Quote Originally Posted by Hachifusa
Well, I'm arguing that their role has to be highly defined. I'm not a political major, so I admit I don't know a lot about this (this is admitting quite a bit), but I thought that was the point of having a limited government.
Maybe someday we'll manage that and that would do some good. I find it unlikely (that we'll manage to properly limit the gov't powers), though; maybe I'm pessimistic, maybe realistic, depends how you look at it. Maybe it'll take a revolution.

No, unless she started holding her happiness based on my unhappiness. In fact, she wants to see me happy, so we're both really happy, haha. Where are you going with this, by the way?
Showing two things: first, that you aren't a complete objectivist in my opinion, because you can base some of your decisions based on someone else's happiness (your sister (and I suppose your close family aswell?)). After that, we might disagree on how much we'd allow ourselves to do for our family, but it's minor. Second, you might limit this "making someone happy" to your close family, but if it works for family, it can work for friends, acquaintances... up to strangers.

First off, they should be. And, I don't think doing things for others is necessarily a bad thing, I just don't like the basis that that is the reason for doing things (i.e. it is moral because I did it for another).
Agreed about the pay thing, and I'm not saying doing things for others is the only reason for doing things. I'm saying it's one possible reason, and sometimes, just something to factor in. In pure objectivism, it's all about you, not the others. Also, morality (hence my vision of shades) can't be based solely on "did it do good to my neighbor", because in that case, I'd find eminent domain immoral at all time. ;p In economics, I think we can sum it up to, you look for Pareto optimal situations (it's optimal if you can't raise anyone satisfaction without lowering at one other person's), whereas I prefer Rawls' vision for some things (raising the lowest satisfaction). Nothing bad in either, and Pareto optimality is pretty much the standard anyway.

If you are able to know your own goals, and retain yourself, and feel really nice when you help others (as in you really aren't being pushed into helping others because people tell you you have to), then by all means. That's the case with me. I help people because I enjoy helping others; I wouldn't help others if they were asking for me to kill myself.
I pretty much agree.

Philosophy was the wrong word. "General thinking", maybe.
k

OK, time for you to understand this.

If you have been trying from the beginning to imply that my economic views are overly simplified, well, you're right. I am going to be going to college in the fall to major in International Business, and economics is a high part of that (I checked today, actually; I'm at the college in Hawaii to register). While my main view of reality will always stay the same, the technicalities might change, sure. Ask me again in a few years how I feel about certain issues; I'll answer them then best. Or, you could explain those a bit better now, but my answer will still be a bit simplified.
I'm not sure I'd be a good Economics teacher, honestly. If there are specific things you'd like me to detail, I can try, though. At any rate, I hope you'll enjoy your classes, that'll make even more interesting arguments in a few years.

However, I won't be changing my personal view of the world based on this. I still think the world could be a better place if we adopted a "live and let live" attitude; you called me a fundamentalist earlier, but in reality, I'm only holding myself up to this attitude.
I'd fully agree if I was convinced everyone would adhere to that idea, however, I'm not. I think that sadly, it's also in human nature to cheat others.

I think that people have to use thier brains more than their heart, and that they should consider themselves their highest value.
I think they can use both, brain more than heart, yes, but I think it's good when can use our heart too sometimes.

Therefore, I reject the notions that your feelings are valuable (at least, more valuable than your mind) and that you can't think of yourself ever because you have to think of others at all times.
And I reject the idea that you can't think of others ever because you have to think of yourself at all times. If we take both these statements, what we get is that we can think of ourselves, and we can think of others, which is what I think we do, and should be doing.

I think we'd all benefit if we remembered to keep ourselves in reverence, and likewise respected others based on their own importance.
If you mean reverence as in respect, yes. If you mean as in worship, no. Would you mind explaining the second part of the sentence, I'm not sure I undertsand what you mean by "based on their own importance".

You might tell me, "That's great, but stay the hell away from politics," but that'd be foolhardy. Just as I can't give up on rationality just because I'm not omniprescent, likewise, I can't let the government act contrary to my ideals based on my not having a Ph.D. in political science. My main goal is that the government stays the living hell out of my way and let me live and produce. Do I plan on killing anyone? No; that'd be going against my personal philosophy, which is to let others live their own life to their own code. Will I force my beliefs on others? Not at all, because people have to let others think for themselves (even when they choose not to live for themselves).
I don't have anything against you talking about it, heck, it's interesting to have something to debate about, even if I disagree. However, I'm quite pessimistic about getting your main goal achieved short of a revolution.

Therefore, unless you can really convince me of it, I don't think the Supreme Court is doing anything good by legalizing, in effect, looting. The public good doesn't figure in; if I am part of the public, I don't like it for a second, and would gladly drive around a man's house for ten miles as long as the man wasn't forced to sell his house so they could build a road through it.

Of course, he's stupid. He should sell because he is being offered so much (in your example, the price of the house plus a little extra). But that's his decisions; I honor other decisions.
Yet it happens. What I think is that some people choose not to sell not because they'd lose wealth or not, but because they let their emotions in their decision. We were talking about the sentimental value with The Man earlier, that's this. If everyone was thinking only about market value, we'd never need eminent domain, however, sometimes people give things a very different subjective value.


But does that make it good? I mean, I like the world around me today, but I wouldn't hate them if they had kept those rights (as they should have). Besides, the things you are bringing up are part of the "morally gray" area I think you are talking about, and I'd be willing to argue with you when the chance comes up. At the moment, we have to talk about other, more urgent things. Such as whether or not Wal-Mart has the right to steal my house, and throw some money so as to imply I sanctioned the act.

So far, I have no idea how anyone can really justify that.
And as I said in one of my previous post, I think that this decision by the SC was stupid, because it doesn't benefit the public, it benefits the private entity that's getting the land (and I would expect benefit the official who took the decision).