HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: objectivism and anarchism (was -- Re: Thoughts on the group)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:15:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.014816.19283@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <7JAN199316314132@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>>>At any rate, I think it's possible to be an anarchist *and* an objectivist.
>>>Anyone agree?  Why or why not?
>>
>>ok, i will bite this worm.
>>i do not deny that objectivism and anarchism have many similarities, and
>>are close on the spectrum, compared to such things as socialism.
>>but there is a significant difference.
>>objectivists feel that there is a role for government in protecting
>>the individual rights of the people. anarchists do not.
>
>I'm a small-o objectivist, and also an anarchocapitalist.
>
>I see no contradiction. From my perspective, being a small-o
>objectivist means that I believe in things like the virtue of
>selfishness, capitalism, and the non-coercion principle. I don't see
>any reason all those can't be promoted by an anarchist system, and
>indeed, I believe that they would be promoted MORE effectively in such
>a system. My reading and research over the last few years has lead me
>to conclude that there is no more reason to believe that you need or
>even desire a government to manage law courts than there is to believe
>that you desire or need a government to manage supermarkets.

i would like to hear more about this. because it does not make sense
to me (yet?). i am willing to listen, but it does not *seem* reasonable.

i don't know if being an anarchist and an objectivist at the same
time is possible. even a small-o objectivist. because i believe
that having an objective, neutral government to guarantee rights
which objectivism considers fundamental, is an inherent part of
objectivism. i don't think a lack of government is consistent
with all the implications of the non-coercion principle, for example.
of course this would never stop you from incorporating some
objectivist ideas into your personal philosophy... i just don't
know if i would call you an objectivist.

so how can you have competing courts of law? who enforces the laws
controlling those who enforce the laws? please explain how this would work.
i'll keep my mind open, even if i need a crowbar... :^)

--
charles
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Funding the govt.....(Re: Just a few...
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:23:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan6.152831.27823@nynexst.com>, baruch@nynexst.com writes...
>In article 15128@athena.mit.edu, tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:
>>  The questions: 
>>  [1] How do you decide who pays how much for the govt functions that
>>      exist and affects everyone's happiness: keeping criminals off; keeping
>>      invaders out; keeping the courts productive.
> 
>*I* decide how much *I* pay, and that's the extent of my protection.  Why do
>you want to force *me* to pay for *your* protection (or mine, for that matter)?
>Why does everyone have this urge to force other people to pay for things, when
>they can pay for it voluntarily?  Answer me that!

	There's just one problem here with regards to keeping invaders out.
National defense is a public good.  If you pay voluntarily for this service,
then your neighbor might choose not to pay (to free ride).  If there are
enough free riders, the service may be so drastically underproduced it will
be worthless for everybody.  This is known as the "public goods" problem
in economics, and it is very real.

	If national defense cannot be provided by voluntary donation alone,
would Objectivists be willing to tax for it?


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: objectivism and anarchism (was -- Re: Thoughts on the group)
Summary: Free to join, or Free to go it alone
Keywords: Choice
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:53:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan8.051526.28502@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes...
>In article <1993Jan8.014816.19283@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>In article <7JAN199316314132@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:

>so how can you have competing courts of law? who enforces the laws
>controlling those who enforce the laws? please explain how this would work.
>i'll keep my mind open, even if i need a crowbar... :^)

1) You are free to join/recognize any/all/none of the competing courts.
2) You are free to not enter an agreement with someone who is
   not willing to recognize any/all the courts you do.
3) Others are free to do the same.
4) All of this is voluntary.

The less you are willing to [voluntarily] abide by [voluntary] rules,
the less likely you are to get someone to [voluntarily] "deal with" you.

Society (individuals) are free to ostracize you for your unwillingness
to follow the "rules" (so long as the ostracization does not include
any transgressions against your person/property).  You are free to laugh
at them for ostracizing you.  

As always, there will be some who use violence while obeying no "rules"
or "courts".  Today we call these people murders, and the good ol'
government is down right ineffective at dealing with them.  In anarchy
as in today's society, when a murder tries to kill you, you are on
your own and must defend yourself.

If a serial killer is roaming the city, I'm sure enough of the society 
(individuals) and the competing courts would be willing to help
bring the person to justice (I admit this might be violent).

All the governments since the beginning of time have never made life
"more fair".  Is life fair?  Who cares!  The only "fairness" should
be...am I finally arriving at common ground with objectivists?

**********************************************************************
Standard disclaimer:

     Anarchy (and objectivism?) is a utopian ideal.  It is the progress
toward anarchy that is important.  Whether or not this species we call
homo sapiens is capable of achieving complete anarchy is another question.
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:00:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.181000.2522@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes:
|> participating in this news group who are not objectivists and
|> show no indications of having in any desire to do anything but
|> cause trouble.  Hiding behind supposed interest in the subject,
|> they seem only to want to quarrel.  Why do they do this?  How
|> many people crowd the other groups, stirring trouble in this
|> manner?  No one posts messages on the rec.games.mud groups like:
|> "Do you actually think you are having fun?  Get a life." or "No
|> wonder this group is in rec.games."   I think it's perhaps
|> because objectivism exposes in some the bare fact that they are
|> being irrational and therefore self-destructive.  Smokers don't
|> enjoy being told that what they are doing causes cancer for the
|> same reason.  It hurts to be shown your unattended weaknesses.

This attitude among "objectivists" is one of things criticized in
this group.  Is this a serious suggestion that people who have looked
at objectivism and rejected it as a way of living one's life really
have no business criticizing its flaws in this group?  Sorry, it
doesn't work that way.  I agree that people who only want to quarrel
for the sake of being contrary are a pain in the ass, but I real criticism
certainly does belong here.

|> 	I can sympathize; however, no one is forced to subscribe to
|> this group.  If you don't agree with objectivism, then this isn't
|> the place you ought to be.  

Sorry, this is not true.  Groups do not exist only for those who hold
a particular point of view.  


|> It is pointless to argue with those
|> who won't even agree to the Law of Identity, since the concept of
|> logic is derived from this law.  Furthermore, while I understand
|> that even the mildest of my statement will make someone's blood
|> boil, it's just as annoying to me to find irrationalists flooding
|> the group with mindlessness.  I interpret this behavior as a
|> malevolent attack on those of us who would like to have an adult
|> discussion about objectivism.

You don't want a discussion, you want a pep rally (judging by what you
have said).  Do you envision a world without debate?  Without examination
of ideas?  Are you looking for a platform from which to evangelize?
You won't find that on the net.  People will look at your ideas and your
logic and point out flaws as they see them.


|> 	I'm really excited about this group and hope to contribute
|> often, but I refused to cater to a Kantian mob who's only real
|> purpose is to shut us down.

Nobody has suggested shutting anyone down, or silencing anyone - except
you.


-- 
***********************************************************************
 Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
 Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
 phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:00:43 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan12.001318.17140@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>Oh come *ON*, now... many non-"objectivists" do you really know who go
>>around claiming "the world is unreal?" Talk about straw men!
>
>well, how many objectivists would not throw the life preserver?

	POINT OF OBJECTIVE REALITY #1:

I never claimed that any real objectivist would let the guy drown.
I have made this point very explicitly, and repeatedly.

	POINT OF OBJECTIVE REALITY #2:

Objectivists do, however, claim all the time that their real
opponents are "denying the existence of objective reality".

>>a typical "objectivist" false dichotomy.

>so far i have seen a lot of bluster, but no demonstration from you
>of anything dichotomous.

The false dichotomy posed by objectivists is "either you agree with
our ethical principles or you deny the existence of objective reality".
My point is that there is a lot of ground between the two positions.

>>Personally, I wouldn't care a helluva lot about their philosophical
>>convictions, as long as they threw me the life preserver.
>
>so what? everyone would feel that way. irrelevant.

Oh, give me a break!!! In the immortal words of the great American
philosopher Foghorn Leghorn, "it's a joke, son!"
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Objectivism vs Libertarianism
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:25:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan4.173440.475@odin.corp.sgi.com>, joeli@dawg.bothell.sgi.com (Joel Iseman) writes...
>I still need some help in understanding why the Libertarian political party
>and Objectivist Philosopy are in conflict.  My understanding of the two
>indicates lots of area of agreement.
> 
>1) An understanding of the power of the free market system.
>2) A fundamental distrust of government intervention in the lives of
>   individuals. 
>3) An objection to using force to redistribute wealth, opportunity etc. 
> 
>If an objectivist has to vote or support a political party, it seem to me
>that of all the available political parties the Libertarian Party is the
>most acceptable.

	Any rational person would think so, but we are talking about
Objectivists here...  (okay, okay, I'll be nice.  No flames please. :^)

	Objectivists appear to view the LP as "philosophically unclean".
The LP platform is not explicitly based off of Objectivism, and
while Libertarians agree on many political issues, they often have
philosophical differences.

	(Just a quick note here.  Many Objectivists may be surprised
to hear that a large number of Objectivists helped in the creation
of the original LP Platform.  The Platform still has a strong ring
of Objectivism in it.)

	The philosophical differences lead the Objectivists to the (correct)
conclusion that if the LP were to "libertarianize" America to the
extent that they agreed on political issues, the party would then fragment
into various factions reflecting those philosophical differences.  One
obvious split would be between those Libertarians who only want government
to provide police, courts, and defense, on the one hand, to those who think
that such services can and should be privatized.  Even Libertarians admit
that such splits are possible, and don't view it as much of a problem.


>It also seem to me that if the Objectivist Philosopy ever hopes to make an
>impact in the direction of this country, they are going to have to work
>through some political organization.

	I do hope that Objectivists wake up and Vote Libertarian, but I
won't hold my breath.

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand on Charity
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:50:57 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <gmR0wB3w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Betsy Speicher) writes:
|> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes --
|>  
|> >The other day on TV, I saw a Muslim woman that was raped by a Serbian
|> >militant and who gave birth to a daughter who she did not even want to
|> >see. Even the nurses all hate this child which will probably die in
|> >such situation. I felt really sorry for the child. I want to reconcile
|> >this feeling with rest of my rational thought in which Objectivistic
|> >ideas figure prominently.
|>  
|> No problem!  There are many situations, like the one you mentioned,
|> where helping an innocent person is a selfish thing to do.  It is a
|> matter of the good old Objectivist virtue of Justice -- something always
|> in one's self-interest -- of seeing that people one values (like
|> innocent children) do not suffer unjustly.
|>  
|> In her "Playboy" interview Rand stated --
|>  
|> >There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are
|> >worthy of the help and you can afford to help them.  I regard charity
|> >as a marginal issue.  What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a
|> >moral duty and a primary virtue.
|>  
|>                                  Betsy Speicher
|>  
|> Betsy_Speicher@mcimail.com

In a subsequent post I had clarified that I wanted to do something about it
personally which I thought may not exactly be in line with Objectivism. (As
opposed to feeling sorry)

Nevertheless, thank you for your analysis as I believe it is accurate. I guess
the aspect of the situation that I was uncomfortable with was a feeling that
perhaps "pity" was involved which I believe is not fair to anyone. After reading
your post it is clear now that "justice" was involved instead so as you say
"No problem!".


Madhav Nerurkar              Disclaimer: These are my opinions.
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:45:05 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
>You can't possibly be confused about soundness or completeness. By theory of
>reality I mean that just as arithmetic deals with numbers, Objectivism deals
>with the entire physical reality around us.

My objection to the concept of a "sound and complete theory of reality"
is that it is so broad a concept as to be nonsensical. "Sound" means
"contains no false theorems". OK, so a "sound" theory of "reality"
would contains no falsehoods, no problem there. But "complete" means
"contains all true statements as theorems", and this is where I gag.
What the hell kind of a theory could possibly contain ALL TRUE STATEMENTS?

>Why are we hung up on technicalities in informal internet debates like this ?

Because some fools like to claim that this purely technical proof in
formal logic has profound implications for the way we should live
our lives and run our governments, that's why.

>My understanding of Godel's theorem is based on passages in "Godel, Escher,
>Bach", admittedly not very rigorous. The essence that I got out of it is the 
>existence of statements that are true but can not be proved to be true.

Well, sorry, but you're wrong. (Such are the hazards of relying on
popular interpretations of technical work.) The proof demonstrates
that NO FORMAL SYSTEM OF ***ARITHMETIC*** CAN BE COMPLETE. That is *all*.
I'm not saying one isn't justified in speculating on the philosophical
implications of this, but I am saying that one is not justified in
passing off such speculation as having been "proved" by Godel!
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:24:21 GMT

rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
>In one of the essays in "The Virtue of Selfishness," Rand clarifies the
>issue of charitable acts.  She describes a man whose wife is drowning. 
>Because he values his wife (life would not be worth living without out
>her), he jumps in to try to save her.  Even if he dies in the attempt, he
>has not "sacrificed" himself per se, because it was in his best interest to

"Live would not be worth living without her" is a highly emotional statement,
and I don't think every marriage is like this.  Personally I can accept the
"loss" of a person and go on with my life.  Does this mean under Objectivism
I should not be willing to risk my life simply because I can always get
another wife because I have no apparent tendency to commit suicide if my
wife dies?  Would the objective (unemotional and logical) knowledge that I
can always remarry make this a "sacrifice" rather than "in my best interest"?

>try to save her.  (She cautions, however, that if the drowning person were
>not his wife, but a complete stranger, the man would be foolish would risk
>his life.  Doing so is saying that his life means no more to him than the
>life of a complete stranger.)  Charitable acts, like saving one's wife, are
>very much in keeping with objectivism -- provided those acts are in one's
>best interest -- provided they are voluntary, not coerced.
>Rob DeLine >Computer Science, University of Virginia >deline@Virginia.EDU

"Coerced" is also a matter of opinion.

"In one's best interest" and "voluntary" are not the same.  I would try to
save someone else (at least I hope I would) at the risk of my life.  This
would be voluntary and not necessarily in my best interest.

Practicing the virtue of selifshness, I'd let my wife drown and remarry.

Anyone got a better argument against charity?

>P.S.  One mustn't take literary figures too literally.  Just because Roark
>refused to build houses for the poor doesn't mean every objectivist would. 
>It depends entirely on what the individual objectivist felt was in his/her
>own best interest.

The problem is society has a tendency to "coerce" or "force" people to be
sociable, not just a bunch of individual persons in a certain area.  That is,
you may be "forced" to build houses because you'd look rather stupid if you
didn't and people wouldn't "accept you as a member of society" as much.  In
some sense, the Objectivist would argue against this saying "it's unfair, I
have my right to be me, nobody should take money out of my pocket and deny
me my rights because they have other morals", but unfortunately for the
"virtue of selfishness", there is no such thing as a selfish society.  A
selfish individual perhaps, but if people are selfish, you have chaos, not
society.  Society is people pulling together, voluntarily or involuntarily.
Chaos is people pulling in different directions, all trying to get their way.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:24:12 GMT

In article <lewchuk.725831738@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
>>member of society.  This is simply not true.  There are millions of
>>people who couldn't care less whether I live or die.  It would be an
>
>I belive much of this is "I am not responsible for people I am
>ignorant of".

No.  It should be read:  I alone am responsible for myself, and am
responsible for no one else.

>But do you actually know that you wouldn't mind seeing them die?  If they
>were being accosted with force, would you step in and defend them?  It is
>not required that you care specifically for these people for you to care that
>everyone has the right to be helped if "in need".

Under many circumstances, I would not want to see even a total
stranger die or be hurt if I could help it.  Under many circumstances
I would spend time and energy and money, and even risk my life to help
a total stranger.  However, I believe it is reprehensible for others
to choose for me the circumstances, the manner, and the extent to
which I should help other people.

>A person who does not care for anyone but himself is a very poor individual,
>no matter his financial status.  

This is your opinion.  The fact that many people, including me, share
this opinion does not mean we should force every one to have it.

>He doesn't belong in society because he
>doesn't contribute anything towards society, and is extremely motivated to
>increase his share of wealth at the expense of others -- including fraudulent
>and illegal activities since he does not take the rights of others into
>account.  In short, the social benefit from this person is likely very little.

Not true.  Objectivism recognizes that we are all human beings with
rights, and that we can achieve our goals and dreams easily and
morally by respecting the rights of others and their responsibility
for themselves.  A rational person will realize that being selfish and
responsible for yourself does not mean you cannot purchase helpful
products and services from others.  A highly productive person will
eventually reach the limit of what he can produce alone, and will
begin to employ others.  This helps society greatly, as it improves
the standard of living while preserving every one's moral integrity.
It is neither exploitation nor philanthropy, as people are receiving
products and services in exchange for money.

>>What?  The question is, *should* one group of people have the right to
>>force another group of people to behave in a certain way?
>
>Isn't that what advertising is all about? :)

No.  If that were the case, "advertising" would mean going in to
people's houses armed, stealing their money, and leaving something
behind.  

--
-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Just a few simple questions from a newcomer...
Date: 04 Jan 93 23:03:52 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
| 2.  Provides basic education and standard of living to children.

That one didn't come from Rand.

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism