Freedom School (Episode 1): Government, Rights, and God

[InsaneRevolt]

You imply that the government has a legitimate role in intervening in "defamation", or more accurately, telling untruths. In the US, that premise has proven to be very destructive. For example, we have the FDA threatening violence against companies who make certain claims about their products. The problem is WHO decides what claims are valid and are not. Typically, the criteria for "valid" claims are actually designed to eliminate competition in the market rather than being derivations of truth

[SlickExecutiveType]

Theft and fraud are actually just acts of aggression. Your body is your property, is the key insight.

[356pla]

@johnnowak I don't know where or how to draw the line but if you kept sleeping with her while you set up house elsewhere and had started cashing out assets and diverting the return...

If you infected her with something I think she'd find a jury to penalize you. Where you are, could you choose between a judge and a jury for the civil suit?

As far as law, what were the terms of that contract? What parts would be considered un-enforceable.?Will the courts uphold the church parts?

[sbank]

8:52 good stuff

[carveawoodeneye]

no it's as simple as you the customer buying from a vender will employ my services (i have a proven track record) to insure quality of the product . just as i will use your services (with your proven track record) to ensure the rule of law is being properly delivered from the judge to me!!

[carveawoodeneye]

first off i am a student of objectivism!! this is the first time i have disagreed with you !! you can't have a Laissez-faire capitalist system with the government controlling/defining equal value!! as for fraud a free market will limit that ebay is the closest example the individuals exchanging goods rate each other!! also not every value exchange should be equal IE if some one is breaking into my house to steel my computer i will take their life not equal but i don't know his full intentions!!

[evilmoneysystem]

CANADA (in all capital) is a corporation registered in WDC. When your parent registered you, they consented, ignorantly, to deprived you of your common law rights, You became a citizen of the corporation, under it status and code (Admiralty Law), that are law for consenting party's. Then there's Canada the land with true rights, No victim no crime. See If they will charge you under the not Capitalize name that is on all government doc. D license and all legal documents. Wake up world!

[evilmoneysystem]

How bout consent to be governs. The legal definition of "proprietary", if your a citizen of CANADA the corporation, (instead of a native freeman, born on Canada soil.) Admiralty law apply's. Admiralty definition of proprietary = Tenant for 99 Years. For who? THE QUEEN. Old on to it, take care of it, multiply it, do as you please, but remember, and it is written on all land contract, I (She) will claim it back. Wake up dumb ones! Time is near

[Radeo]

I have a small a nitpick with the phrasing of: "...you *thought* you were purchasing one thing, and in fact you were purchasing something else.".

Tho you meant it only in applying to your example, I think it's important to clarify:

Sometimes it is consumer ignorance that causes this, not any mislabelling or deceit by shop staff --- even tho the consumer "... thought they were purchasing one thing, and in fact hey were purchasing something else."

[bermeriz]

Agnosticism is not contrary to reason or freedom. Concrete, objective, reality can co-exist with an immaterial spiritual dimension, compatible with freedom. Freedom can't be absolute since there is a strong element of determinism in nature as proven by genetics. This determinism is not necessarily proof for the existance of God. Self-organizing processes are sufficient explanation for the emergence of life forms. God may be a formless not conscious non-interventive force in the universe.

[bermeriz]

People can take private property not just by force or without knowledge but by means of coertion or deception. Some people may become convinced to relinquish their property by mental manipulation and suggestion. Many marketers of unnecessary objects use this approach all the time, objects which end up in a corner or a trashcan while more endepted. Of course, they are responsible for their permitting themselves to be manipulated.

Bernardo

[jche7793]

Look Up "Proteanview" Paul Mckeever!!!! He really shows those Ayn Rand evangelicals.

[kawaiigardiner]

Hence you find that in the case of the US there is a reference to 'the creator' to which you can insert anything you want in its place; be it evolution, nature and so forth.

[Spurgeon123]

Freedom cannot be experienced in this life because its derived from a secular myth that man is born free and desires to be free. That is a false premise according to biblical teaching and man's own history. Men are born with the desire to become subservient to gods of their choosing and to wives and to bosses and to loaners and to friends. We love our addictions and impulses regardless of their nature. Men do not want freedom, they merely want to percieve or presume its available.

[dreadrocksean]

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.

[dreadrocksean]

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.

[dreadrocksean]

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'

[dreadrocksean]

Just posted a huge one and I'm not seeing here so...

I believe that replacing the primary of what is needed for a just society; protection from the initiation of physical force; with; protection from the non-consensual; is opening another dam not unlike the dam that corroded with the governement's regulation of SOME companies.

Fraud is physical force. Whether the goods are returned or not. WHY? BECAUSE I physically held it in my possesion. cont'

[dreadrocksean]

*correction*

BECAUSE it was held in the possession of the non-owner.

[cjrimmer71]

This man is someone that can be trusted. Why? Because we all go through stages of learning, but when we have a good base to start out with, the faults are smaller. I would rather have someone make an intellectual mistake in philosophy, than to remain in stupidity and harm many. Here in America, our Politicians stand in this mode and I am wholeheartedly convinced they are fully corrupt. With Menard and Croft and McKeever, you would have the greatest nation in the world............

[TheCaptianCanuck]

Paul you are right on track. I just think as a politician you need more passion. For those concerned with freedom your message is clear as a bell. The people just going about day to day is where you need to make your mark. I thought I was libertarian until I became aware of you and your party. More spark and I think you can do something great for Canada!

[melnick1985]

Paul keep up the good work man, you are a beacon of freedom in a world running towards tyranny.

[PaulMcKeever]

Thank-you melnick1985.

[Glaxicon89]

Hey Paul do Objectivists agree on everything? Also where is a good place to discuss Objectivism if you have questions about it?

[PaulMcKeever]

Objectivists agree about a great deal, but there are many outstanding issues where there is disagreement (such as the morality of fractional reserve banking).

Objectivismonline[dot]com is probably the best place to go if you want to discuss Objectivism per se on a discussion board.  There are other good sites for Objectivists of course (e.g., aynrand[dot]org, solopassion[dot]com ).

[lorax2013]

We have asset seizure without trial in the US as well - its called taxation. If the IRS disagrees with your tax filing, they can seize your property without trial.

[Objectivist2112]

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.

[PaulMcKeever]

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 .

[PaulMcKeever]

No time wasted. I've enjoyed answering. I might even do a blog post, as a result. Cheers, Paul.

[PaulMcKeever]

I'm saying that the predictibility/inevitability conflation is implicit in their arguments/thinking, not that it is explicit in their arguments/thinking. The issue is not whether A can predict B's decisions, but whether B can predict his own decisions. To predict implies to know (as opposed to merely having a strong hunch or rationale). Knowledge of a decision cannot be held until the decision exists. A decision does not exist until after B engages in the process of choosing.

[PaulMcKeever]

cont'd...Once B has made his decision, and knows it, it is impossible for him to decide differently; to UNdecide what he has already decided. He can be faced with the same alternative a second time, but he cannot go back in time and make a decision pursuant to the first presentation of the alternative.

THAT impossibility is the one that the determinists are - unwittingly - thinking of when they speak of the lack of free will.

[PaulMcKeever]

(cont'd): THAT impossibility is, in a word: predictability.

[PaulMcKeever]

When faced with an alternative, one indeed "can choose to go either way". The choosing process happens, and a decision is rendered. But that does not address the issue, which is: "Is the decision the one that it was inevitable the person would make?"

[PaulMcKeever]

Do you have a quotation from Rand herself?

I agree that "Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation". However, the fact that a choice is a cause is not argument against inevitability: it is merely an argument against predictability.

Predictability and inevitability are separate matters. The former is not possible, because man cannot observe reality from outside of it. His thoughts and actions are some of the factors that determine the future...cont'd

[PaulMcKeever]

cont'd...However, because nothing is "random", everything is inevitable, including a man's choices...which he REALLY DOES make freely.

The old debates about determinism continually (usually, implicitly) conflate predictability and inevitability: they mistakenly believe that, because a man's decisions are inevitable, a man would lack the freedom to change his decision if he knew, in advance, what it was to be. Such thinking erroneously reverses cause (choice) and effect (decision).

[PaulMcKeever]

(cont'd) Because one CANNOT know what one's decision will be before one makes it (that would be an impossible reversal of cause an effect), one cannot draw any conclusion about choice from such impossible knowledge. It is not free choice (cause), but the predictability of ones decision (the effect of choosing), that one lacks.

[PaulMcKeever]

...cont'd...Having adopted a false set of alleged (even if hypothetical) facts of reality, the determinists end up drawing a conclusion that is the logical result of false premises: that man lacks freedom of choice.

[PaulMcKeever]

An excellent example. The answer is yes: she could sue you for a divorce, on the ground that you did not adhere to the agreement she consented to. Actually, I think Leonard Peikoff answered this in a recent podcast.

As another example: if a man contracts HIV and does not tell his potential sex partner of that fact, and then proceeds to have unprotected sex with that partner, that partner rightly could sue: the partner consent to sex, not to murder.

[lidicus]

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?

[PaulMcKeever]

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).

[mhpernes15]

Great Video Paul.

Keep posting "Freedom 101" vids

[Drillinstructor179]

Wow Paul. You"ve demonstrated simultaneously that your honest and that you suck.

Seriously.... good video though I wouldn't have had a problem with your initial description of the proper role of government.

[PaulMcKeever]

Ha! Indeed, though some say I blow. Hopefully, not at the same time.

Cheers,

Paul

[Cripplerion]

Some very good points there. Great to see a vid of your own again, Paul!

[dakshinamurti]

"one's own life is one's highest value" - this is false. There are loads of examples of people giving their lives so that another person could live. You just have a personal disposition/feeling that people hold their own life as their highest priority. Don't try to pass that disposition as an objective fact. It's properly called a conative attitude!

[PaulMcKeever]

dak: I've seen several of your videos. None of them got Objectivism even halfway right, so I see little point in trying to have a meaningful discussion with you about Objectivist ethics. Suffice it to say that there are circumstances where even an Objectivist - consistently with Objectivism - would give their lives for others BECAUSE their own life is their own highest value. Once you understand Objectivism, you'll know that.

[PaulMcKeever]

Moreover, the fact that there are "loads of examples" of people giving their lives does not mean that those people were acting virtuously or fulfilling their purpose. Ones ultimate purpose is not subjectively determined, as your statement implies.

[dakshinamurti]

No it doesn't. neither have I claimed it was a virtue. And I guess if you define virtue as " something or some trait that furthers your own life above all other criteria" obviously the scenario mentioned will not be virtuous. That says nothing about why your definition of virtue is a matter of objective fact and not a matter of ur personal preferences/attitude. Also, how do u objectively determine your "ultimate purpose" ? Since it's your life, isn't it kinda simpler if you decide your purpose?

[dakshinamurti]

You have a great chance to let people know how is it that some people prefer to die for others BECAUSE their own life is their own highest value.

[gn0m1k]

the criterion for objective ethics is rational man. One cannot have values without life, thus life is the highest value that precedes others. If one may act in an irrational manner, one can choose to end his life.

Say if a soldier sacrifices himself for a fellow murderer, I mean soldier, then this is an irrational act. His motivations are unprovable, but perhaps it was either masochism or concerned with how he will be perceived by others to an irrational extent (ending his life).

[dakshinamurti]

Why is the criteria for objective ethics rational man? I don't mean to say man is not rational; but if you want to talk objectively, man is also not rational. It is in his nature to be both rational and irrational. So in fact you are adopting a criteria that is objectively an idealized and inexistent human being. Also, saying you cannot have values without life. only implies that life has universal value as MEANS, not as an END, and hence it is not ultimate or highest in any meaningful way.

[dakshinamurti]

One might have the inclination to use his life as means to the ends of others. And when a parent sacrifices his life for his children, this may be psychological egoism, in the sense that he is trying to preserve his psychological balance (by preventing future suffering being brought upon himself). But this in no way makes his life the supreme value. He is still valuing other's life above his, and using his life as means to that other persons survival. There is no rationality in ENDS, only MEANS.

[gn0m1k]

Sorry if I implied all individuals are rational. There are exceptions such as individuals with sado-masochism disorders, etc.

I meant that a prerequisite for objective ethics is for an individual to CHOOSE to be rational.

Sure, life can be a means to your ends. But your values cannot conceivably exist without your life, henceforth your life is your highest value, rationally, as it allows you to pursue your subjective values.

[dakshinamurti]

I didn't mean some individuals were not rational out of some disorder. I meant none of us are the idealized human being objectivism talks about. The man qua man, as synonymous with a totally rational human being. In a deterministic world, I fond it somewhat problematic to be talking about a choice to be rational. It makes your flavor of morality kind of like a privilege to those who had the good fortune of being ina causal chain where they were programmed to choose that. But anyway,

[dakshinamurti]

things aren't that simple even. I don't know any person that corresponds to the objectivist archetype, and choosing to be rational, doesn't mean anything but "good intentions". It is an impossible project to undertake, because our nature is more (or less) than rational. No, saying that your values depend on life, does not make life the highest value. t merely makes it a value as means to whatever other values you may hold.

[gn0m1k]

For your last point, I think we're just arguing semantics now. I think we both agree that life is a prerequisite for other values unless you can prove to me that a non-existant entity can still have subjective values.

Can you provide me an example(s) of how our human "nature" is not rational?

[dakshinamurti]

Sure. Subjective values. You pursue stuff out of personal desires. Desires vary. Some people pursue rock, some classical. Some people pursue raw food, some tobacco. Some pursue life supporting habits, some commit suicide. Ends are not rational. Rationality is about means. Mapping means to ends. Some people prefer individual sovereignty, others prefer coercion. State is rational for those who have no problem with violence. I have a desire for voluntary interactions. The desire itself can't be

[dakshinamurti]

judged to be rational, unless you are mapping that desire to some other desire. That is like asking, is this desire X practical to achieving the other desire Y? The fact that people, out of genetic similarity and even similarity of existencial condition share certain desire patterns, does not make them good or bad in themselves. Good is a variable. It means "is such as to fulfill the desires in question".

[gn0m1k]

If we take the axiom life is a prerequisite for value, then we can determine whether ends are rational are not. Ones that lengthen your duration and quality of life, allowing you to experience your subjective values longer, are rational.

If you desire to die, then it is irrational according the prior axiom. Also valuing stuff that lowers your quality and quantity of life is irrational.

But, if your highest value is to die, I don't see how I can argue that dying is irrational.

[dakshinamurti]

Precisely, because it is rational. Now the arbitrary decision to make life an axiom is not rational. It is merely a personal disposition. I share that preference. It does not mean it is more rational than death, if considered without any relationship to other desires. Because value is this "a relationship between objects of evaluation and desires". If item X (the object of evaluation) has properties that tend to fullfill Desire Y, it is said that value exists. It is the relationship.

[gn0m1k]

Okay, so objectivist ethics are merely a preference for those who desire life and non-coercion both as an inflictor and an inflicted (consistency)?

[dakshinamurti]

Well, that may or not be the case. They would say so, but for what I know, Objectivists are Pro-State. We anarchists (of any flavor) would not consider objectivist ethics to be anti-coercion out of that simple fact that it supports a monopoly on the use of violence over a geographical area, aka, the state. But granting that, I'd say Obj Ethics are a Preference Set, like others (desire utilitarianism for example). I personally don't think they are as well justified as desire utilitarianism

[dakshinamurti]

for example, which also aims to be recognized as a system of Objective ethics. In my view, no system of ethics is objective, as objective has been defined traditionally (mind independent). Moral values, like any values, require a relationship between whatever behavior/habit we're considering and sets of desires that are ultimately subjective. The fact is that there is no Universal standard of value. Just because most people value things like their life, peace and harmony, honesty, does not make

[gn0m1k]

I agree. Thanks for the debate/discussion.

[dakshinamurti]

these universal. They are a product of genetics and enviromnent, and depend highly on the degree of empathy one may have and how malleable that empathy is. Sociopaths for example, lack empathy. I prefer to go from a nihilistic approach and assume that I have some desires that I share with most people, and that these desires give me many and strong reasons to act to fulfill them. Might makes right. People will always act to bring about what they want.

[gn0m1k]

Right, and really, that's just a contradiction within objectivist ethics to say we need people to force others to eliminate force onto people.

And doesn't utilitarianism fall into the same pattern of assuming there isn't subjective value. (Ie: a utilitarian may attempt to force others via government to create an egalitarian society) when an egalitarian society would not be preferable by all individuals inter-subjectively or objectively.

[gn0m1k]

How do you know that no individuals are "ideal according to objectivism?" There is much empirical data to support that all animate entities work for their rational self-interest.

There's no proof that I am aware of for the existence of acasual free-will. It sounds ridiculous, but with out current understanding of "conscience," how else can one explain suicide or hedonism (to the point that your survival is threatened)?

[carveawoodeneye]

dakshinamurti cut your self up and feed the meat to the hungry !! the point is to not sacrifice yourself to others or others to yourself!! if you want to be a hero and that is your highest virtue go for it !! i conceal carry and if i was in the unrealistic situation of sacrificing my self to say save a room full of kids from being murdered by a crazy gun man i would how ever in reality i'm more help to them alive than dead as i could engage him and stop him.. get it!!

[dakshinamurti]

You are barking at the wrong tree... I've studies Rand, Peikoff and Kelly. I know all about what you are saying. You are strawmaning me, but above all, you are forcing me into your word nazi speak. I'm not a dogmatic fool nor an absolutist. I also don't believe in mind independent ethics, and I'm a determinist, not a free-willer. I don't want to be a hero. I don't want to sacrifice myself in a you or me scenario. But it doesnt have to be you or me. It can be us, meaning, you and me.

[gn0m1k]

In a natural, unhierarchal society (status, power,) or atleast no Involuntary hierarchies, I can see how objectivist ethics can apply.

I will not murder because logical consistency will show that all individuals now are free to murder, instead I will outlaw it. It's both practical and works for everyone's rational self-interests.

However, in a society where there is power hierarchies, why is it not in my self-interest to murder individuals who cannot kill me?

[gn0m1k]

For instance, say if my society has developed gun powder, and we have a government granted patent to produce the materials needed to make gun powder and guns, why is it immoral or impractical for me to kill indigenous tribes who do not produce resources that benefit myself?

Could we say that objectivist ethics apply to rational man, and rational society (just agregate of individual man) because the patent in this case was arbritrary given to me, when it shouldn't have existed in the 1st place

[nightpotato]

So...why do you think that government is the only institution that can project individual liberties? it doesn't even do it very efficiently considering it needs to steal from the citizenry in order to enforce their rights.

In other words, why aren't you an anarchist?

[PaulMcKeever]

For the law to be objective, there must be one legal system in a given jurisdiction. Anarchism implies not just the absence of a government-owned/operated enforcement branch, but the absense of a single legislative/law-making branch. Anarchism implies not merely competing police and arbitrary services, but also multiple, differing, legal systems...hence it implies non-Objective law within a single jurisdiction. Without objective law, one cannot expect a free society.

[gn0m1k]

If individuals agree that violence should be outlawed, then they will eliminate violent individuals through ostracization. If all property is owned, then freeloaders and violent individuals are transgessing against one and/or his property. self-defense, either directly or indirectly (self-defense agencies) is practical in order to protect your property (self+possessions).

If people are violent, the government won't help that as the government is people.

[nightpotato]

It seems to me that you are stuck in a contradiction that is unsolvable within (statist) objectivism. The initiation of the use of force is objectively wrong. To prevent the initiation of the use of force, the government must... initiate the use of force.

Its clear that there's an internal contradiction here. Is anarchism the solution? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't need to prove the moral validity of anarchism to prove the contradiction within objectivism.

What do you think?

[PaulMcKeever]

I've answered that particular argument a number of times. Here's one time:

v=Ew-t0kuZRfg

[nightpotato]

I've seen the video. The problem is that objectivists hold by one argument for the vast majority of their positions "all coercive force is immoral". But when it comes to government, that argument is dropped completely and you switch to "without an objective set of laws society will be unable to function". The two positions are mutually exclusive and you try to hold both.

[PaulMcKeever]

Objectivists don't argue that "all coercive force is immoral". They argue that the *initiation* of coercive physical force is immoral.

Policing, pursuant to objective law, is NOT an initiation of coercive physical force. "Policing" that is NOT pursuant to objective law IS an initiation of coercive physical force.

There is no inconsistency.

[PaulMcKeever]

I will add: "policing" includes not merely the defensive use physical force, but the retaliatory use of physical force.

[nightpotato]

Even if policing, pursuant to objective law is not an initiation of coercive physical force, the procurement of taxes required to fund such policing is.

[lidicus]

You are assuming that taxation is necessary for government to be funded. I am of the view that in a free society, where individuals respect the law, and want the protection government offers, there could exist voluntary financing for the government. The same idea applies to outlawing the draft: if people recognize the need to fight a war of self defense, they will voluntarily join the military.

Also, Ayn Rand gave some examples of how to fund government without taxation.

[dakshinamurti]

point me to them please.

[gn0m1k]

The social contract is an example of non-consent, correct?

[PaulMcKeever]

Well, several theorists suggested there is a social contract of one sort or another, and at least some of them claimed (falsely) that people implicitly consent to have the majority win the day on each issue. Such majoritarianism implies non-consensual decision-making by government, yes.

[gn0m1k]

Ok, so if you were to abolish unvoluntary transactions and associations, you would have to abolish the government to be consistent.

Further more, it's the only institution that can violate property rights by declaring land its own via eminent domain or decree.

Only institution that can steal (taxation/inflation).

Only institution that can murder with men in green garments.

What confers the right of some individuals to have arbritrary powers to murder and steal?

[axostech]

Actually if freedom is only for freedom's sake and not God given, then what's the point of having it?

[fpontario]

Freedom's not for freedom's sake. It ensures that you can fulfil your purpose: your own happiness.

[axostech]

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

[axostech]

Inflation is a great example of "Taking Value without Consent" right?

-D

[fpontario]

That's right.

[DontCryItGetsBigger]

The protection of consent in practice is starting to look more and more like it requires a relatively large government! :P

[PaulMcKeever]

An interesting point. Libertarians say that "Smaller government is better government". Objectivists say "Better government is better government": A is A. That said, our courts receive perhaps the most slender percentage of all government expenditures, yet handle the lion's share of legitimate governmental activities. Better government need not be big, but size is not the standard for better.

[qtronman]

Excellent video--people can change in their views! :-)

[PaulMcKeever]

Absolutely: hopefully, always to bring them more into accord with reality.

Cheers,

P.

[lidicus]

Paul, have you considered making a video to clarify the apparent free will/determinism dichotomy in Objectivism? Nothing I've read from ARI, or Ms. Rand's books has cleared up this issue for me.

Thanks

[PaulMcKeever]

Most of that stuff was written by Brandon. I find his writing on it entirely useless. It's a worthwhile project, though I would not represent any video I did on the subject to be a representation of Objectivism because, frankly, I don't think Ayn Rand - herself - elaborated on the subject very much.

My view, at present: a man makes choices and thereby affects his future, but the choices he makes are the ones inevitably he would have made. Inevitability and choice are NOT incompatible.

[lidicus]

"Nothing should be regarded as a possibility ... in the absence of physical evidence."

I have some trouble with this phrasing. As an example, I have no physical evidence for the existence of extra terrestrial life forms, but I would not say that it is impossible for there to be such life.

Also, nice video. When I look at things I've written and said in the past, I groan quite a bit.

[PaulMcKeever]

Ah, well: if (a) there is, ultimately, no physical evidence to support the conclusion that extra terrestrial life forms exist, and (b) the claim of such existence is not itself illogical, then (c) the existence of such life is neither a possibility nor an impossibility. A claim either way is neither true nor false but: arbitrary.

[lidicus]

Ok, I had a problem with your answer, and a notion of how to respond, and I just saw it on wikipedia: The law of the excluded middle (P v ~P). If the sentence "alien life is possible" makes sense, as a statement, then either it is true, or its opposite is true. To say that it is neither true nor false, but arbitrary is to introduce a third option which the law of the excluded middle prohibits.

In other words, "the existence of such life is not a possibility" means that it is impossible.

[coltrane1966]

Pleased your back Paul, your my most favorite subscription.

I wish there was people like you in the British media, do you ever fancy emigrating?

[PaulMcKeever]

Sometimes...I worry about the merger of religion and government in the UK more so than in Canada, however.

[DantesObjective]

Your video's keep getting better. Paul, you are an inspiration. Kepp up the good work!

[PaulMcKeever]

Thanks DO.

[LuminaryAluminum]

I'm glad that you're back to making videos. Thanks for taking the time to do this, I always enjoy your videos and learn a great deal from them.

[PaulMcKeever]

Oh, I never really quit. It's just that I've been so very very busy on other things. More videos to come, as time permits.

[legendre007]

YouTube has shortened the attention span of many people. In most cases, I have no patience for videos longer than 10 minutes. I think many YouTube people will likewise avoid videos longer than 10 minutes.

But I'll make an xception for U & have this whole video run. :-)

[mahasamoot]

10 minutes! That's a long d*mn time. Anything longer than 3 minutes is too long for me :-p

[PaulMcKeever]

Your choice (hopefully, a fruitful one). I used to sit through 3 hour lectures in university. I'm not sure how much I would know had they been reduced to 3 minutes. I certainly wouldn't want a two-paged Atlas Shrugged: it's too short already! ;-)

[z2b]

I found this video interesting.

[RyanPig]

Of course when I said "Lies" in the original comment, I meant lies that have a true affect on one's life and property, that can be considered libelous or fraudulent.

[RyanPig]

A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owners consent, under false pretenses or false promises.

[PaulMcKeever]

Oh, I know the Rand quotation. With respect to fraud, note the essential words "without their owners consent".

In my view, Rand properly founded her political / legal philosophy on ensuring that every individual can pursue happiness (hence by rational means).

...cont'd

[PaulMcKeever]

...cont'd: A fraud would be a fraud even if all of the "material values, goods or services of another" were voluntarily returned by the fraudster after tricking the buyer. The essence of the fraud is the deception by which values are obtained, not the unauthorized retention of those values.

[RyanPig]

Are lies NOT an initiation of force, Paul? Certainly it is not PHYSICAL force, but it is still placing an unwarranted debt upon you. I will provide a quote from Rand on the matter in the next comment.