Example is more efficacious than precept.
Dr Johnson

It is 100% correct that my comments are open to "comment and discussion." If only it were a discussion instead of a dictation. For myself, I made my statement and explained it once, very clearly. And you still attempt to make me revisit it. Not happening. That's all that will be provided, period.

However, I have neither the ability nor desire to direct anyone's actions, so please go right ahead and "comment and discuss" to your heart's content. If you desire further interaction (with me) when I have expressed my clear disinterest, then it would appear that there is a problem here, and it's not mine.

The one who is dishonest and manipulative, is you my friend.

I made a post, and explained the basis of it quite clearly with the same description and assertion that you just made. The same.

You may not like the wording where I started “freedom = responsibility”. However, the manner I defended it you state yourself.

There is no ad hominem, analogy, or other fallacy here. You quite clearly agree with me on the fundamental concept as stated in your own words, but can’t accept it. Too bad, but that problem is yours, and I am not out of line.

When you post on a public forum it is subject to comment and discussion, which you can choose to engage in if you choose. It is not an offer for "instruction".

"Shaming" in place of direct argument is dishonestly manipulative and disrespectful, let alone inappropriate for government administration of justice.

"We" are not "forgetting", but Thoritsu is misquoting out of context, along with his repetitious smears and personal insults.

I just wrote: "Each individual is personally responsible for his own decisions by the nature of human beings, prior to any political concepts, which are social in nature." That means morally responsible. It is not a consequence of a political theory. Individuals are already responsible for their own thinking, choices and actions before any consideration of politics. It does not "come from" freedom.

Thoritsu's posts can't follow the pattern and direction of the logic, let alone the content, which he smears as "unnecessarily confusing and mystical Objectivist dogma".

Thoritsu's unsubstantiated "quote" is false and out of context, and he repeatedly substitutes sneering personal insults and taunts for honest discussion. To call it ad hominem argument would be an understatement. It is obviously contrary to the guideline for using this forum.

I wrote https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... "Freedom does not equal responsibility. [He said "Freedom = Responsibility"] They are different concepts. Each individual is personally responsible for his own decisions by the nature of human beings, prior to any political concepts, which are social in nature. [Thoritu's statement] 'To have freedom, without imposing on others one must be responsible for their own decisions' is incoherent and not an argument."

and

"Political principles follow and depend on moral principles. The conservative mantra 'With freedom comes responsibility' is backwards'".

The moral responsiblity for one's self and the right to pursue it requires as a consequence political freedom and holding criminals responsible before the law for violating the rights of individuals.

Wrong-o Batman, you did just that. Here are your words:

"People must be responsible for the consequences of their own decisions."

Sneaky might be too gracious. Circular, and dogmatic, might be better. However, this could be a great day. The mighty Objectivist Paladin, EWV, says to the trival squire, Thoritsu, "Yes, you were right, I misunderstood what your point was."

The Gulch resonates with the sound, and all nod in agreement to 1) the idea and 2) the piety ...

...or we argue more about the ninth decimal place of some obscure equation.

If one is free, one is responsible. If one has a guardian (e.g. a child), one is not free, and one is semi responsible.

Of course freedom and responsibility are two independent concepts. However, they are inseparable, as you stated so eloquently. Are we forgetting?

Sorry if this confuses some unnecessarily confusing and mystical Objectivist dogma ... but it is really simple.

With the freedom people seek, must come the responsibility for their own actions.

Say it again, just for everyone to hear, like you did before:
"People are responsible for the consequences of their own decisions."
Like Joe Pesci says about the tire marks, "It's ok. You can say it".

When I need instruction I will be happy to let you know.

The principle is that the proper purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual through objective law. That excludes manipulating prices in any way and excludes the use of government resources to shame or otherwise publicly denigrate any citizen. You don't have to further discuss it here if you don't want to.

I dont see any reason for further questioning or explanation. The statement I made stands on its own and i did already answer that question.

Does that mean that you aren't sure whether shaming private companies in order to try manipulate prices is or is not a legitimate function of government?

My statement of the principle that it is not is not an inability "to tell the difference between a speculation about reasoning and a defense".

I don't know what you mean by the "general rules referred to by ewv".

Galt's oath is a moral principle rejecting altruism, one of the requirements for the political principle of freedom. Any politics rests on a view of morality. Before you can know what is proper to do in the political realm you must know what is proper for the individual. One can't start with "freedom" then look for limitations. The concept of political freedom depends on understanding the concept of moral rights, which in turn depends on an individualist, egoistic morality. This is all a matter of the logical dependency in a hierarchy of concepts and principles.

You don't have to try to read between the lines. For the systematic, logical dependency of politics on ethics and more fundamental aspects of philosophy you should read Ayn Rand's non fiction, especially Philosophy: Who Needs It?, and should read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

The difference between Objectivism and libertarianism begins with a distinction between categories: Objectivism is a philosophy and libertarianism is a political theory. Libertarians are typically a-philosophical, and in some cases outright hostile to philosophy (and as you see on this forum often hostile to Objectivism).. The result is all kinds of contradictions, such as those who embrace anarchism and the attempts to tolerate or embrace altruism as compatible with capitalism.

I did not "come around to agreeing with" Thoritsu, am not "sneeky", and do not use his words.

Freedom does not equal responsibility. They are different concepts. Each individual is personally responsible for his own decisions by the nature of human beings, prior to any political concepts, which are social in nature. "To have freedom, without imposing on others one must be responsible for their own decisions" is incoherent and not an argument.

Your typically snide sarcastic posts are as inappropriate as ever. There was no "99 volley argument" and I did not "figure it since then". My position and explanation have not changed. Political principles follow and depend on moral principles. The conservative mantra "With freedom comes responsibility" is backwards.

Thank you for the articles; now let's get to the meat of it....Yes, it appears we finally agree on something! I will not accept a "direct, principled, moral judgment I didn't make" until I understand - and accept - the reasoning behind it. If you consider that to be a bad thing, well, sorry.

I have a lot more to say on the subject but I prefer not to turn it into a personal attack, so I am stopping now.

I like examples, but this is just way too hard. I am pleased that ewv finally came around to agreeing with me. Sneeky though, using my own words...

The only way freedom really works, is if ones own choices do not compel another to support them (slavery).
Example - One takes drugs; one becomes infirm and destitute;
Socialism - The government forces others to be a safety net and help them recover. One is not responsible for the consequence of one's own actions.
Libertarian/Objectivist - One recovers on their own, and/or people voluntarily help (or not). One is responsible the consequences of their own actions.

Very very simple. The only way freedom works (really provides freedom to all) is if government does not force people to support others. Otherwise, without exception, one person's freedoms will enslave another.

This requires no massive analysis of Objectivist literature, neither does it distinguish Objectivists from Libertarians, which with the political bent of today's society, is like being attacked by a horde of zombies and refusing to use another's shotgun because it is a Mossberg rather than Remington.

Someday we'll be Lucky enough to have time to work on that distinction.

This is my take which may be what you meant-

The general rules referred to by ewv may not be clear to all (ie. to me) so I think about examples.
For interpretation I rely on Galt's Oath mainly and a bit of reading between the lines, I see the limitation, if it is that, on freedom in acknowledgement that everyone, not just you, has the same rights, this is a key difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism.
There are valid obligations to others- within the marriage bond and to one's children. These can be considered as a contract written or not.
A valid contract must have value for value agreed to by mentally competent persons.
What about an obligation to one's aged and infirm parents? I think there is no general obligation here, this sets Objectivism apart from Confucianism.
Armed forces, yes if an adult enlists under a contract.
Voluntary slavery, no. But if you own your own life so should you be able to sell or give it away? No, this is a reflexive not a logical statement.

You didn't make the distinction yourself while sympathizing with the motive. Are you unable to accept a direct, principled moral judgment you didn't make? You did say you oppose direct price controls.

As for the practicality of competition, medication that is still relatively new is under patent protection (intellectual property rights), and developing practical alternatives is made much more difficult by additional costs of development caused by the FDA. (There is, however, now an alternative to EpiPen https://www.rn.com/featured-stories/t...

Here's an interesting recent article on the value of progress against allergies in general https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/... There's no shame in profiting from it.

I’m so happy you clarified.

Just like I said a while ago: Freedom = Responsibility. To have freedom, without imposing on others one must be responsible for their own decisions.

That sparked a massive 99 volley argument last time. I guess you’ve figured it since then.

Didn't say it was. There are many functions of government that are not legitimate and they do it anyway. Big surprise.

Are you unable to tell the difference between a speculation about reasoning and a defense?

No one gave you homework. You asked a question and received an answer. The topic has been discussed here many times. The article Ayn Rand wrote describing the basis for her ethics is fundamental to her ideas and is the foundation of a proper, individualist politics. The topic of the basis of morality and therefore politics is not "massively simple".

The individual's own life and happiness is the moral purpose of his own life. Achieving that is not automatic. It requires his own rational thought and choices to achieve over the course of a lifetime, learning from others where possible, but responsible for his own decisions on what to accept as true and what to choose to do. No one else can do someone else's thinking for him and no one else is responsible for the results of his thinking. If you are interested then please read "The Objectivist Ethics".

I’m not looking for homework. I’m looking for your own logic and wording. It seems massively simple.

Read Ayn Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics".

Oh, you are still here? Excellent. Maybe you can explain why a person should be responsible for the consequences of their own decisions, a statement you made.

Sorry, I didn’t forget.