HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Gold standard -- gold as an 'objective' value
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Here is a question that I have wanted to ask Objectivists for some time.
Please respond to it from the capital-O Objectivist standpoint.


Gold as an 'objective' value:

	Why does Ayn Rand call gold an objective value?  Sure, it's
shiny and a good conductor of electricity.  What is its objective
value?  Why gold, and not silver or zinc?  Are Objectivists opposed
to free banking where banks may mint their money, or back it up, with
whatever materials they want (unregulated by government)?


Mark Sulkowski
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: A=A
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:36:10 GMT

In article <gthomas.726385943@unixg.ubc.ca> gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy
R Thomas) writes:

>>        The specific axiom to which you are complaining, "A is A", is a 
>>demand the concepts have clear meaning before they are subjected to 
>>logical manipulations. The acceptance of this axiom in mathematics could 
>>have eliminated much the problems it has been running into with respect 
>>to internal contradictions.

>The people in sci.math would love to here more about this.

I'm a frayed knot.  But it would be interesting to hear about it here.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Date: 10 Jan 93 02:32:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department

In article <106648@bu.edu>, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
> In article <1993Jan9.201046.21236@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
> ->In article <106616@bu.edu>, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
> ->> as I recall from my last night's viewing of the movie "The Fountainhead",
> ->> slavery includes any instance of work without pay, including work
> ->> done for charitable causes.
> ->
> ->The difference between charity and slavery is quite simple: the former is
> ->voluntary, the latter is coerced... Love (charity, benevolence, kindness)
> ->is one of the best reflections of an objectivist's values -- when given
> ->voluntarily.
> 
> Not according to Howard Roark, whose spoken words come straight from
> the pen of Ayn Rand. His statement that "work without pay is slavery"
> is made in response to a colleague's trying to give him a reason why
> he should *voluntarily* design a low-cost housing project.

This is precisely what I mean by Rand's anger toward altruism muddying the
waters.  

Although I don't have the book in front of me, I can imagine how the
friend's argument goes: "C'mon, Roark, have a heart.  These people *need*
you.  With all that talent you should give a little back to the community."
Etc.  Of course Roark (or any Objectivist) would blanch at such an
argument.  Sure, nobody's putting a gun to his head, but the argument is
still that he should do it whether or not he feels like it -- out of a
sense of duty, of charity to others.  This is the kind of reasoning that
would illicit a statement like "work without pay is slavery".  What Roark
means is that he personally feels no compassion for those needing low-cost
housing, and no external sense of "duty" is going to compel him otherwise.

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
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


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.
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:10:47 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1993Jan6.151533.21967@ultb.isc.rit.edu> sbs9276@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>
>      Objectivism definitely does not endorse atheism because
>atheism is not a conclusion which can be reached through any
>logical arguement.

I've got bad news for you.  The validity of logic is not a conclusion 
which can be reached through any logical argument.  That is one of the
implications of Goedel's incompleteness theorem: the validity of any
logical system cannot be proven within the framework of that system.

Objectivism is based on the faith that Logic is valid.  There
is no more a definite logical proof of the validity of logic than there
is a definite logical proof of the validity of Christianity.

However, Objectivism denies the validity of faith.  Therefore,
in its own terms, Objectivism is invalid.  Christianity has no such
requirement, as it is accepts the validity of faith.

>
>      In answer to your question about Christianity, I will
>answer a more general question about all religions. All religions
>require "faith" in a lot of issues, which objectivism sees as a fault.

But EVERYTHING requires some faith.  Logic is wonderful for manipulating
facts.  But it has to have facts to manipulate.  It cannot create
anything new: it can only make implications based on what is 
already known.

Logic is like a computer.  It can't do much without input.  (Or at
least without assuming the values of certain constants in a
program.)


NOTE: I am a practicing godless secular humanist.  I believe that logic
is valid and that the scientific world view is the correct world view.
However, I recognize that these are faiths based on
assumptions which cannot be proven, as is true with every other
faith.


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorem ....(Re: Where's
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:28:15 GMT

==============================================
> I wrote:
>
>    >What happens if GT is applied to GT itself?
>    >Is GT complete or incomplete?
>
 torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>  Your question has no obvious meaning, since neither "applying
>Godel's theorem to itself" nor "Godel's theorem is complete" means
>anything in standard logical terminology. This should have been
>apparent from my remarks. "Complete" in standard terminology applies
>either to theories or to (logical) axioms and inference rules together
>with some notion of "logical consequence" (or, in a third use of
>"complete" in logic, to sets of connectives).

> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) adds:
>GT cannot be applied to itself because GT is a logical conclusion based on
>a formal system, not a formal system in and of itself.  It's like applying
>formal logic to "William Tell shot apples off of peoples' heads".  You can't
>really do it because there's no way to apply the logic to the statement.

 Thats clear: GT can't be applied to GT. Because, to apply/invoke GT one
 has to make sure that it is being applied to a formal system. (Thats very
 important - next time any one applies GT to anything, I would request him/her
 to prove its applicability). But, don't go away net.minds, yet. :)

 If GT is a conclusion based on a formal system, then can we apply GT on the
 "formal system GT is based on." That is to say, if we consider GT's "proof"
 and "premises"  - can these be subject to GT. 

 Without some formalism, the concept of proof can not exist. That means
 the proof of GT is based on some formalism - and therefore, the proof's
 formalism could be candidate for GT!!
 If no, tell me why? 
 If yes, tell me what then?

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: End of Iceland's Anarchy
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:59:54 GMT

sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.204851.5731@eecs.nwu.edu>, ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes...
>>remember, but it had something to do with conquest or domination by
>>Norway.  Does the way anarchy ended in Iceland indicate anything about
>>the vulnerability of anarchies to societies which are NOT anarchies?
>	Excellent question.  I don't think that a complete answer
>is at hand.  It is known that extended attempts at the military
>conquest of such societies were either successful or had altered
>the incentives on the system and produced military governments
>in defense.  Invasion does tend to be a nasty business for any society.
>A plus for anarchy is that such societies are difficult to take over.
>A minus might be the difficulty such societies have in forming and
>then disbanding militaries.  >Mark Sulkowski

Particularly when large governmental nations can form large bureaucratic
armies.  It is difficult for even an incredibly large individualistic force
to have anything but man-portable weapons, whereas large standing armies
have tanks, planes, ships, etc.

It would be possible for this to occur in an anarchy, if people voluntarily
submitted themselves to a national armed forces for a certain amount of time,
such as the (obviously not voluntary) recruiting in the Middle East.  However
in an anarchy, which obviously teaches anarchy, it is hard for people to
follow leaders.  One would think that they would only do so through respect --
"won" and "proven" by the leaders.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Obj. Economics
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:44:29 GMT


Bret,

   I'm happy to inform you that, yes, the Chaos theory have been
applied to economic questions. It has been recently discovered that
chaos is a euphemism for ignorance; when the answer is unknown or
unknowable or extremely complex, we attribute our impotence to Chaos.
It's better to believe the universe is an endless squence of random,
purposeless and Chatic events than admit to a limit to our omniscience.

   Economists Discovered that the patterns they hoped existed were
really just their own expections and wishful thinking, that the real
forces at work in the market are too complex to ever understand.
Rather than admit to their ignorance they developed theories that
could only be tested over generations, meaning that they would be long
gone before anyone exposed their fraud. Chaos is used to explain
things that went wrong ...


Bill
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Why the hostility?
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:13:36 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: johnhall@microsoft.com's message of 4 Jan 93 19:26:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.192637.28405@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:



   In article sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
   | For example, I don't see anything at all wrong with an individual or a
   | voluntarily-formed group practicing altruism -- that is, giving unearned goods to
   | those who need them.  My problem is with government forcing people to be
   | altruistic.  My problem is not with altruism, but with the improper use of force.
   |  However, that attitude wouldn't have been very well accepted by Rand, and a guy

&   I think she would conclude that giving goods to those you judged
&   needed them, because you *wanted to*, is perfectly fine and doesn't
&   deserve the label altruism.  You are getting something in return --
&   genuine gratification -- that you judged was a fair exchange.  (Not
&   that she might not think you were being silly, but to each their own.)

&   In the words of another author:
&
&   "Generosity is inborn,
&    Alturism is a learned perversity.
&    No resemblence." R. A. Heinlein.

 Here in New England we put it another way:

 "No good deed goes unpunished."

 Think about it.


-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:44:59 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <C0ICo0.7Iz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
>From John Galt's speech:  
>	"... A is A.  A thing is itself.  You have never grasped the
>meaning of his [this] statement.  I am here to complete it: Existence
>is Identity.  Consciousness is Identification.
>	"Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an
>attribute, or an action, the law of identity remains the same.  A leaf
>cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green
>at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time.  A is
>A..."

I was actually just reading this passage in the book, and I must say,
my appreciation of the "A=A Team" is not exactly going up.

I mean, what is going *on* here? First we're told that

	A is A

which is fine. I take it to mean what is expressed by "(x)(x=x)"
in a slightly different formalism, and what is expressed by
"a thing is itself" in English.  Moving right along,
we then learn from Mr. Galt that

	existence is identity

which is also fine; in fact, I have seen "A exists" formalized
as "(there exists an x such that)(x=A)".

But then, without taking so much as a self-identical breath,
Mr. G continues

	consciousness is identification

to which I can only respond, yow, where did *THAT* come from???
One minute we're talking about logical attributes of objects in
general, and all of a sudden "consciousness" - a fantastically
complex and poorly understood psychological phenomenon - appears
on the scene, and is somehow - you will pardon the expression -
identified with an acceptance of the identify law (if I understand
correctly what this is supposed to mean).

Now, this is a HUGE leap, people! This is NOT logical inference,
not by a long shot. I am reminded of the sort of pseudo-logical
hokus-pokus perpetrated by the likes of Hegel and Sartre in
their allegedly "logical" works. I'm not exactly sure what is
being palmed off on us here, but it should be quite obvious
that the "restatement" of "A is A" as "consciousness is identification"
is rather a bit more than substitution of synonyms.

Anyway, more and more I'm struck by the cult-like quality of
the Church of Rand. It actually bears a striking resemblance,
in several ways, to the so-called Church of Christ, Scientist,
commonly known as Christian Science. Both worship a fairly
small set of writings by a female demigod, insist on a
rather privileged status for these works, and respond to all
criticism with quotation. Present an objection to the
ludicrous claims of Christian Science to a Christian Scientist,
and you'll be told "oh, but read Science and Health, then
you'll see". A nice trick that is, too, since I'm not likely
to read Science and Health if no-one gives me any reason
to think it's not garbage, thereby leaving them smug in the
knowledge that my objections aren't worth a diver's fart
since I haven't taken the Golden Shower of Wisdom by
reading their sacred text.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson)
Subject: Thoughts on the group
Keywords: 
	It seems to me that there are a bunch of people
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 18:10:00 GMT

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.
	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.  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.
	Lastly, for those who honestly wish to learn more about
objectivism, then I suggest that individual study is the best
choice.  The works of Rand, Peikoff, and others are eloquently
written and probably more precise than we can offer over the net. 
This group is more appropriate for the discussion of
higher-order objectivist issues such as ethical conduct regarding
government educational grants or the political worthiness of the
Libertarian party.
	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.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Free Markets are ecomomic anarchy
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:03:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan07.205251.28742@microsoft.com>, johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes...
>In article seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>| The laissez-faire-free-market* is economic anarchy.  
> 
>Free markets don't work in anarchies.  There are rules in
>laissez faire -- a code of laws inforcing contracts and
>a police/judicial system to monitor such.


	You may not have caught it in time, but Judge Not clarified that
'his' anarchy included a legal system(s), but no single government to
enforce laws.  Actually, free markets HAVE worked without government
enforcement of laws.  A perfect example is the medieval Lex Mercatoria
(or Law Merchant) which was a truly excellent and effective means of
settling business disputes (privately produced law) until government
took over its functions by force (at which point it went downhill.)


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:37:20 GMT


   >It seems to me that there are a bunch of people
   >participating in this news group who are not objectivists and
   >show no indications of having in any desire to do anything but
   >cause trouble.

  Certainly, and I'm one of them. More precisely, I'm interested in
troubling Objectivists with some outside viewpoints, with criticism
of nonsensical talk about logic, and with invitations to produce some
of their fabled logical deductions from philosophical axioms. I'm
sure you don't want this kind of trouble, but it's part of the net.
Stick to the Objectivist mailing lists if you wish to mingle only with
the faithful.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: National Defense as a Public Good
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:26:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan7.215633.16486@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes...
>sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>>	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.
> 
>Well, it may or may not be real. There is a lot of debate on whether
>there really are any public goods, and there has certainly of late
>been debate in certain circles on the question of whether national
>defense is a public good.

	Really?  It would be great if it were not.  That would remove my
only concern about anarcho-capitalism and tax-free limited government.


>In any case, one may state that IF national
>defense were a public good THEN it might be underproduced in the
>absense of any coercive mechanism to fund it.

	Absolutely.


>On the other hand, the
>question of whether it is a public good is far from settled, and I'd
>tend to state that it likely is not.

	Do you have any suggestions on how money for national defense
could be raised voluntarily?


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philo
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 15:34:43 GMT

In article 93Jan5150335@macro.bu.edu, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
> In article <TORKEL.93Jan5195646@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> 
> 
> 
>    In article <MERRITT.93Jan5132621@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu
>     (Sean Merritt) writes:
> 
>       >For if you look at it
>       >Objectivism attempts to help Humans act as Turing machines
>       >solving the Halting Problem.
> 
> #     Your account of various logical matters is quite garbled, but there is
> #   no reason why that account should be criticized in this group. However,
> #   your comment above is clearly relevant to the topic of the group, and
> #   is wonderfully bizarre. So how about it, Objectivists? Did Ayn Rand
> #   seek to help humans solve the halting problem, acting as Turing
> #   machines?
> 
> More to the point is "A is A" provable? If you believe that
> you can prove it in any formalism do so.

Why prove it?  To disprove it, you would have to claim that (A is A) is (A is A)
is disproved.  That is, the statement itself if not the statement, nor does it
have any reason.

> Point is you must accept "A is A" as true. Hummans do not act or 
> think as Turing machines. Regarding that "A is A" as true
> (which I believe it is as far as I , a human can know it,to be)
> is an act of faith and there is no logical basis for it
> while there is certainly a rational basis for it.

There is certainly a logical basis for it.  If "A is A" is false, then
you cannot argue about "A is A" because "(A is A) is (A is A)" is false.
Therefore, you don't really know what you are arguing about, and what is
the point in arguing about something you don't know about?  That was the
essense of Ayn Rand's statement -- A is A means that before you talk about
something, you must know exactly what it is you are talking about.  She
said it another way -- "existence exists".

--Rob


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism