Michael Archer

Wow, that's awesome: it really is a heatmap of the concentration of capitalism and production.

I'm going to respond to following propositions as if it's not possible for rights to violate other rights. Before you say, "yes they can in a world with limited resources", hear me out. I thought it was self-evident, but I guess it's not: Rights are moral principles defining what people can do in social situations. Nature gives man a bunch of abilities necessary for survival; rights just define those e.g. in order to survive, a man must be able to own property, therefore, man has the right to property. Rights show the capacities of man's nature as a rational being. Rights can only be violated through the initiation of force. The reason for this is that violence and reason are opposites; force can quell reason in any way it sees fit. So to imply that rights can violate rights, you're implying that you have the right to initiate force on other people. Which is statism. Individual lifestyle choices taken by other people will never affect you. Even if they did, if you can prove they affected you negatively, you would have a claim. Bad lifestyle choices only affect the individual involved. It's not your place to teach that lesson. I actually do have to somewhat agree with what you said in your parenthesis; I've seen many very stupid pro-abortionists saying stuff like "It's not human!" But on the other hand I've seen many stupid anti-abortionists saying stuff like "It's a baby!" The anti-abortionists give informative information on how it's done, but this is mostly an Appeal to Emotion fallacy. And I have to admit, I'm pretty ignorant about the actual, physical process of abortion. The most I know is that the woman is pregnant; now she's not. But the process is irrelevant; this is an issue of rights. Actually: can I make a motion to change the names of "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice?" I hate both. Anti-abortion is anti-life, and "Pro-Choice" is stupid (does she have the right to choose to rob people?). Strawman. I'm not entertaining this. Again, the fetus doesn't have the right to life since it exists as a parasite. How a woman chooses to use her body is her own choice. There's nothing wrong with teaching people life lessons...as long as the "teachers" are parents and the "people" are children. You have no place to be lecturing people on life lessons if they're not your child. That's fine. But your view says that it's morally ok to sometimes initiate force on other human beings depending on an arbitrary definition e.g. forcing people to pay minimum wage, forcing people to stay pregnant against their will. Which is statism. There's a thread for that. A fetus does not have the right to live, since there's no such thing as the right to initiate force. You also can't argue that the fetus has the right to life without arguing that the woman in question doesn't have the right to life. You don't have the right to initiate force, but you do have the right to use retaliatory force in the defense of your life and property. Your body is your property; do you dispute this? You have the right to use your property the way you see fit, as long as you aren't using it to initiate force (whenever I say "initiate force", you can substitute this with "violate rights" if you wish; the two are synonymous.) on other people. You don't morally have to use your property to support someone else, if you wish e.g. you don't have feed and clothe other people without them giving anything back to you in return, if you don't want to. Life does not simply mean the absence of death. Life involves all the actions necessary is sustaining ones life, like creating wealth, owning property, using reason. If you don't have the right to property and liberty, you can't sustain your life; they're requirements i.e. if you don't do any of these things, YOU WILL DIE. Let me put it this way: it would be absurd to suggest that you have the right to life, but not the right to buy food. It's not a strawman at all; your view of rights is not just similar, it's identical. Your view is, if I'm understanding this correctly, that we all have the capacity to experience pain at the same level. So we should try to stop that pain. This is where rights come in. If so, you share this view exactly with Singer. I had to read part of "Animal Liberation" for high school and Singer says that rights are exactly as you define them: ability to experience pain=the source of rights. If you accept this premise, all the other anti-human things I posted logically follow. You might not be a utilitarian, but the view on rights certainly comes from that philosophy. That's why we punish humans who behave like animals. They respect each other's territories under the threat of being killed i.e. anarchy. But what about the other animals that do initiate force? Ugh...I really need to make myself more clear: What if you knew for sure the hobo would die if you kicked him out of your house? Are your property rights negated? Again, not a strawman. It just sounds like one. The million-dollar minimum wage is just as arbitrary as any other minimum wage, was my point. No one is being screwed over; they choose to work at that wage. No one is being screwed over. How about if they don't like the pay, they negotiate higher, or go work for someone who will pay them more? Corporations only have control over themselves, or at least they should; if they have any more, that's the government's fault. Also, this entire quote is Appeal to Pity and you're not convincing anyone. Do you understand the difference between violently using someone as a means to an end and a mutually beneficial, peaceful trade? The key thing here, is that there's no force involved; everything is voluntary. If you can show that a corporation using child labor is using any kind of physical force, that's when I'll morally condemn them. It's not reasonable at all, since you're not taking into account the life of the woman. So you're saying just because someone has the capacity to do something, they have a moral obligation? The fact that it will grow into an adult is irrelevant. The fact that the nature of its existence can't come with any rights, is relevant. Please stop using "we" when talking about rights; there are no such thing as collective rights. You do not have the right to set the conditions of another human being's existence i.e. you do not have the right to force someone to use their resources against their will. We don't. The person who is carrying it does, since there's no right to live as a parasite as there is no such thing as the right to enslave. Ergo, the fetus does not have the right to life since the conditions of it's very existence do not permit it to have such a right. Just because the fetus does not have a choice, doesn't negate one's right to property. Why is it ok for the fetus to dispose of the life of the woman, but it's no ok for the woman to dispose of the life of the fetus? That's a double standard. People have the absolute right to life, liberty and happiness. To force someone to remain pregnant forces them to give up these rights. You cannot say that you value life, when you advocate sacrificing one life to sustain another. You said yourself, that the fetus lives a parasitic existence; in order to survive, it must consume the resources of another. To force someone to give up resources without their consent is to force someone into slavery. The only difference between the process of a fetus becoming a baby and an adult become a corpse is that we can interfere with the latter and not the former. What's your point? Daniel is right: if we start calling fetus' "babies", by the same logic, we can call adults "corpses" and start treating them as such.

Bullseye, so are you saying we should ban DDT, since there's a few instances of retardation? Instead, should we let those millions of people die? I remember watching an episode of Penn & Teller's show on vaccinations. At the beginning, they said that some people thought vaccines caused autism. Since one out of every one hundred ten kids are autistic nowadays, they had two sets of one hundred ten bowling pins. On one set, the bumped one pin slightly out of line with the others and then they put a big screen over that set that said, "vaccines". They started throwing bowling balls at both groups, which represented diseases. As you can imagine, the bowling balls bounced harmlessly off the "vaccine" screen, but the other group was ravaged. I thought it was a really great analogy. So this is really similar to what I'm thinking: so a few kids step out of line with DDT as opposed almost every single one getting knocked over by malaria.

But that's the thing. "Shoving" implies that there's only one view and everyone who looks at it a different way is wrong and that other people should be forced to believe something else. I believe in a system where the initiation of force is banned, so it makes sense why this is my view of rights. Any other view would advocate the initiation of force. So you can believe what you want to believe; just don't force me to do anything. If you thought that your statement within your parenthesis would somehow assuage my feeling of uneasiness around the sentence before the ellipsis, you're wrong.

Why do you care if other people are irresponsible if it doesn't affect you? It's not up to you to tell people how to run their lives, or their bodies. Besides, abortion is not a pretty or "easy" procedure I hear; I think the person will have learned their lesson afterwards. But even if they hadn't, it's not your place to be teaching other people life lessons.

Not important. The point is that Dave was acting crazy; don't look too much into it.

True. Man has the power to mold the environment the way he sees fit to make life better for himself; that's part of our rational faculty. This is why I see outlawing DDT is immoral. DDT was, as the people who grew up with pokémon would say, super-effective! Malaria was rampant in Africa and millions of people were dying from it; DDT saved millions of people. Sure, there were some animals that were negatively affected by it, but this is the question: would you rather have eagles' egg shell thin, or millions of humans die? I can not even imagine the evil in someone's mind if they said the former. There was no better pesticide than DDT; it saved millions of lives. It was also never proven that it caused cancer in humans.

Power corrupts, Doom Shepherd. My problem with that system is that there are no checks and balances. The problem is that the individual has the power to initiate force; no individual has the right to do that. Just because he can, doesn't mean he has the right. It's also up to the dictator to say what's best and what's not; if he says it's ok to murder people, then it's ok. He could think that letting people murder each other is being nice and benevolent.

I don't think I made myself clear. There are many things that are morally wrong, but are still legal e.g. advocating genocide or harming animals unnecessarily. I don't know if I said this, but I do believe abortion can be morally wrong if it's undertaken on a whim. But I don't think the government should outlaw abortion for the same reason they shouldn't outlaw advocating genocide. It's the government's job to protect rights, not to decide what's morally right and wrong. So in a sense, you're right. Governments only exist to protect rights and just because someone doesn't violate another's rights does not mean the action is moral. That's actually what I mean: I'm not opposed to the anti-abortion movement; I'm opposed to the government outlawing it. But forcing someone to remain pregnant is a violation of rights, which I will get to later. Law is written down and is palpable. Morality and rights are metaphysical. Physical is not the same as metaphysical. This is the same reasoning agnostics use. You're basically saying: "I can't prove my view is true, but you can't prove your view true. Neither of us can prove any view true or false, so I guess we don't know and we will never know." This is a text-book example of an arbitrary statement. To obtain knowledge, humans have to follow strict, objective, epistemological methods. Arbitrary statements have no firm grasp on reality or has it anything to do with how humans think or obtain knowledge. Therefore, arbitrary=irrational. Therefore, I'm dismissing your arbitrary statement. You can't advocating outlawing abortion without advocating statism; it's impossible by definition. Outlawing abortion would be an infringement on individual rights i.e. the right of a woman to her body; the same right that gives her the right to not be raped. Statism is the theory that some people have the right to initiate force on others as opposed to capitalism, which is the theory that only the government may use force and only in retaliation. Outlawing abortion would be initiating force as opposed to retaliatory force, since there is no force being used when someone gets an abortion. If you're going to say "the fetus is being forced to leave" that doesn't count; there is no such thing as a right to another property; you said it yourself earlier when you said the government shoudn't undertake the effort of feeding every single person. Permission is not a right; a right is not permission. Permission can be revoked at any time, and it is not force. We don't owe any favors to the dead; only those that have been objectively and legally defined in a will. Rights are inalienable by definition. Since life is the standard of all rights, your life gives you no moral power to take the life of another, which you would be doing if rights could violate other rights. But you're a statist and you believe silly things like "property rights" don't exist. So I guess in that view, yeah; rights can violate other rights. This is the crux of the argument used by Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation. You know, the same argument that says animals should not be raised for food, they should not be used for pets, we cannot use them for testing to develop life-saving drugs, and it also says that it's completely justified for individuals to destroy private property that's not theirs if it's being used for animal testing. Using the same argument, if we were in a situation where we could only save a chimp or a retarded baby, we would have to sacrifice the baby, since the chimp can feel pain more acutely than adults; Singer actually uses this analogy in his book. This is one of the most evil men I've ever heard of; this man is truly anti-life. The argument is also based on utilitarianism: the theory that "good" is quantifiable and every human should try to increase the good in the world; it's pretty much "the greatest good for the greatest number". Who decides the good? The greatest number. If the greatest number decides that it's ok to go murder certain individuals, then that's moral, under utilitarianism. On top of that, if the government decides that animals have rights for this reason i.e. "Humans can feel pain and humans shouldn't cause each other pain. Therefore, humans shouldn't cause other beings to feel pain in the same capacity.", this would mean that we would have to treat animals differently and not cause them pain but animals would not have to treat us differently and they would morally and legally be allowed to cause us pain; that's insanity. It's not immoral for humans to initiate force on animals for the same reason that it's not immoral for animals to initiate force on each other, or other humans. The only benefit humans can have from animals is through the initiation of force. Even if we were to use this, that means it would follow that since an embryo at two weeks does not have the capacity to feel pain, we would be allowed to aborted it. Rights have no meaning (or relevance for that matter) to any being besides humans. Name one animal that respects other animal's rights to life. Name one animal that is not morally condemned for stealing or initiating force on other animals. Name one animal that establishes governments to protect those rights. What if he can't? What if he's an invalid? My point is that it would be immoral to outlaw kicking hobos out of your house, even if they would die. Why stop there and say less than ten cents an hour is underpayment? Why don't we just force the corporations to pay their workers a million dollars an hour? That will end child labor and poverty and only raise the standard of living! /sarcasm It's not up to you, or any government. to decide what wage after the company makes their money is underpayment and what is not. That is arbitrary and irrational. I don't entertain the arbitrary. Because they know the employees are content with their wages. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Let me bring this up before I forget: An individual, is not a means to an end for you to use and dispose of; an individual has the right to not be a means to an end i.e. a sacrificial animal who belongs to something else. It is insanity to suggest because women have the capacity to carry a fetus to a full term, that they have the moral obligation to continue that term. Nature gives people the power to do a lot of things; it's up to the individual how they will use it and to what extent. Everyone's goals are different. A theoretical physicist has more potential and thus more benefit to man's knowledge that a tabloid editor; however, just because someone has the potential to be a theoretical physicist, does not mean that it's ok to force them to be one if they want to be a tabloid editor. An individual's mind is the tool for deciding what that individual does with the powers that nature gives them; you have no place in deciding for them. Nature has given people the capacity to rape, kill and initiate force on other people; just because we have the power to do this, doesn't mean we should, or it means it is morally right. Just because the fetus can only survive by living as a parasite and a woman is the only one capable of sustaining that life, does not mean that the woman has to carry it to the full term. The individual is not a means to an end you see fit; the individual is the means to themselves and their happiness.

Ok, now you're speaking with firm absolutes. This is good. Still, it's irrational to think anything else. It is right to use our reason; it is right to be rational. If we were irrational, we would die. The mind needs freedom to operate i.e. a mind does not function when a gun is pointed at it. To deal with other humans, the mind must be left free. Rights define that freedom in a social context. Without rights, humans can only deal with each other through force; that's not how the mind works. That's why rights are a fundamental requirement of reason. In a nutshell, to survive with reason, man needs to take certain actions that do not require any permissions (e.g. grow food, buy a house). Rights let him do that. It doesn't matter if you contest this or not; this is reality. Damn, this is starting to sound like The Matrix. No, it's not. I don't have an answer since rights define morality, not the other way around. Me=individual, I responded to that already. I'm selfish in the literal sense of the word; selfish means to act in your own self-interest to sustain your own life. When I eat, I'm sustaining my own life; I'm acting selfishly. The alternative is altuism: the tenant that says your actions are only moral if they benefit someone else. Altruism views it as moral to feed your neighbor while your own body emaciates. Are you implying the former is bad? I am an egoist. I don't believe that I should sacrifice of myself to others, nor do I believe others should sacrifice themselves to me. I guess you're not, since you think that it's ok to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. EXACTLY. The fetus has no choice; i.e. it's actions are not social. Rights are only relevant to people acting in a social context. A baby's actions are social, so it does have rights. That's the arbitrary government which is, again, statism. I think parents have the right to donate the organs of their kids so that others may live. I see this as the same as stem cell research; we're sacrificing something that is dead and no longer has rights so that others may live. No, they don't. Rights cannot infringe on other rights in any way by definition, for the same reason my capacity to reason will never hamper your capacity to reason. A peaceful debate and a street fight are vastly different. One is an exchange of ideas from freedom of thought; no force is being used and in a street fight, force is being used to crush your opponent. There is no force when exercising rights. There is force when sanctioning them, but that's only in retaliation to the initiation of force, which violated the right in the first place. If you seriously think that rights can infringe on other rights, then you do not understand what rights are, where they come from and you have no place to tell me how they work. So that means your "nine times out of ten, a woman will always pull through" response is invalid. The fact that you say certainty when it comes to rights, is not possible means that you're a subjectivist i.e. an irrational person. I've wasted my time. What, the "do unto others" thing? We have rights because we should be nice? It doesn't really hold. Burden of proof is on me too, but I thought I established that already through a few axioms, like "man uses reason" and "reason must be free". So you don't believe certainty is possible. Again, this a core tenet of subjectivism. It is an observation, as I've explained many times. This the observation of reality that exists outside my mind. The fetus is not violating anyone's rights per se; other people are by not allowing her to get an abortion. A fetus stays by permission; a woman who lets a fetus stays retains her autonomy. Just like if I choose to let a hobo stay in my house so I can feed him and clothe him is not a violation of my rights; it would be if someone forced me to do that. The difference is choice vs. force. My point is that the government has no rights except the ones the individuals can give to them. The government may not pass a law that violates a right because an individual is not allowed to violate the rights of any. Then the worker will go work for someone who will pay them better. If your response is "no one will pay them better", then the corporation is paying them what their work is worth if no one is going to pay them better than that. "Fair" is determined objectively by supply and demand. A corporation that is not paying "fairly" is not "wronging"; it is simply acting irrationally as workers will not want to work for them. It's all about reputation. What, like a government sanctioned monopoly? That is bad, but off topic. Legally, yes. Economically, no. Keep in mind, employees negotiate with employers to get a wage that makes everyone happy. This is also off topic.

QuietGrave, you're absolutely right. It all just comes down to capitalism and statism. There's a thread for that. Why is this thread in the Civilization Issues topic anyway?

Reason and trade is man's survival tool. I don't know how you can contest this. I don't think this; I know this. Morality is dependent on rights, not the other way around. If it was the other way around, who would decide what is moral and what is not? If you say "the individual", that's subjectivism. If you say "the government" or "the majority", that's statism. It's right to live is the right to hold another person in servitude. So biological necessity in fact does mean that the fetus has no rights. Who decides what that cost is and when it's too great? If our purpose is to live on the earth, we have to do it survive. This makes it right. Notice how this right does not infringe on the rights of others. No human being has to do something that will invalidate someone else's right. That unique feature belongs to the fetus. You said "nine times out of ten, that's not the case". Are you implying that you're ok with condemning that ten percent of people? Are you saying, "Your view on rights is a belief; it's no more or less true than any other belief?" That is subjectivism. Can you prove this? If you're not a subjectivist, you should have no problem. If you're a subjectivist or statist, yeah. It's not a view, it's an observation. We can't both be right. Taking the life of another human being when the human being in question is violating your right to life isn't an option, it's a requirement. e.g. Self-defense. Is self-defense moral? Actually, the government is a servant to the people. The government only has power that the individuals themselves can give e.g. right to self-defense. It implies that it does more than those three services. True. It's not up to me if someone gets an abortion; that's up to the only person with enough information and power to do something like that: the individual in question. It's evil to deny someone the right to get an abortion for the same reason that it's evil to force someone to get an abortion. I'm lost. Where are we going with this? Do you have a better solution? Are you saying that the corporation should give money proportional to their gain? If yes, it would also follow that the workers should give proportional to the corporation's loss. If it's the best option, then the corporation would actually be making them take a loss by pulling out of the area. They're grown people (mostly); you shouldn't decide for them. For the ones that are still kids, that's up to the parents. Isn't that how all jobs work? While I would contest this point at its core, t doesn't get any more fair than supply and demand. Even if it did, who decides what's fair and what's not? Again: who decides what's underpayment and what isn't?

Which you are advocating by advocating taxation. It doesn't matter if you think so. They own it, they produced it, ergo they have all rights to it. But you're saying that rights are not a condition of reason and reason=/= life. But they are, as I've explained. Yes I can. If we are to live on earth, we have to use reason. It is right to use reason, as it is right for us to live and survive. Do you contest this? Subjectivism is moral relativism. You say that my view of rights is not right and neither are yours. Rights are moral codes, i.e. morality is relative.

Yet I'm saying that reality exists independently of what your mind and there are natural rights that are objectively observed. You are saying that we cannot say for sure that you or I am wrong. That's subjectivism. I'm not a subjectivist; I've observed that reason=life. Rights are a condition of reason. Therefore there are natural rights as a condition of man's existence; these come from the observation of reality. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, this is objective. It doesn't have that right, because that would mean it has the right to live at the expense of another person i.e. to own another person. "Harvesting our dead young" is only benefiting mankind as a whole and furthering knowledge. The potential in stem cells are amazing. I'd much rather live in a society where he pursuit of knowledge is condoned and encouraged, rather than one where the growth of knowledge is hampered by people crying out for the "rights" of a protoplasm. *ahem*. Fetus. What gives the fetus the right to deprive the mother of the life that we have all received? So you really don't care about that tenth person. It's ok if ten percent of lives are ruined, right? Until you realize that reason=life and irrational=death, I think we are at an impasse. And reason is the mediator. It's like the metaphorical battle between Id and SuperEgo; Ego (reason) gets the final word. Yeah, I do. Abortion is a moral right; you're advocating the taking away of that right. True, because individual rights are not subject to a majority vote. But I look down upon them, the same way I look down upon people who advocate racism and police states. But I don't care what they're doing; I care what they're trying to do. It is harm to make someone remain pregnant against their will. They have the right to property and you're harming them by taking that away. So, you advocate people living as financial slaves in a country. I'm not opposed to society; I'm opposed to people living as slaves in a society. True, but "Mixed-Economy" implies the government handling more than the police, the judicial system and the military. They should keep their nose out of everything else. This does not give you the right to dictate the terms of another person's life. Is there something wrong? Yes, but in capitalism, a businessman can not legally do something crooked. This is my point. Your point? What do you mean "substandard goods?" Do you mean goods that can hurt me? If so, they're held responsible under capitalism. Their work is worth what supply and demand says it's worth. If there are so many people looking for jobs to make things that are not in high demand, then of course the wage will be low. But I'm not saying that. I'm saying the current system is bad. Then they shouldn't work there and they should work for someone who pays them according to supply and demand. So they do get paid enough. They do not have the "right" to work at wages they deem "fair". If they don't like it, they don't have to work there.

Good. Why? Because I need them? What about the guy that looses his basic necessities so I can get them? Doesn't he deserve them? "Whoever is in charge" is the corporation who grew and produced and is responsible for the creation and existence of that resource gets to say who they give them to at what price. They only have a responsibility to themselves (well, aside from the obvious, I mean. e.g. If their product kills someone, they are held responsible.). To dictate the conditions of their work is evil. Really? Do you dispute the reason=life observation? Unless you can accept this, you don't have the right to tell me what's reality and what's not. Really? I recall earlier, you said, "Your perception of rights is no more factual than mine." This implies that there is no "right" definition of rights i.e. rights are subjective. I didn't say they did; I just said they had the potential.

Ross is god; all hail the mighty Ross. Heh, just kidding. You're right, but your omnipotence in this forum doesn't make you right; the fact that you use facts makes you right. In fact, you guys seem to be handling Bullseye's ad hominum attacks, scarecrow arguments and lack of understanding of evolution pretty well; I'll leave this to you guys.

The only way someone can criticize capitalism is if they distort and simply make up things about the philosophy. But indulge me: Are you seriously citing China as a form of capitalism? I don't know where to begin. Freedom of speech is illegal, they don't respect human rights...do I really need to go on? Wealth is not a static quantity; anyone can earn wealth. There's no "national wealth". Unlike other systems; in capitalism, those who have wealth earned it justly. What do you mean by "corrupt government institutions?" How would that work? . Funny how you bring up 19th century capitalism. At that point, capitalist United States was the most advanced country on the planet. The rest of the world had horrible living conditions. The reason for this is that capitalism only grows a society. If we were capitalist up until now, we would be decades ahead. The lottery is pure chance. Capitalism is not chance; if you create a product that's desperately needed by industry and people, there's no chance that you'll become filthy rich; you will become filthy rich. "Many Americans" don't understand that they are not entitled to these jobs. The jobs do not belong to them similar to how the money that the corporation makes doesn't belong to them. They belong to whomever the corporation wants to give it. If some guy in China will work twice as hard for half the pay than someone in the United States, reason says that you'll make more money giving it to the Chinese guy. As is the nature of capitalism. Capitalism does not support or condone mediocrity, which you want it to. If your competitor is hiring cheaper labor and selling more products than you at cheaper prices and you're not doing this for the sake of "American jobs" then you better change your business model since you're the inferior company. Child labor is an issue of parents not being productive enough; this is not from capitalism. Outlawing child labor would cause more harm than good. Wages are determined by supply and demand. If a business owner sets the wages too high because he's kind and altruistic, he'll lose to companies that set them at the industry standard. If he sets them too low because he's stingy, people won't work for him. It's that simple. How is this a problem? What's your solution? Socialism and government programs? Are you saying because poverty creates crime, robbing money from an individual who's earned to give it to an individual who has not earned it is justified since it lowers crime? Using the same logic, I could say it's justified for the Mafia to extort money since if they get money, they won't blow up houses. People will rob each other, no matter what the system. In socialism, the money is taxed to no end, so robbing looks more appealing as you get to keep all of it. In capitalism, you're free to make money and spend it as you please, as opposed to other systems. In capitalism, the initiation of force is banned. The actions you described would be illegal. If you're going to talk about capitalism, at least understand what it is first. Heh, that was funny! But I'm going to address the video's points as if it was being serious. Captain Capitalism actually pretty much sums up my view of how Christmas should be. It should be about happiness (gift giving), celebrating the pleasures of life (turkey) and celebrating your wealth (more gifts). The child says that Christmas should be about self-sacrifice and giving away the wealth that you rightfully earned to people that did not deserve it. Notice as the communist henchman spouts nonsense, he is clearly brainwashed. Captain Capitalism is also not the first one to initiate force; the statist aggressor was the first to strike. In the sequel, I imagine Captain Capitalism will strike back with everything he has. And just as I predicted, the only way you can criticize capitalism is to change its meaning to something completley wrong. The only arguments you have are about aspects of capitalism that you made up. Capitalism is a system where the initiation of force is banned from all human relationships; you would have to deliberately misconstrue that if you're going to call that evil. Please, read a book by Ayn Rand or something before talking to me next time. "Co-ruling" implies we're social equals. That means no one is in charge. The problem is that the dictator is not bound by a constitution. If he respects and upholds the citizen's rights, he's doing it on whim i.e. he's doing it because he feels like it. It's too easy to abuse that power, human nature being what it is. Who decides the next dictator after the old dictator dies? The old dictator, of course. He can pick whoever the hell he wants and they can do whatever the hell they want. The fact that they have the power to do that is scary.

Chinese culture is bad; I'm speaking from experience; my dad has chinese parents. Luckily for me, he was always considered the rebel in his family and I was raised in the almost infinitely superior western culture...that's not related. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't follow China's example. Moving on: You know, I look at the oil "problem" this way: Mike the Cop said the most logical approach would have been a massive switch to green energy. If green energy was so great and so much better than oil, the market would have demanded it. The fact is that oil is superior to all forms of energy. Until green energy becomes profitable and as efficient as oil, we're stuck with oil. If the oil supplies do in fact dwindle (which I believe to me an exaggeration perpetuated by the environmentalists) then the market will demand a new form of energy. The average person wasn't even aware there was a problem because maybe there wasn't actually a problem? If we run out of oil, some genius will find a new, better solution. Humans are smart; we'll figure it out. I don't share Ross' pessimistic view on the bleak future; I think the future is bright. I can't wait!

And yet I did justify my view of rights. I meant that subjectivism don't need to justify anything; I simply implied that you didn't need to justify it as any justification would be irrelevant. So...the fact that you need something entitles you to it. I cannot even begin to say how this statement is responsible for the worst crimes against human rights in history. I need food and I don't have food; does that entitle me to rob it from you? I need healthcare but I can't afford it; does that entitle me to take money from you? It focuses on a fact and draws incorrect conclusions from that fact. Need =/= entitlement. I'm observing reality. Reality and existence gives us rights. Your last sentence should be the motto for subjectivism. As I said, with subjectivism, you don't need to prove anything; all you have to say is "my interpretation is equally valid regardless of how ridiculous. ". I hate subjectivism, because you can justify literally anything you want.

You speak the truth, Ross; abortion isn't a civilization issue. It also isn't a big problem for society, like you said. You didn't actually say, "my perspective is right and yours is wrong and here's why". You said something to the extent of "The only difference to what you think and what I think is perspective." So...you're a subjectivist? i.e. Do you think that there are different interpretations of rights, all of which have some merit? Do you think reality is meant to be interpreted rather than perceived? I ask, because you said "my view of rights". This isn't a view, this is reality observed. When I talk about rights, you speak about them as if the view was invented. This [i"view" of rights wasn't invented, it was merely observed by many intellectuals; among these people are Aristotle, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand. I should've made myself clearer: frowning upon abortion is not necessarily statism; thinking that the government should punish people who perform and get abortions is statism, which you said you're advocating. No matter how you phrase it, it is statism; I'm simply just observing that. Survival, yes; liberty and property respected, no. If a woman is not allowed to get an abortion when she wants, she loses her right to liberty and property and worst of all, life in the figurative sense. Is that really a society you want? A society where all we do is just try to survive, like the Stone Age? I want a society that respects life in the metaphysical sense. A society that just respects "survival" sounds horrible. Abortion obtained: It's not a pretty process I hear; it's probably disgusting and horrifying. However, the woman fulfilling her desire to not have a baby, she's able to peruse things she actually wants to do; her mind is free and her liberty and property are respected. The abortion itself is probably emotionally overwhelming, but the outcome is different. Abortion denied: She's condemned to nine months of suffering and then a very painful childbirth. Then she has to deal with finding parents that want to adopt the baby. In the meantime, she's forced to take care of it. Child bearing and raising is an impossible task for one not ready for it. To force a woman to keep it is pretty much giving her a death sentence. Which is the more ugly option? Not true. They don't have to be separated. However, if they are separated, one may die. Yes, that what I meant, as I've explained many times. It is as dramatic as actual death. As humans, we use reason to survive. Some animals are quick, others have sharp teeth and are strong. Humans are none of that. Reason is our survival tool. Without reason, we die. Nature does not allow us to be irrational; if we were, we would die. A woman not getting an abortion when reason tells her to is acting irrationally. Irrational=death. What's worse is that she's not actually being irrational, other people are and they are just forcing their subjectivist views on them. That's what makes the faculty of reason so great: we can choose to override our biological instincts (in fact, most of the time, overriding is better). A woman choosing to get an abortion is overriding her instinct to keep and bear a fetus; someone choosing to give their baby up for an adoption is overriding their instinct to protect their offspring. Can you imagine if we used every single one of our instincts in modern day society? Is that it? Did you leave anything out? I think you left out "and I think the government should punish people who perform and obtain abortions." If you didn't then that's cool; I have no issue with you. Please tell me what is actually going on then. Isn't an individual's life all that really matters? All choices by rational are based on behalf of only yourself i.e. egoism; unless you're an altruist. The altruist believes that one's actions are only moral if they benefit someone other than the self i.e. self-sacrifice. Do you believe someone should sacrifice their life in favor of something/someone they don't want? Are you an altruist? If so, I think it's evil that you advocate sacrificing one life in favor of another. Why does she have that right? I would say because of the right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness; but I want to know what you think. You hinted at earlier that the reason for a pregnancy can be used to determine whether an abortion was ok or not e.g. the mother's life is in danger. I said you shouldn't have said that and should've stuck with your previous points. I care about the well-being of others that are close to me; I wouldn't give my kidney to a random person on the street. When you say "we care about others" I think you mean "I care about others." Where do you think the government's funds comes from? In the current system, they're from taxes i.e. forcibly taking money from people against their will. I wouldn't have a problem with what you said if we were using the "public corporation" method I described earlier on how to fund a government, but we don't have that. What I meant to say is that the future has infinite possibilities and it's literally impossible to focus on all of them, so we have to go with what we have now and what we can reasonably predict in the near future. Disagree with what? Are you saying there is a right to live as a parasite? With modern technology, the parasitic existence is avoidable. So I guess it follows that because now it is avoidable, it is now relevant in determining whether or not the right of the fetus to live exist. And they're being punished for it; that's justice. I believe in capitalism: the system of reason and justice. If a government official gets away with something crooked, that's not justice and the society falls into statism. Their interest is in making money. To make money, they have to feed me. Therefore, their interest is in feeding me. Is there something wrong? They will always be able to make money from me as long as I can earn it, so they will always have an interest in feeding me as I'm always hungry. If it's so bad, why do they keep working there? Because the wages are better than any other local work they can find. It's easy for you to sit on your high horse with enough money and food and say, "Child labor is bad! Children should be in school, not working! We need laws so children can go to school!". In reality, the kids bring in a very important income to their families, and without it, they would starve. The solution to the child labor problem is not to make laws (because that would lead in mass-starvation), but to make parents more productive. How do we do that? We give them freedom. This is why a lot of government organizations are mediocre and incompetent. Google is a profit-making company which provides almost any service you'll ever need on the internet. In the USA, you can get a CAT scan within the day you need it. In Canada, we have socialized medicine i.e. the government runs the healthcare industry. So that means we get "free" CAT scans; I mean, we'll have to wait four months, but it'll still be "free". What's wrong with that? Corporations are just a collection of individuals. Why shouldn't it have the same rights of an individual? Actually, corporations are the smallest minority on the planet. We need to protect them; not because they're a minority, but for the same reason we should protect an individual. So, a republic. Keep in mind: in a republic, these individuals powers are (well, at least should) be very limited e.g. in a republic, the majority can't vote for the government to not respect individual rights. Corporations don't run the government, or at least, they shouldn't. What exactly are you saying?

"I have a doctor's degree!" "My degree is worth more than your life!"

And...you have sufficient enough proof of this to warrant teaching it to our impressionable children? It is extremely unlikely; that's why it took billions of years. Unlikely things always happen, given enough time. Do you have a cite for this claim? i.e. Do you have any theories based off intelligent design that has been scrutinized for decades by the most fastidious scientist and survived?

Ah...subjectivist theory of ethics and rights. So easy; it doesn't require any work to justify. You can even ignore reality. It explains why you advocate statist theories; capitalism is the only theory that respects the objectivist theory. Believing they have rights isn't enough; a maniac could believe that you have the right to kill people; it doesn't mean it would be actually be a right.

A contradiction in terms. People will initiate force granted, so the best we can do is retaliate against it. This is what I'm advocating. 19th century USA was the most capitalist society in history and also no major wars took place with them. All major wars were statist countries battling for resources. ...except the Civil War, but that's different. The south was trying to secede to form a statist society. That's not even tyranny; that's anarchy.

Sure, if you find plants no one else has taken, be my guest. You claimed them, you get the rights to them, end of story. What you're advocating on the other end is the forcible seizure of goods rightfully belonging to other people to give to people that did not earn them; their lack of goods gives them the right to the goods of other people. That is socialism, where you and your property belong to the state for the state to decide what to do with them. With this theory, abortion should be illegal if the government decides it's detrimental to society. The government doesn't care about what the pregnant women say; they don't own the rights to their body. Argument? I was describing statism and drawing a conclusion from statism. Initiating force is bad; statism=initiating force; therefore, statism=bad. The only way this falls apart is if you think initiating force is good. Do you? This implies that your statement was equally absurd. My rebuttal just wasn't that statement; my rebuttal was "that's absurd and here's why". This is a paradox. The more the government respects the fetus' right to life, the more it disrespects the woman's right to life. This doesn't work. I'm not twisting it; it is illogical and evil. You advocate one life over another i.e. you advocate the life of a fetus over the mother. I never said that abortion was a pretty, happy flower-time choice. All I said is that you have the right to one, just as you have the right to parade around saying "I hate black people." Abortion is always an ugly choice, but a lot of the time, it's less ugly than the alternative. I don't understand; you said the fetus had the right to life and it should be protected by a government, but now you're saying that you can dispose of it in favor of the mother. I completely agree with this, but this is contrary to what you've been saying this whole time. You said it has a basic right to grow and survive. Your logic should follow that it's not the fetus' fault that it's killing the mother and it's still a developing human being with the right to life, so that life should be protected. Keep in mind, a mother will never get an abortion unless her life is in danger. Because we survive using reason, nature and biological necessity forbids us from being irrational. Irrational=death. Her reason is telling her to abort in favor of her own well-being. Keeping it when it goes against your reason=irrational=death. If we do what you're suggesting and it's not up to the mother, who's to decide whether her life is in danger and therefore justifies an abortion? The government? The only way I can think is if the government sets standards as to whether or not pregnant woman's life is in danger and under what circumstances the abortion can be preformed. This is also an example of the arbitrary government. But even if we ignore all this, you're also now saying that it's not ok for a woman to decide if she needs to get an abortion to save her life; other people can decide for her as if she's a child. Ok, fine. I'm not "into" people telling me what to do with my own body and under what circumstances I house my fetus. Can I get an abortion now? All this time, I have been saying that the woman's life is in danger and you keep denying her the right to get an abortion. You're the pot calling the kettle black. "Will become a person" is still future tense. The fetus "will become", but not "is a person. You just said we'd agree that we have to focus on the present. This is confusing. I'm actually positive they don't think it's nihilistic; I think they're doing what they think is best. Whatever the reason, it's still irrelevant; what they think they're doing doesn't change what the effect is. Analogy: Say someone tries to pour a pot of coffee but messes up and the pot falls to the floor; it shatters and it makes a mess. In a sense, I'm saying that person dropped the coffee and made a mess and you're saying that they were just trying to pour a cup. I don't care what they were trying to do; I care about what they're actually doing. I'm sorry, I thought it was self-evident. I probably typed that late at night and forgot the details: It's relevant because even though it results in death, you still have the right to do it. People order doctors to remove their organs everyday (e.g. gall bladder, spleen, appendix) and they have the right to do that. You have the right to remove an organ which results in death as you have the right to remove the fetus from your body which results in it's death. Why is your right to life not valued as much as the fetus? Woman's right to what? It's not unique; the fetus did not violate anyone's rights and is only adhering to biological fact. You should've stuck with what you had. As soon as the anti-abortionists say that the abortion issue is different when the circumstances around the pregnancy are different, their argument falls apart. Yes to before the first comma, HELL NO to the past first comma. The right to life is not forfeit, but neither is anyone else's so the government can't force anyone else to take care of it. I said, a guardian is always found eventually. Until then, there are many charities that take in literally billions of dollars a year that will take care of it e.g. The christian church. Welfare=statism. I don't need to repeat myself. Well then I guess the people who took the effort to refine those resources are entitled to them until the planet dies, if you think that will happen in our lifetime. I simply don't know, but I'm leaning heavily towards we'll die before the planet does. It doesn't matter; all I'm saying is what can be objectively determined from an outside bystander. All I said that it was fundamentally the same thing. No, the rights of the new baby would not make the process morally wrong for the same reason that birth does not make the process morally wrong. There is no such right to live as a parasite and the fetus only lives in a mother by her permission. What rights would the new baby have that would be infringed upon because the abortion happened in the past? As for infanticide: whoever claims guardianship over the new baby and leaves it to die has committed murder. If the biological mother does not claim guardianship, infanticide can not take place. Infanticide can only be preformed by the biological mother, within the first twelve months while she's suffering from postpartum depression. At least, here in Canada. Speaking of Canada, preforming an abortion and obtaining one is illegal and punishable by a prison sentence for both the doctor and the woman involved. Are you happy? Read on: PLOT TWIST!: Some guy name Dr. Morgentaler was about to be convicted of this. The Crown attorney stood up in front of the jury and said in a nutshell. "Look guys, it says here in the criminal code that abortion is illegal and Dr. Morgentaler just admitted to preforming abortions. You have no choice but to convict him.". Morgentaler's defense attorney stood up and said something like "The jury can nullify something if they believe that the crime shouldn't be a crime." Guess what? The jury nullified it. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to outlaw abortion (it went against the right to life) so now the law that abortion is illegal is unconstitutional. Aww...so close! Businessmen can be corrupt as much as the government official can be corrupt. The difference between the two are that former can not violate someone's rights legally and get away with it, while the latter can pass laws that violate people's rights and get away with it. At least with the corporation, I can choose to go to another corporation that isn't corrupt; you can't do that with a government monopoly. A disaster, really? How so? To feed me, I'd pick the corporation: an organization who has a personal interest in feeding me as much as I can and keep me a loyal customer so they can make as much money as they can. As opposed to the government: an organization who's only income is that which they can rob from its citizens. They might be able to feed me, they might not; it all depends on how good the things are in the capitol and if they decide if I'm needy enough. If people can't afford food for themselves, how would the government grow food? They can't, if the people don't have enough money to give.