11

All human rights stem from the right to your own life.

Posted by frankjackfiamingo 9 years, 8 months ago to The Gulch: Introductions
194 comments | Share | Flag

I look forward to trading value for value with people who understand what value is.
SOURCE URL: https://www.facebook.com/groups/NJRKBA/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 12
    Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
    For reference, I am the founder and past President of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS). I recently became the admin for the Facebook Group NJRKBA. Most people do not realize that there is *NO* ability to exercise the right to carry a firearm in NJ. Well... you CAN exercise your right, but the three branches of NJ government promise to incarcerate you for up to 10 years as a SECOND DEGREE FELON!.

    NJ is living proof that Ayn Rand was correct when she stated:
    "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Mimi 9 years, 8 months ago
      "Hear, hear”

      All day long I have been thinking about how absolutely ridiculous it is that we have a law to stop people from warming up their cars on a cold day unless someone is in the car. It’s not a law that I have ever taken seriously on my private property.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by PeterAsher 9 years, 8 months ago
      In July 2010, I wrote: (I have an infrequently used blog) http://takeamericaforward.com/uncategori...

      <<<The claim that the wording of the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to bear arms is actually quite true.

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” does indeed not GRANT the right, it acknowledges It’s existence!

      The amendment can therefore be seen as re-enforcing an existing right by stating the need for militia being a particular reason for not infringing upon it. Other potential infringements are not addressed but they would nevertheless be just that, infringements.

      “Someday, my friend, you will learn that words have exact meanings.”

      Francisco, in Atlas Shrugged.>>>>>

      Sometime later I came across this opinion by the Supreme Court,

      "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

      Therefore, you could repeal the Amendment and that would only result in the need for a militia no longer being a reason not to infringe!

      There are some who say that,” OK, you have the right to bear arms but at the time the amendment was written, there were only muskets etc. The Founding Fathers did not envision the modern weaponry of today and only were addressing the right to bear the arms that existed at that time.”

      Well of course the weapons were what they were, but the Amendment was written in the context of the citizens being armed at the same level of weaponry as the Government. By that comparison, I see the Amendment as granting us the right to stockpile some tanks, a couple of F-111”s and a maybe a “Ship-of-the-Line.”
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
        Peter, if you reread my original post, you will notice that I do not state that the Second Amendment "grants" anything. I am not sure where you got that from. To make it easier for you, I am copying the original post here:

        "For reference, I am the founder and past President of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS). I recently became the admin for the Facebook Group NJRKBA. Most people do not realize that there is *NO* ability to exercise the right to carry a firearm in NJ. Well... you CAN exercise your right, but the three branches of NJ government promise to incarcerate you for up to 10 years as a SECOND DEGREE FELON"!

        Words *DO* have exact meanings. :-) The statement regarding the militia is indeed a prefatory clause. It introduces but does not DEFINE the operative clause. I am not sure why you think we are on opposite sides of this issue. I assure you we are not. The right to self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to carry a weapon and so forth preexist the Second Amendment and the Constitution. The rights exists by virtue of our being born HUMAN. The amendment exists as a warning *TO* the government NOT to infringe upon the right.

        But in your final sentence YOU use the word "grant" which as you previously noted, is an entirely false concept.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 8 months ago
          I would guess that bearing arms prior to the second amendment would be as natural as wearing shoes. I've always believed that the second amendments prime reason is to protect the people from the government. Taken that, would our military stand against the general population? I honestly do not know. It's a hard question.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterAsher 9 years, 8 months ago
          Frank: You apparently did not notice that my addressing the concept of Granting was something I wrote five years ago. I was posting it and the Supreme’s quote as pointing out that the endless debating of the meaning of the amendment regarding militias is irrelevant as the Amendment simply acknowledges the personal right while addressing the militia situation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterAsher 9 years, 8 months ago
          “Grant” is false, in interpreting the Amendment as regards the inalienable right to bear arms. What I see the amendment as ‘granting’ is additional rights regarding Militias.

          I’m saying to Amendment deniers that if you want to make an issue of what is and isn’t being “granted,” then the people have the right to armament equivalent to that of the government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 8 months ago
    Frank, funny that you say that (rights stem from right to your OWN life). I had quite a fight over this. Leonard Peikoff in a podcast calls this idea of "ownership" of one's self nonsense propagated by conservatives. He states that you cannot own yourself, because ownership is a relationship between you and something external.

    My response was like the conservative John Locke and as a lawyer I think Peikoff's idea of property rights to be primitive at best. A number of prominent objectivists disagreed with me, even though I (we - my wife and I) provided multiple Rand quotes showing that she talks about owning one's self or parts of oneself. We were accused of taking Rand out of context. She does have one quote where she says all rights derive from the right to life - without any reference to one's own life in that sentence.

    Some people seemed to consider the idea of self ownership degrading and others thought it opened one up to the idea that you could be owned by another. I showed that under the philosophy of law (contracts) this made no sense.

    Anyway welcome.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 8 months ago
      Ownership of self is the basis for responsibility.

      Without acknowledging that, it is no surprise how responsibility is getting rarer and rarer.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
        YES! Liberty and Responsibility are two sides of the same coin.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by SpiritMatter 9 years, 8 months ago
          My understanding is that there are two general categories of rights, personal and civil/social.

          1) Personal Rights: If you were the only person on an island, civil/social rights would have no meaning because they require the interaction of two or more intelligent beings. The number of personal rights and the extent of each right would only be limited by the mental and physical abilities with which you have been endowed by the Creator or nature. As witnessed in the Garden oif Eden, humans have been endowed with the ability to think, to choose and to act. One can choose not to think (zombie sheep?). One can make choices and take actions that are beneficial, harmful or just plain stupid. With the action we take ( the cause), we are accountable and responsible for the result (the effect) whether good or bad. Alone on an island, it is obvious that you could not blame anyone else for a bad choice/ result or force him/her to help you out.

          2) Civil/Social Rights: If there were two or more intelligent beings on the island, each individual would have the same types of rights but the extent of each right would be limited by the check and balance of equality. Because all humans have been created equal, even though an individual might have been endowed with superior strength or intelligence, no one has been endowed with superior rights. Man's history of slavery and patriarchy are a result of superior endowed might not superior endowed right. A superior right must exist for one to have the right to infringe on another's personal rights or to control a civil/social right. Because no superior personal rights have been endowed, all civil/social rights and their extent must be determined and agreed to by the mutual consent of all individuals in the group. If someone does not like something about a civil/social right, he/she can remove him/her self from that agreement or group. He/She will not have to conform to the group's control of that right but he/she will not be able to enjoy any group benefits related to the group's exercise of that right. A group has no right to force you to contribute (tax or dues) to a group project but you have no right to enjoy any benefits coming from that project.
          What we call the self I believe to be a hybrid made of two parts flesh(DNA software from father and mother) and one part spirit of man from the Creator. Our body was designed in the image of proto-humans and our mind was made in the image of the Creator. Our mind has the potential to be an independent thinking apparatus that processes sensory input and memory experience, knowledge and understanding in real time in order to take pleasure in our life and to choose those actions that will optimize our survival, which can be summed up in the concept of wisdom.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            I don't believe in God or Equality. I believe that Nature "happens" and that the mind of man can shape Nature to a certain extent. The right that individuals have in a social setting is the right NOT to have the initiation of force exerted upon them. They *DO* have the right to implement force in defense of life and vital property.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by amhunt 9 years, 8 months ago
              I am curious as to why you qualified "property" with the word vital? The reason I ask is that I would not have.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                I personally would not use force (and certainly not lethal force) against someone who stole something insignificant. My concern is for human life. Something that does not threaten human life is of significantly less importance to me. If a pickpocket robs an individual of a comb and is discovered, I would not support breaking the pickpocket's arm.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      OH MY NATURE!!!! How can ownership of one's "self" (the source of one's potential) be degrading? Frankly, I don't care what pundit came up with THAT particular gem. Perhaps they simply like to play sematic games. Before we can lay claim to ANYTHING else, we must first POSSESS a "self", no? All of a sudden, the concept of ownership is a negative value??? :-) Of course, I would have to see the conversations in context, but I cannot fathom a situation in which ownership of one's self is not an axiom.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JCLanier 9 years, 8 months ago

        Welcome Frankjack. I fully agree with you and also with db's statements. One's "own-self" is owning one's self... Is self ownership... What else could it be.

        'I stand here on the summit of this mountain... I am the meaning...I need no warrant for being- I am the warrant... And the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect. ...
        I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard and mine to use, and mine to knell before!...
        And now I see the face of god... this god whom men have sought since men came into being ... This god, this one word: "I". ' -ANTHEM by Ayn Rand

        This is a declaration of "self ownership".

        Could it be stated any clearer than in Rand's Anthem? I don't think so.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by PeterAsher 9 years, 8 months ago
        “All of a sudden?”
        That’s a basic tenant of contemporary Liberalism
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
          It is hard for me to conceive of that. From where do Libertarians believe their rights emerge?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterAsher 9 years, 8 months ago
            <<Liberalism,>>> not Libertarianism
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
              Have you ever seen that cartoon where the dinosaur with the huge head can't get to his victims because his arms are too short. Well, I have a HUGE screen, but a REALLY tiny font. :-) *NOW* I understand what you were saying. I am going to have to hire Garret Morris from SNL come and do his special brand of "signing" for me. Sorry and YES - I agree. :-) You are correct that it is not "all of a sudden" from the left. I was referring to the fact that one of the other posters mentioned that LEONARD PEIKOFF argued against self-ownership. I did not see the remarks that Dr. Peikoff made in context, but that was the reason for my "shock".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by amhunt 9 years, 8 months ago
      Does this mean that if I don't write my thoughts down I don't own them but if I do then I may (at the Fuhrer Peikoff's discretion of course.)? This fellow Peikoff sounds like an incarnation of Ellsworth M. Toohey.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
        Well, I would avoid taking this discussion out of context. Peikoff is considered the foremost authority on Objectivism. Again, I can only stress that in this situation, I am merely reacting to the report of another poster's description of a thread involving Dr. Peikoff. I would have to do further investigation before I would verify what was said and under what circumstances. Suffice it to say that *I* believe that we each own our own life and that it can not be otherwise. I am sure there are those who would disagree. One religious poster has already debated that God owns his life. That is not a position I would support, but I have no interest in forcing anyone to believe as I do.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 8 months ago
    Ah, Frank, I support the Right To Bear Arms, even though I'm not a gun owner (yet).

    But I also believe that the assertion of the title statement opens a door you might not want to open...

    i.e., "At what EXACT POINT does one begin to Own One's Own Life"?
    Obviously, that runs right into the whole Abortion "Rights" 'Discussion,' but without some foundational arguments, definitions or assertions, I'm afraid it can lead to a detour on the way to better gun ownership laws.

    Better, maybe, to choose another starting point?
    And no, I'm not sure what that 'better point' would be right now...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      Agreed, I do not normally engage in debates about abortion. However, if a fetus (or an infant or small child for that matter) possesses the RKBA, it is unable to exercise it. We might be able to disagree over at what point that ability ensues, but however one defines human life, it must be the source of rights. There are "conditions" that can mitigate the ability to exercise some human rights. Perhaps the severely retarded individual (for just one other example) would not be able to properly defend their life using arms. However, I believe that there is a significant difference between possessing the ability and being FORCIBLY prohibited from exercising the right by the three branches of a government such as NJ.

      While the dead have no use for rights, the same may not be able to be said of "potential life", but as I said, that isn't a debate in which I feel competent to engage.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
    Is it merely semantics? If you are not in possession of a life (specifically you *OWN* life), than you cannot participate in the intellectual exchange. If your own life is not axiomatic, what else is there. Objective reality will still exist, but not for you - so of what consequence can it be? In fact, if you ARE in possession of a life, to whom does it belong, if not to your "self"?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by amhunt 9 years, 8 months ago
      The beings that wish to engage in slavery certainly do not recognize that one owns oneself. This is where the battle line is fundamentally drawn.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
        Socialism is all about slavery. Talk about semantics - stealing is called "distribution of wealth", theft of property is "public domain" and "Agenda 21". Even the theft of our children's minds is disguised in words like "common (obviously a Freudian slip) core".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 8 months ago
          Yep... I like you. (You mentioned Common Core). :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            The entire idea of the concept that "common" is a GOOD thing is REVOLTING to me.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 8 months ago
              If gives the sheep a warm fuzzy because it implies fair and equal and the same across the board and they're conditioned to think those are good things....and WHO conditioned this in them... public ed! (And some parents who were also conditioned by public ed so it's piled on in layers.) We need an UNcommon, individualized approach to learning...not large classroom group think where you're taught to just follow the person in front of you. gah
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                I believe that is the concept behind the Montessori Schools. Unfortunately, I don't have any direct experience with their methods, but the concept of teaching to the students interests and abilities intrigues me. Certainly, dumbing down the curriculum so that it teaches to the Lowest Common Denominator benefits no one. The cure for things like "Common Core", "Agenda 21", Gun Control" and so on is involvement by "we the people". For way too long we have abdicated OUR responsibility to our "representatives". That has been proven not to work well in a Constitutional Republic. *IF* we truly want our Nation back (I am of course referring to the USA here), we must be prepared to participate in a government *OF*, *BY* and *FOR* the people.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 8 months ago
                  Agreed.
                  Montessori schools...I've heard different things... on the face I agree with it, but I'm sure the instructors are well vetted or totally understand the purpose of a free range learning (for lack of a better term). Some reports I've heard weren't good experiences. Plus there's a religious component in there somewhere.
                  I'm all for homeschooling...networking, for activities, field trips etc.
                  (I just removed myself from working in an elementary school for 10 years in Kindergarten...not only could I just not be a part of that process any longer, I couldn't stand being around teachers who won't think outside their conditioned boxes...or able to carry on a conversation about important matters of current events etc...these are supposed to be smart educated people, no? )
                  I will be home schooling my grandson in a couple of years.. I CAN'T WAIT! :)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 8 months ago
          I think it was in NJ but I could be wrong. The township government actually wanted to take private property from the owners so that a shopping mall or some such could be built where the property that they owned was. The idea was more jobs etc, but I suspect it was more sales tax money that was what they were after. But I'm more than a little suspicious of the governments, maybe even paranoid.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Jules20K 9 years, 8 months ago
    Something that has always remained constant in my mind since learning it, and the concept was resonating around in there before I could ever speak, and before I ever learned that these words existed:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

    This for me holds so much weight on my ideology, transcending sex, age, gender, religion, et cetera. Without holding these dear, and truly believing in these truths to be absolute fact; that my friends, that is where the governments go wayward, this is where the lazy become entitled, and this is where the sacrifice of freedom for security begins to decay the fabric of thought. It is for these ideals that the Constitution has the protections it does. Though the swiss cheese that it has become is for another topic... To hold the individual freedom to live your life as you see fit; to find your happiness wherever that may land, for each and everyone that lives, regardless of if we agree with their decision or not, is none of our concern. The only atrocity that we as people should ever take issue with, and hold violators accountable for; is when it/they/their policies infringe upon another's personal freedom to pursue their life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tragicview 9 years, 8 months ago
    A is A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      IDK, out of context, and without the accompanying dialog, A=A is one of the weakest arguments in the Objectivist toolkit. It becomes a "throw-away" line that is used when the commenter doesn't really want to participate in the discussion, but for some reason feels compelled to write SOMETHING!. :-)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
        I guess context is sometimes nice when stating this. for example does tragic agree with your opening statement or disagree? it's not really clear to me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
          Or to me. I didn't intend to sound as strident as the reading of my response looks. I apologize to tragic for sounding like I have a stick up my hind parts. You are correct in pointing this out KH. I look forward to learning more from you through your posts and these interactions.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
            ok then. how do you feel about patents? lol
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
              Patents are intended to protect intellectual property. Theft of intellectual property is still theft. On the other hand, Capitalism is built on the concept of competition in a "free" marketplace. I am willing to compete with another producer when I create a product or service that people hold as a value. Consumers will choose my P or S over a competitor's *IF* they perceive it to be a better value (whatever THEIR perception of value is). Now the question becomes HOW did my competitor "create" the P or S to compete with *MY* P or S? If they merely STOLE the process from me, they have created nothing of value and are not entitled to profit from the product of my mind. So, the short answer is *IF* a patent system can be devised that is effective in preventing THEFT, it would be a good thing. If on the other hand it does not prevent theft, but rather merely stifles creativity, that would not fit the Objectivist viewpoint. What do YOU think?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
                I don't want to hijack your post, but you did ask. I'll start with the bottom first. History shows that the stronger a patent system is, the more invention, the more disruptive industries, the furthering of technology. The more new technologies developed the more wealth created and the increase in net new jobs (including skilled, highly paid jobs).
                You said something I find very interesting earlier in your comment.
                "Capitalism is built on the concept of competition in a "free" marketplace." I think this is a common misconception that equates competition with freedom/liberty. (Dbhalling will be in a debate over this concept at Freedom Fest this summer). Capitalism is based on natural rights, the most important of which are property rights. There can be competition between thieves which does not promote growth or capitalism. All property rights restrict competition in its broadest meaning. Competition, per se, is NOT what increases our standard of living. It is the increase in technology which then increases our standard of living. But, within that system of property rights, certainly competition is allowed. To focus on competition opens up this idea economists like to talk about: pure or perfect competition. Some even go so far to say that is the definition of capitalism. Which takes man's mind out of the equation, It reduces us to mindless robots and results in negative economic growth rates. It's the justification for anti-trust laws, security laws, it has done untold damage to inventions and needs to be pushed into the ash heap part of History. there, I bet that was more than you thought you'd get :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                  No, that is perfect. It is important for me to be more precise in my language. I do not believe that competition is THE definition of Capitalism, however, the ability to compete in a free market is most definitely a huge part of it. Competition does more than just spur technology, it also helps to determine the "market value" of a transaction. It that sense it IS integral. I am an EXPERT on competition among thieves, as that more than adequately describes the Legislature of NJ. :-) My post was more centered on finding a balance between property rights and that part of our Legislative process that seeks to KONTROL competition (i.e. crony capitalism and the like).
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                    PS - where can I find out more about participants such as DB, LetsShrug, and yourself. I have only been here a few days and really haven't figured out more than how to post and respond. I see that you and others have the respect of a great number of people and I have the distinct feeling there is more to know about you all.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago
                      we have a new feature: a members' directory. You can click on it up above and scroll through member profiles. As well, if you click on categories you can choose some which you would tend to be interested in like politics or economics or philosophy. Then you can scroll through posts made under those categories to find members who typically post the kinds of things you like to read about. Finally, since you have a NJ group already, click on that little world icon above. It allows you to put in a number of miles from your zipcode and see how many gulchers are in your area. From there, you can orchestrate a meetup with like minds :)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
      I would like to apologize for my earlier response to your comment. Upon reading it, I find my reaction to be offensive. I did not join this group to be offensive. Perhaps I need to notch back on my meds (or perhaps UP). I hope that you will accept my apology.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 8 months ago
    The statement is so self explanatory that I wonder why so many people fail to get it.
    Welcome Frank. When you come to St. Pete, come up to Tarpon Springs the sponge fishing capitol and Greek enclave. Visit the sponge docks and the best Greek food outside of Athens.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
      " When you come to St. Pete, come up to Tarpon Springs the sponge fishing capitol and Greek enclave. "
      We walked around that area on New Year's eve this year. The museum was closed for the holiday. We walked north from downtown, one block east of the main road, and we found this great bakery. In some ways walking on that side road reminded me of the east side of Madison. We went to the sponge store. The kids watched a video on sponges, and we bought them a bunch of sponges and books.That random day was our favorite part of our trip to the Tampa Bay area.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 8 months ago
        I'm a newbie in Tarpon (only 20 years). This 150+ year old village is worth a side trip if you are on the west coast of the east coast. When it comes to bakeries, I need to close my eyes and hold my nose or I'd be up an additional 50 pounds. Also, within a block of the Sponge Docks are many turn of the (20th) century homes, some of which are open to the public. If you decide to have lunch or dinner at any of the Greek restaurants at the docks, I heartily recommend the spanakopita. MMMgood.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 8 months ago
    The Cambridge dictionary defines the verb To Own as:
    "to have something that legally belongs to you: He has owned the business since 1995. The group owns assets worth $620 million. This gave many people the opportunity to own their own home for the first time.
    › to accept responsibility for something such as an idea: For the reorganization to work, employees need to own the idea of change."

    What definition are you using? Would it differ from that one above? Does you definition include and imply contract? If so, with whom?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by flanap 9 years, 8 months ago
    I would venture to say that rights can only be argued to exist if you are created. If you are the result of macro evolution (just chemicals randomly happen to form into something that looks and acts like you), then you have no rights except those you claim to have, which cannot be universal. The only right in that environment is the right to evolution to determine whether you are the fittest; if not, you have the right to be extinguished as unfit.

    You have to start here, else discussion of rights is futile.

    If you are created, then the Creator gives you the rights, so hopeful that Creator has communicated them to you somehow.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by amhunt 9 years, 8 months ago
      Who or what gave the "Creator" the rights to give to us?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 8 months ago
        Human rights arise from our being intelligent beings and therefore superior to any others. If there's a creator then I defy him to prove that he is similarly superior to us.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by flanap 9 years, 8 months ago
        What is your answer?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by amhunt 9 years, 8 months ago
          I am curious as to what you think about this. I have no "axe to grind" here. I thought it likely that your reply would be something along the lines of: "That is my starting point." or: "That is my fundamental premise." My thinking is that the universe simply exists and that the best method we have to understand nature is the scientific method. To postulate the existence of a "Creator" is a more complex system -- i.e. If the "Creator" created the universe I would then have two things to deal with rather than one. I choose to think there is no "Creator" because it simplifies things. I can dispense with all of the religious mysticism and concentrate on discovering the rules of nature.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
          Are you implying that if we don't have an answer, it is OK to just make one up? That is how every religion has come into existence. Humans seeking answers to questions they could not answer created those answers out of thin air.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -4
      Posted by Exitstageright 9 years, 8 months ago
      I would also venture to say that I am no more of a happenstance conglomeration of chemicals that just happened to form "me" than the newest creation of an Ipad with WIFI capabilities that got its collective parts thrown out of an aircraft a kabillion times to form, by chance, Apple's newest creation.

      I have rights because I, and Ayn Rand, are unique. There is no other snowflake like me, in spite of govt's attempt to make me a con formal citizen. I am my own man, created by the Father of the Son of Man, and until/unless I forget that, I am perfect in His eyes, my Creator.

      My imperfections are caused by a lack of focus. That lack of focus, like me, are unique. But I constantly endeavour to correct my failures by using what my Creator gave me.

      Namely, my right as a creation. Communicated to me by merely looking into a brilliant moonless sky, feeling deep inside that all those stars didn't just happen.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
        The acceptance of an intelligent designer is certainly your prerogative. However, the story of Jesus is a story which celebrates "self-sacrifice". *THAT* has no place in my perception of what gives human beings the ability to be of value.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago
          Ah hell, Jesus was a son of a rapist, that snuck into a little virgin's bed in the middle of the night while the girl was asleep. He didn't even wake the poor girl.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 8 months ago
          I think Jesus is an example of "self-sacrifice" in the same sense that John Galt was. They were both wiling to die for their own personal beliefs, their own versions of what is true and right and moral. In other words, they were wiling to sacrifice themselves, rather than renounce their views of the world and live by others' values. Jesus defied both the religious and political establishment of his day, which was what got him killed.

          In addition, Ayn Rand stated that Jesus was significant because he was one of the first to say that the individual has value. http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus... And there are clear parallels between the stories of Jesus and Galt, suggesting that the latter was based on the former. http://www.christianpost.com/news/ayn-ra...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 8 months ago
            Didn't Jesus go into the woods and weep because he didn't want to be sacrificed. Jesus was sacrificed 'for the sins of others' (whatever that's supposed to mean) and Galt didn't sacrifice a thing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 8 months ago
            The story of Jesus is presented as a noble sacrifice, both on his own part and his father's -- but if you read the whole thing, you realize that all they are offering to "save" you from is his father's wrath. Making it a protection racket.

            If I did believe in God I would be seeking his overthrow.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
              Agreed. The "creator" deliberately creates a "flawed" creature, and then tortures it for 70 to 100 years, then burns it at the stake if it isn't grateful. :-) hmmmmmm. Everyone is entitled to believe what they will, but I would say that is a bit disturbing to me.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 8 months ago
            You think Ayn Rand modeled John Galt after Jesus?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
              From the Ayn Rand "Lexicon"

              Atheism

              Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics . . . .

              Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.

              Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by flanap 9 years, 8 months ago
                "Objectivism advocates reason as man's sole means of knowledge." Well, that is easily refuted. If a tree falls in the forest and I am not there, did it still fall? If you are referring to reason being the only way we can know anything, I completely disagree. How do you know that anyone who has died ever lived? If you have never seen them die, then you are taking on faith that the evidence you "reason" through at some point is based on faith, making faith another means of knowledge. Additionally, faith is valid because you believe that certain chemicals you put in your gas tank will always combust when given air and spark, right? Do you know it will before it will for sure? You are taking it on faith that it will. If you believe in evolution as a theory, one day those chemicals may not combust since you cannot predict how chemicals may evolve to no longer follow your "reasoning."
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -4
          Posted by Exitstageright 9 years, 8 months ago
          "self Sacrifice"? Certainly not! The story of Creation includes the richest humans that ever walked the Earth, with the Creators blessings. Solomon, Job, David, et al, had riches beyond compare, because they followed a blueprint to success. Why recreate the wheel, when you have a schematic right in front of you?
          I have followed that blueprint. I have managed to create my own Gulch, totally independent of onerous govt regulations and submissions, using technology and the heretofore mentioned blueprint that most of you on this forum can only dream of.

          And I did it as a creation of a power far superior than the enemy of Galts Gulch.

          As an example, I am fixing to set down to supper after a dip in a hot tub, having a glass of home made wine on a deck covered with snow, and have free range beef on my table lighted by off grid power.

          Personally, that give's me value, that I owe to my Creator.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
            What happened to the whole, "Jesus died on the cross" part; the "Turn the other cheek", and so on? Christianity is replete with calls for self-sacrifice.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -5
              Posted by Exitstageright 9 years, 8 months ago
              Perhaps your education is limited. Jesus was a bad ass. He went into the temple and overturned the tables of the users. He did not tolerate current day govt. To those who usurped collecting money for the govt, he pulled a coin out of a fishes mouth and gave that as taxes rendered.

              But above all that, I see you are unable to refute my own success, delivered to me by my Creator. Instead, you choose to ignore my comments and post your own preconceived belief.

              So, how about we get past all this. As a member of the Gulch, welcome. I hope someday you can post results similar to mine, and give credit where credit is due.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                As a businessman who is retired after owning two successful enterprises, I have no need to swap genital measurements with you. :-) Believe as you wish.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Exitstageright 9 years, 8 months ago
                  Excellent! I am a retired health care professional with 5 successful enterprises under my belt.

                  But in answer to your post, I guess you win, I cannot "measure up", as I am....

                  A female Pharmacist.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 8 months ago
                    Do you think he was actually suggesting that a tape measure comes into the argument? In my mind it is a challenge over one ups manship. I do like the challenge however. I'm going to book that for use at the proper time. I have a high school reunion coming up in June. I look forward to dueling with the snobs, and my high school was packed with them. I'll be sure and give you credit Frank. That is unless it gets a favorable reaction with proper laughs. Then I'll have to lie.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Exitstageright 9 years, 8 months ago
                      Nah, my bride, who really is a PHD in Pharmacy,

                      was just having fun with you folks. I let her handle
                      my light work when it comes to biblical scripture
                      and dealing with pompous asses.

                      Yes, bravo Frank.When a man is a light weight
                      regarding his big head and is loosing, he usually
                      grabs his groin searching for his little head. So I
                      suppose you truly do believe you always win. ;-)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago
                        A "man" who lies about one thing, will lie about anything, and is of little consequence.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Exitstageright 9 years, 8 months ago
                          My my. I see I left CONUS for business
                          too soon, as it left my insecure Galt friends
                          panties all bunched up. Friend, my wife
                          and I are one in the same. We are equally
                          yoked, and the epitomy of a partnership.
                          When I speak, she has every right to agree
                          or disagree, and under our corporate agreement,
                          to speak in my name. Unfortunately there
                          are those not as secure.
                          Get over yourself, admit your limitations,
                          and endeavor to not act like a high school
                          testorone laden fool. I am almost 60
                          years old, and I grow weary of nonsense
                          and insecure jocks.
                          And no, not for a minute do I think your
                          real name is frankjackfliamingo.
                          Tis 4:50 AM here, 3/5/15. I have work
                          to do so that I can earn my pay and
                          continue to set up my Gulch back in
                          the US in one of few remaining possiblities
                          in what was once the UNITED States of
                          America.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo