Comments on: Freedom School – Episode 1: Government, Rights, and God http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/ Freedom, politics, and how we are losing it. Sun, 20 May 2012 13:08:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Objectivist2112 http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-61 Objectivist2112 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:51 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-61 This is refreshing. I rarely see Objectivists return to their earlier work and evaluate it in this fashion. Learning to be a solid Objectivist is, for most, a lengthy process. I hear little conversation regarding one's "pre Objectivist" or "earlier Objectivist" mindsets, and the progression through the process. Thanks Paul. This is refreshing. I rarely see Objectivists return to their earlier work and evaluate it in this fashion. Learning to be a solid Objectivist is, for most, a lengthy process. I hear little conversation regarding one’s “pre Objectivist” or “earlier Objectivist” mindsets, and the progression through the process. Thanks Paul.

]]> By: PaulMcKeever http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-62 PaulMcKeever Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:51 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-62 In that case, it would not be a crime, but a tort (or, if he had an agreement with his spouse always to get tested in such situations, or to ensure that he is always disease free prior to having sex, then: breach of contract). In that case, it would not be a crime, but a tort (or, if he had an agreement with his spouse always to get tested in such situations, or to ensure that he is always disease free prior to having sex, then: breach of contract).

]]> By: lidicus http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-63 lidicus Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:51 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-63 Hmm, a crime of knowledge is a difficult situation. What if the man thought he might have contracted it, but decided not to get tested? Hmm, a crime of knowledge is a difficult situation. What if the man thought he might have contracted it, but decided not to get tested?

]]> By: axostech http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-64 axostech Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:51 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-64 Considering the wisdom in: There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought. ~Charles Kingsley I think that the "ought" tends to successfully derive from religion thru ethics. Because if all people are just apes plus 2 weeks, the point of freedom is entirely indefensible. -D Considering the wisdom in:

There are two freedoms – the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought. ~Charles Kingsley

I think that the “ought” tends to successfully derive from religion thru ethics.

Because if all people are just apes plus 2 weeks, the point of freedom is entirely indefensible.

-D

]]> By: PaulMcKeever http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-65 PaulMcKeever Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:51 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-65 I think the adverb "free" (in "free choice") is probably best viewed as a redundancy. Galt, strapped to the torture rack, chose not to lead...that was possible precisely because it was impossible for anyone else to prevent him from choosing. Coercion vitiates consent, but it does not interfere with choice (hence, the pain only goes down so deep): ones choices are a metaphysical given to everyone else . I think the adverb “free” (in “free choice”) is probably best viewed as a redundancy. Galt, strapped to the torture rack, chose not to lead…that was possible precisely because it was impossible for anyone else to prevent him from choosing. Coercion vitiates consent, but it does not interfere with choice (hence, the pain only goes down so deep): ones choices are a metaphysical given to everyone else .

]]> By: johnnowak http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-66 johnnowak Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:51 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-66 That makes more sense now. Thanks for clarifying. Would it be correct to say that you believe a choice is "free" simply if it is made without the presence of coercion? Are other criteria necessary? That makes more sense now. Thanks for clarifying.

Would it be correct to say that you believe a choice is “free” simply if it is made without the presence of coercion? Are other criteria necessary?

]]> By: PaulMcKeever http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-67 PaulMcKeever Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:51 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-67 No time wasted. I've enjoyed answering. I might even do a blog post, as a result. Cheers, Paul. No time wasted. I’ve enjoyed answering. I might even do a blog post, as a result. Cheers, Paul.

]]> By: dreadrocksean http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-49 dreadrocksean Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:50 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-49 If you take away from the violation of man's rights what rightly belongs to it, i.e., the initiation of physical force, then you start to erode at freedoms and end up violating man's rights in the end. What you end up doing is equating immorality to illegality. Free speech would no longer exist. That's just one example. If you take away from the violation of man’s rights what rightly belongs to it, i.e., the initiation of physical force, then you start to erode at freedoms and end up violating man’s rights in the end.
What you end up doing is equating immorality to illegality. Free speech would no longer exist. That’s just one example.

]]> By: dreadrocksean http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-51 dreadrocksean Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:50 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-51 In the time that it was taken from me, I may have been deprived the means of making a living. If I buy a can of coke from you and it was mislabeled, then because the implicit contract held that you receive cash value for a can of coke, you now hold MY money. The breach of contract dictates that you don't own that cash. You physically hold it from my possession. cont' In the time that it was taken from me, I may have been deprived the means of making a living. If I buy a can of coke from you and it was mislabeled, then because the implicit contract held that you receive cash value for a can of coke, you now hold MY money. The breach of contract dictates that you don’t own that cash. You physically hold it from my possession. cont’

]]> By: dreadrocksean http://freedomuptime.com/2009/09/15/freedom-school-episode-1-government-rights-and-god/comment-page-1/#comment-50 dreadrocksean Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:53:50 +0000 http://freedomuptime.com/?p=602#comment-50 Whether it was an electronic pmt or not. Some physical action on your part needs to take place, for the money to be transferred back to me, which you refuse to make. The difference with slander (defammation) is that, nothing is taken from you. You do not own other people's thoughts which is exactly what their opinions of you are. They are free to believe or disbelieve any rumour about you. Whether it was an electronic pmt or not. Some physical action on your part needs to take place, for the money to be transferred back to me, which you refuse to make.
The difference with slander (defammation) is that, nothing is taken from you. You do not own other people’s thoughts which is exactly what their opinions of you are. They are free to believe or disbelieve any rumour about you.

]]>