Egoist shouldn't be forced to testify against themselves...

I was listening to Leonard Peikoff's podcast #20. The topic came up about the foundation of why shouldn't an objective require someone to testify against themselves. (Basically, the question was to justify the self-incrimination part of the 5th amendment of the US constitution)

The gist of Dr. Peikoff's reply was (my words, not so much his) "as an egoist, why should I help you convict me?"

I find I have lots of "mental baggage" from my past that I still need to sort out. This feels like one of those areas. My first response has been "actually, the need for this is to prevent people from being tortured" as people will say anything once you threaten them with or inflict upon them sufficient pain and anguish. This torture view, of course, seems to rely upon the possibility that painful torture is not such a commonplace thing these days.

Maybe sleep will help...
rootie

Justice delivered...

Anyone who ignores the recommended age rating on a child's toy should have to deal with the consequences. This is simple justice, giving the person what they deserve.

More specifically, anyone who obtains a large Transformer toy (5+) that requires 18 separate steps, some with 3 sub-steps, to transform between automobile and AutoBot, and gives that toy to a 4 year old should have to deal with the specific requests to "turn it back into a car" "turn it into a robot" "turn it into a car" etc.

Yes, that would be justice. In this case, self-served justice... ;)

rootie
ps. I can't yet do it blindfolded...