the perfect excuse for them to stop production since saying "if they don't stop, we're all going to die!" is more reasonable than "we're socialists who hate capitalism, wealth and human production so they should stop." If it is true, the extent we'd have to cut back to save the planet would be catastrophic for humans. Everything you take for granted e.g. transportation, your computer, your house being heated during the winter, hospitals using energy to save lives; would have to be used parsimoniously. The earth's value is determined only by how much human's can use it; this is the very definition of value: supply and demand. The environmentalists are trying to convince you that nature's worth exists outside of reality i.e. that it has an "intrinsic" value not objectively defined, but only what they decide it is. I don't know the solution to the global warming "problem", if it's even a problem and if humans are even causing it, but I do know that the solution does not involve cutting back our production and the centuries of progression of our species. I refuse to let the government infringe on our right to life and property any further.

I hope to own an M1 Garand sometime in the future. I don't think the Canadian government will have qualms with a heavy, long, eight-magazine rifle. Also, if I have a little bit more free time and money after my M1, I want to own an 1861 Springfield Rifled Musket. I'd actually prefer a good quality one that can fire real bullets than a restored old-fashion one that I'd be afraid to shoot for fear of breaking it. Why do I want this ancient muzzle-loader? Well, look me in the eyes and tell me this isn't cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2zYhtC38PU&t=2m2s [quote]As far as I know (which is not much), the people against the American Gun Registry are people who fear that if their weapons are registered, the Government will take their guns away from them (a false assertion) or that the Government will have the power to take their guns away from them.[/quote] Not really. I think the biggest fear is that it costs a shitload of money and doesn't really do anything, and operates under the assumption that anyone that owns a gun is a psychopath until proven otherwise. Now that Harper has his majority, maybe Canada will finally get rid of the stupid, ineffectual registry. [quote] Driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege.[/quote] Because having the right to drive a car implies you have the right to use other people's property without permission. The government "owns" the roads in a sense, so they can choose who can ride on it. Ideally, the roads should be owned by corporations, but even then, the corporations would decide who gets to drive on it under what conditions. Owning a car though, that's a right.

What are these "quotes" I keep hearing about that are gone? But more importantly, how does this fix the problem that point of reputation is inherently flawed?

Is Alyxx a friend of Ross or something? Or has she been here for a long time, before Accursed Farms and when Ross made his first video? If the latter, it's nice to see that Ross can trust someone he's only met on the internet. Moderating a forum has nothing to do with how frequently someone comes there, posts, or even how much they contribute to discussions; it's 100% trust. Ross has to trust that the mod will be the objective mind needed to make sure the boards are neat and tidy.

"He says what we're all thinking!"

I like everyone. Seriously, there's no one who's off-putting or offensive. That's saying a lot. But if I had to choose someone? Chell, simply because for all intents and purposes, she's me. I'm supposed to identify with her.

I can not even begin describe how much I don't care.

I'm on a Macbook pro. I'm just a tiny bit ashamed of that...

I literally coughed while eating something when I read this. How could you possibly think I'm a fascist? There's no difference between fascism and socialism. I swear, I haven't voted in this poll. Where are those three great minds? I MUST MEET THEM. i.e. lack of any objective body to establish laws and order i.e. the individual is left to the whim of the first thug he meets. I do look deeper then into the dictionary definition, Bullseye. Yup. You mean as in having the same rights as an individual? Yup. Are you guys even reading what I'm typing?

That's what I was going for. I've always identified and liked Rainbow Dash the most; she's an egoist and she refuses to let anyone hold her back or tell her what to do. The only issue I've had with her was that she sided with the buffalo herd in that one episode when the settlers are clearly in the right, but I can excuse that simply because that episode was awful. BUT THAT'S FOR ANOTHER TIME, PLACE AND THREAD That's fine. But the question is: Do you think refusing to sell medicine to a certain person should be illegal and that a corporation should be physically compelled by the government and at a price set by the government to do so? How does the government fund it? The government doesn't produce anything; the only money it gets is what it can take from its citizens. The government forces people to do work for them without any compensation. How is that not slavery? Because you're talking to myself personally, I'm going to assume that you're speaking of a hypothetical situation where I actually invented some life saving medicine. Because it's mine. It would've not existed without me. I brought it into this world, I can take it out. I don't care that you think that you're entitled to a millisecond of my life, or a joule of my effort. Now, you can morally condemn me all you want, that's fine; you may even be right in a sense. But the part where I take issue is when you say that you have the moral right to tell the government to use the police to take my work out of my hands. Babies have rights, but because they're rational capacity is not up to the level of an adult, they have different rights e.g. a baby cannot own property. I have never said that the basis of rights is defined by what you give back. Just because we can survive by force and we have, doesn't make it right. So? My view of rights is that man has the right to his own life and his labor. This and what you said are not mutually exclusive. Yes, I did say that. But I also think that the Westboro Baptist Church is disgusting and perverse, but I don't go around saying that either should be outlawed. A fetus sucking nutrients and resources out of its host without its host consent could be seen as an attack. By your reasoning, I should not be allowed to defend myself from the hyena. The hyena isn't doing anything wrong, it's doing an unavoidable part of its nature. Sorry, I couldn't help but think of the that Red vs. Blue skit. Moving on: I agree with everything you said here, except a bit of the tax thing; I never said anything to the contrary. You do have a moral obligation to pay the government to protect your freedoms; how else would you secure your freedoms like the right to your life? Again, what I take issue with is the government using the police to forcibly take your money to pay for things you don't want to fund and are unnecessary for securing your freedoms (unnecessary is anything but the police, court, and military) If you wanted (keyword: wanted) to fund things like social security or public healthcare, you could donate to private charities. Of course. Who decides what that capacity is? No one "decides" what human rights are; they're requirements when dealing with other people e.g. nature requires that you own property to sustain your life. This is why you have the right to property. Rights can only be violated through force. If we want to live in a civilized society, we can't be violating each others rights. A fetus does not have rights because its only requirement to feed off the resources provided by its hosts. And like you said, you have the right to defend your life if it's being threatened. Property=life, so you also have the right to defend your property is threatened. You body is your property, so you have the right to defend that too. I don't understand; so they have nowhere else to work, so it's exploitation to provide them with jobs? Are you saying that the children are being physically forced to work? In that case, yes, that's bad and that should be illegal. What's the issue? So...we need someway to protect individuals from themselves because they can't see that they're being stupid? Also, just because you see something as being exploitation, doesn't mean that the "victim" does. Isn't that what forcing people to stay pregnant is? Oh, I beg to differ. But hey, that's just me. Can we at least agree that an amoeba, despite being just as much alive as you and me, has no rights? "Rights" are freedom to action. Because you have the right to speak freely, would you demand that the government forces other people to give you a microphone and be forced to listen to you? All that the "Right to speak freely" means that it's immoral for someone else to not let you speak i.e. use force against you. If a fetus has the right to survive, that means that no one can morally impede the actions it must take to survive. This does not mean that someone else is forced to make it survive, but this is what would entail if you outlawed abortion. A fetus does not have rights (i.e. freedoms of action) because the only action is takes is parasitic and there is no right to live as a parasite. To sanction this action would be to use the police to force people to abandon their free-will and lose their property (their body) without their permission. An animal attacking you is an unavoidable and natural part of life, yet for some reason, you're still morally allowed to use your rational self-interest and defend yourself. So, I guess that means that the police would have to investigate any miscarriages that looked suspicious. It seems wrong for a police officer to coldly interrogate a grieving couple. Would it still be legal for someone to abort their fetus themselves? Yes, but you can not claim guardianship and give it up for adoption when it's born. Forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will is morally equivalent to forcing someone to take care of a baby against their will. _____________________________________________________ I really should come this forum more often; there's so much I need to respond to. "Murder" is the taking of a human being's life against their will using force. Abortion is not murder, since a fetus is a potential and not an actual human being. For all intents and purposes, it is part of the woman.. I have a hard time believing that corporations pay money to woman so that they will grow fetus' and then abort them. I dare you to look at that little piece of protoplasm two weeks into the pregnancy and call that a "living human child." To equate that with an actual baby is ridiculous. I'm not. What I do advocate is that people have the rights to their lives and property and they get to decide how they use that to the best of their ability. I do not think you have the right to tell them how to use their body. __________________________________________ Not really. Killing someone who is threatening your life is killing someone, but is very pro-life. Fuck. I hate the label "pro-life" since it's applied to people blow up abortion clinics and murder other people in the name of "life". To a lesser extent, I also hate the label "pro-choice." _______________________________________________________ Geneaux and I are intellectuals of this thread, if post size has anything to do with that. The rest of you just have little squabbles among yourselves.

Now when you say "Gun Control," I assume you mean like people have to obtain a permit, no handguns, you have to call the government every time you want to transport one; I assume you mean how it's like in Canada. If we're taking the liberal's definition of Gun Control, no; gun control is bad. There's lots of practical reasons why gun control laws are stupid (is a psychopath who is willing to commit one of the most egregious crimes of all (murder) really going to follow gun control laws?), but we should be talking from a moral stance. Morality always wins over practicality, as it should. If life is the standard of all rights, and our society is founded on those rights, then absolutely we should be allowed to own guns. There are a lot of legitimate and peaceful reasons a civilian would want to own a gun e.g. target practice, sport, hunting. We have the right to pursue our own happiness and if shooting guns in our backyard (assuming you're not putting anyone's life in danger), there's nothing morally harmful in that. But what about handguns? Aren't they specifically designed to kill human beings? Yes, but they should also be allowed. If you have the right to life, logic dictates that you must also have the right to self-defense. If you have the right to self-defense, it also follows that you have the right to own tools for self-defense. Think about it: it would be weird to say you have the right to life and self-defense without saying you have the right to weapons necessary for that. It would be like saying you have the right to life, but not the right to buy food. Pistols, were designed for defense. Only Jack Bauer assaults a building with a dinky little handgun. A handgun was designed for quickly defending yourself while you fall back to find ammo for your assault rifle or something. There are some weapons that should be banned, however e.g. there is no reason someone would own an RPG. An RPG is a fully offensive weapon; it is used for no other purpose. You don't compete with an RPG, nor do you defend yourself against a mugger with an RPG.

No need to apologize about your wall of text; it was a good read. A society based on rights derived from the right to property could have some issues as all rights (including the right to property) come from life as the standard. I guess a strike against Ryan is that we don't really know how his government worked; for all we know, he could've been the benevolent monarch, which could allow him to turn it into a dictatorship. He did murder his girlfriend, so I guess he isn't the greatest guy in the world. Ryan was at war and during war, the enemy has no rights. When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, he did it for all rebelling states. It's not just the soldiers who lost it, it was the civilians too (I hear many civilians were brutally killed during Sherman's March to the Sea-the campaign that one the war for the Union). Langford was helping Atlas who was a violent enemy of the state; that's treason. In response to your proposition that it was wrong for Ryan to turn off the air because of the truly innocent lives that would be lost: Ryan can not be blamed when innocent people die when he acts in retaliation. The blame goes to who started hostilities. This is, of course, assuming Ryan's government was legitimate (I'm starting to question that; I just assumed it was because of the whole speech at the beginning).

I love those audio logs. What a great character! Ryan is right. At war, times are desperate. Have you been listening to Leonard Peikoff's podcast? There was one where he said that because we're at war, we shouldn't let a mosque be built and ground zero. Ryan needed to destroy Atlas in the quickest, most efficient way possible. Questioning things would objectively make him look weak; he couldn't afford that. Questioning should happen after the war takes place. Oh shit; I'm reading the Bioshock wiki now. Ryan murdered Anna Culpepper because she was writing songs that disagreed with him? Yeah, this is murder. I'm still trying to find a way why this was justified; I don't think I will find one. I just really, really, like Andrew Ryan. I disregarded the signs as akin to people demanding freedom in the Soviet Union as a justification for the Bolsheviks. I thought the Apollo Square massacre was media hype and propaganda? I could be wrong about that. I just reread my post too. That really did make me sound like a dick. I'll clarify now: In the United States and Canada (and I would imagine other first world countries), prisoners can file a writ of Habeas Corpus if they think they were imprisoned unfairly. Rights of the accused, as Ayn Rand put it, "The rights of the accused are not a primary—they are a consequence derived from a man’s inalienable, individual rights. A consequence cannot survive the destruction of its cause. What good will it do you to be protected in the rare emergency of a false arrest, if you are treated as the rightless subject of an unlimited government in your daily life?" In 1861, Lincoln was elected into the White House. And then there was actual rioting, decelerations of succession yada, yada, yada, over half a million people died. Lincoln was (and is to this day) sharply criticized for suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus during the war. When I heard about this, this really startled me, so I wrote to Leonard Peikoff and asked him what he thought about this. While I didn't get a response from him personally, I got a response from a guy named Tore Boeckmann who Peikoff said he had "great confidence in his knowledge and intellectual ability." This is what he said: "In wartime, the enemy has no rights. The common libertarian criticism of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is unfounded. The Constitution authorizes the suspension in wartime and rebellion. Lincoln was responding to actual rioting, insurrection, and acts of treason. Remember, a conspiracy of treasonous slaveholders were using force against a legitimate government in the name of the supposed "right" to hold human beings in chains, as property." How is this related? I view Ryan's de-oxygenating of Arcadia similar to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, for the same reasons. Ryan had actual rioting, insurrection and treason in the name of the right to own the fruits of another's labor. Ryan's government was founded on Objectivism which is a legitimate basis, as I'm sure you'd agree. Julie's attempt to reverse the oxygen thing supply made her an enemy of the state. When you're at war, you don't treat the enemy-people who are trying to bring down the very values for which your government stands (such as habeas corpus and the rights of the accused) the same way you treat purse snatchers. This is what I mean when I said Ryan rightfully suppressed enemies of the state. It would be different if Ryan was actually a tyrant and his government was illegitimate. Was it? That's the question. If it was, then Julie's execution would've been immoral and evil. Multiplayer was terrible. Wanna hear the worst part? Because you leveled up so quickly, I thought it would take me no time at all to get to level forty and get that achievement. By the time I was level thirty, it took forever, but it was too late to turn back... Why didn't I like Bioshock 2? Possibly because there was not enough Andrew Ryan. Maybe it was because gameplay revolved around babysitting Little Sisters while they extracted ADAM (I hate escort missions). Maybe it's because I thought the ending was unsatisfying. But it's probably because the only good parts (I thought) were the parts that reminded me of the first game. Also, Bioshock 1's opening sequence was one of the best (if not the best) I've ever seen. Bioshock 2 had a disappointing opening sequence; there was no interactivity (which differs video games from movies). It would've been cool if they treated the opening sequence like a tutorial level. When Lamb tells you to take out your pistol, the game would say "Use right analog stick to aim" and then you would have to maneuver it to your head. Then when she said "fire" it would say "press right trigger to fire" and the game would not let you continue until you did this. If Infinite were to come out today, I would not buy it. Bioshock 1 and 2 appealed to me because of the whole Objectivism thing. That's gone in Infinite.

I have a crazy idea. If you don't like the show, don't watch it. I cannot agree more. Down with the reputation system! I guess it doesn't bother me enough to make me stop posting here.

I've yet to see one argument against capitalism that does not also include an argument for the notion that some men have the right to initiate force on other men i.e. that they have the right to their lives and effort and the right to hold them as slaves. Heh, I never thought about it that way! I guess the ant was a poor animal choice, huh? I always thought ants were communists. They always seemed to be ok with the whole, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" thing. But I don't really think that was the point of the story. Company store? Are you saying that the money wasn't yours that you earned from working in the mine? Are you saying that they forced you (with threats) to buy only from their store? But assuming you were always free to negotiate the terms of your employment and walk away, that's lassiez-faire.

And how is protecting the product of your mind and life (an invention, such as medicine) a bad thing? And like I said before, to take away one's liberty and self-autonomy is a death sentence since you need those things to survive. If someone's reason and best interest is telling them that they will not be happy if they carry the baby to full term and then somebody like you uses the police to force them to not let them pursue their own values, that is a death sentence. This implies that you have the right to the lives and effort of other people. This implies that you have the right to own slaves. But you just said that it's ok for corporations to patent inventions....you know what? Never mind. On the moral side: by what right can you use force to take the fruits of labor away from another? Again, your notion implies that you have the right to the lives and effort of other people. On the practical side, passing a law that would not allow for corporations to choose to whom they sell their medicine and under what circumstances would be counter-productive. It would make sure that corporations would never make life-saving medicine again. Why should they if there's no profit? It costs a lot of money to make it...I don't even think YOU would sink that much money into something that won't get you something in return. If you're in agreement, I suggest we drop this section of our discussion, since it's not really relevant. I posted quite a bit about this in the Capitalism vs. Statism thread. Irrelevant. I'll rephrase that: A fetus is different from a baby, so nature forces us to treat them differently the same way nature forces us to treat a newly planted tree differently than a fully grown oak tree. Are you happy now? Again, that's not what I said. I said that rights are conditions of existence given by the very definition of human beings. Rights are a social thing. If you're on a desert island, the issue of rights would not arise. A fetus feeds off the nutrients provided by its host. That's an action, isn't it? Not dictating, but rather saying why we have them. There's a difference. Babies have rights because they're completley separate entities and all their actions are social. The interaction you're describing between humans and how they exchange things is called a "trade." This is exactly where rights come into play. Since rights are necessary for survival, if one wants to live in a peaceful society, one has to respect the rights of his fellow man. If one doesn't respect their rights, one is using force. Force is death, since rational mind doesn't work with the barrel of a gun pointed to it. Then what does? Whenever someone initiates force, someone's rights get violated. ALWAYS. To survive properly, as I explained before, humans need to be free to do a lot of peaceful, non-force things (rights). For animals to survive, they initiate force. Animals don't have rights as part of their identity. The government's job is to protect rights and animals don't have rights, so the government shouldn't do anything. Granted, torturing an animal is still disgusting and perverse, but so is advocating genocide. Both things should not be illegal. Contrary to the world? How so? I assume you mean animals. Why do they have the right to not be abused? I seem to recall that animals abuse each other in the wild all the time as part of their survival. Have you ever seen a hyena catching and eating its prey? They actually eat it while it's still alive. Now, rights confer moral responsibilities on another. There's absolutely nothing immoral about how a hyena survives; it's a condition of existence. But this need to initiate force is exactly why animals don't have rights. Did I ever say that if you harm another person, you're not responsible? By "aid", I think you mean trade. You do realize that resources' limit is only as much as humans can produce, right? Resources are produced by humans and humans need freedom to do that (i.e. they need people and governments to respect their rights). Of course a government needs to be funded. But the fact that you can not even imagine a society where government property is owned by, say, public corporations, means that the current government has done such a good job with their propaganda and has convinced you that statism is the only way to fund it. It needs to be funded, but like you said, the only rights it has are rights that the people give them. So if I don't have the right to take money from you, I can't give that right to a government. As for rent thing: if the person doesn't like my terms and conditions, they should move out. You can't really just move out of a country (assuming you only have one citizenship). You exist by right, not permission. However, with the apartment thing, you live in the apartment only by the tenets described in your agreement with the landlord; it's private property. This is why a baby's rights are different than a grown human e.g. a baby can't own property. Well, forcing children to work is never morally right. Did I ever say it was? Well, then I guess the job they're performing isn't required by the market. It's unproductive work. Which is not really work. Which does not really deserve a decent wage. The workers are grown people. If they think they're being exploited, then they should work for someone who isn't exploiting them. Business' compete for workers. It's morally right because no force is being involved. If you don't mind, could you please post your responses to all my corporation stuff in the Capitalism vs. Statism thread? It's not really related to the topic anymore. I think it's less right to take a personal hit by doing so. That's a double standard; why is it bad to help yourself at the cost of other people, but it's good to help other people at the cost of yourself? Unless, of course, you choose for it to come at a cost to yourself, but then that's your decision and that your value that you're pursuing. Then that's not really altruism, is it? Aristotle? I love the man to death; he was one of the first great thinkers and one of the first people to propose the notion of "natural rights". But he did often get stuff wrong, like how he said we thought with our hearts and how we only have five senses. In this case, the "truth lies between the two extremes" is an example of the Golden Mean Fallacy. Even though he was a great thinker, he was human, and he made mistakes. I don't see how extreme selfishness is bad, honestly. But my point is that the conditions in which the fetus survives entails no rights. To say that the fetus has the right to life would mean to say that it has the right to live inside a woman without her permission. If it has rights, that means the government has to protect those rights and force the woman to carry it to the full term. That means that the woman's body doesn't belong to herself, but to the government to dispose in any way it sees fit. It means she lives by permission, not right. Yeah, we disagree there. You think that it's a moral duty to help other people and to sacrifice yourself to others, which is pretty much altruism. We don't really disagree on the definition of life, per se; we disagree on the fetus' conditions of existence warrant rights. I never said that helping people will never benefit you. On the contrary, helping people can sometimes return big dividends that money can't buy. But that's selfishness to do something nice for someone else because you like to do that and you think it will pay off in the end, isn't it.