HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Atlas Drowning in the Fountainhead
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:31:07 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel

In article <106763@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:

>In any case, if you accept - as you seem to - that the "right"
>thing for My_Roark to do is throw the guy the life preserver,
>I'd be interested in how you reconcile this with Randism.
>As far as I can tell, and at least one contributor to this
>discussion has confirmed this, My_Roark is under no obligation
>to save the drowner's life, if he is disinclined to do so.
>If you can give me a reading of "objectivism" according to
>which he really *should* save the guy, even if he doesn't
>particularly feel like it, it would change my opinion greatly.

I would save the guy in the particular situation you have constructed
over several posts.  Does Howard Roark have a moral obligation to save
the guy under Objectivism?  I'm not sure, but I don't think so, any
more than you are under any Objectivist moral obligation to save the
life of a Somali with a $1 donation.

You won't find a rule in Objectivism that says, "Thou shalt not behave
in a manner that Mark Hayes deems bastardly."

>By the way, I have now read most of Galt's speech in "Atlas",
>and am amazed at how little validity there is to this supposed
>"proof" of Randism from the premise that A=A. Without
>passing judgement on the ethical assertions he makes, it is
>more than fair to say that there is not the slightest semblance
>of rigorous derivation of the conclusions from this premise.
>And I don't mean a formal derivation, either, I mean a
>good old-fashioned, plain English, clearly reasoned argument.
>The speech is almost 100% pure rhetoric, in which one thundering
>dictum succeeds another with no attempt at all at showing genuine
>logical dependencies. 

You seem to have a habit of using the same types of arguments against
Objectivism that you claim make Objectivism a poor philosophy.  In
this case you are using 100% pure rhetoric to convince us that John
Galt's speech is 100% rhetoric.  You can't expect intelligent people
to take you seriously.

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Unbreached Rationality
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 02:50:34 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <1993Jan8.205923.29755@sctc.com>, smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) writes:
|> In Rand's writings, both fiction and nonfiction, she said that one's
|> every act should be consistent with their philosophy. If one claims to
|> be a rational person, then their every act should be justifiable
|> through an appropriate process of reason following from their personal
|> premises.  She claimed that no excuses should be made for "human
|> weakness" or weariness or anything else. This style of "unbreached
|> rationality" was the ideal to which all rational people should aspire.
|> Anything less was a moral lapse.
|> 
|> Is there a consensus on whether this is a key part of objectivism, or
|> simply a peculiarity of Rand's personality?

IMO this is a part of Objectivism. According to Objectivistic reasoning practicing
of virtues is for the sake of gaining values. So when you are not practicing
virtues at any time then you are not gaining values for your self which is the
highest ideal. So this would be a moral lapse. Non-action would be a vice if a
virtuous action was possible instead.
From: srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc (Steve Rogers)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: (A=A -> objectivism): Where's the Beef?
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:50:14 GMT
Reply-To: srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com.mcc
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX

>All right, Siphon, then would you please be so kind as to enlighten us all
>by presenting a FORMAL PROOF of "objectivism"? . . .

>Can you provide a set of axioms, a set of tranformation rules,
>a set of definitions (no cheating, now!), and a set of valid
>inferences showing how to get from premises like "A=A" to
>conclusions like "I have no responsibility to help a little old
>lady who just fell down in front of an oncoming truck" . . . .

I think Mr. 'Siphon' has left you with the wrong impression that
Objectivism is deduced from a set of axioms in the same way that a
mathematical system is deduced from axioms.  Philosophical axioms are
analogous to mathematical axioms in that they are the most fundamental
pieces of knowledge, but its not math.  Objectivism requires LOTS of
information about other things besides naked existence.  This is gotten
by looking at reality.  There is no n-step deductive proof of some
ethical principle that starts with  'A is A'.  Descartes showed the
kind of philosophy you get when you accept the validity of logic but
forget to consult reality along the way.

> So how about it, Randites? You talk the talk, but do you chalk the chalk?

I would suggest to you that this reflects expectations that are
probably not reasonable.  No philosophy can adequatly justify itself in
a 500-1000 word posting.  You aren't going to get anything out of this
forum if you cross your arms, sit back, and say "OK, clobber me down
with your logic, I dare you!"   What I think you can reasonably expect
to determine here is that:

1) Objectivism is a real philosophical system, not just a collection
   of assertions, or pop slogans.
2) Objectivism takes a fairly to extremely different position from most
   other philosophies on many issues.
3) You can get a general idea of what the practical applications of the
   philosophy might be, or at least what the people posting think.

If you like what you see, then you might consider reading up on it yourself,
but don't expect an entire philosophy to be condensed into a posting.  To
really get a feel for *any* philosophy, you have to go study it on your own;
nobody is going to be able to clobber you down with the sheer force of
undeniable truth.

---
| Steven Rogers  MCC/ESL  3500 West Balcones Drive
| Austin, Texas 78759-6509  (512) 338-3691 srogers@mcc.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Limits of Self Defense
Date: 04 Jan 93 23:15:20 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
| 	IMHO, self defense must take the least violent path possible while still
| ensuring that there will be no further violence or significant threat of violence.

The problem is that in order to ensure their will be no further 
violence, the most rational and effective strategy is to have your 
opponent hit room temperature as quickly as possile.

Responding with less than deadly force is a proven way to get
yourself killed.  Remember, you don't know the opponent isn't
armed until you search the body.

| By the way, what does QED mean?

Latin abreviations which translate as:
"Which was to be shown/proven/demonstrated"



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

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: National Defense as a Public Good
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:56:33 GMT

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. 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. 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.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(2)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:23:43 GMT

In article <C0EHH7.3pI@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.010435.12578@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
>>Objectivism springs from works of fiction about people who were, to
>>say the least, not fully fleshed out.  
>
>Nope, Objectivism springs from rational thought based on axioms that
>all sane human beings must accept.
>
>>John Galt was not an idealist,
>>he was an idealization.  John Galt was clearly who Ayn Rand wanted to
>>be, rather than a portrayal of any real person.  Real people are just
>>not like that, or at least I have neither met nor heard of anyone like
>>him.  
>
>Yup.  Ayn Rand believed in Romantic literature:  literature that
>presents man as he should be, not necessarily as he is.
>
>>If Objectivism were put forth as something people could live by
>>if people were ideal entities, it might have some validity.  But as a
>>philosophy for real people in the real world, it falls short.
>
>An ideal is something non-ideal people (like most of us) must strive,
>sometimes very hard, to attain.  What you are asking for is the
>non-philosophy that says everything and everyone is always just
>hunky-dory.  For the shiftless leech with no potential, this is the
>easiest "philosophy" to live by.  For the productive worker with some
>self-esteem, this is a nightmare.

you know, we may all be wasting our time with Mr. Ward. he obviously
only posts his opinions, he doesn't care to defend them. maybe he
doesn't even read the group, just posting what he thinks and not
caring about the responses.

just a possibility to consider. certainly not unprecedented either.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Re: So where are the objectivist governments?
Keywords: objectivist
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:18:51 GMT

In article <byafuso.726803854@athena>, byafuso@athena.qualcomm.com (Byron Yafuso) writes:
> I also believe that natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is
> prevalent (perhaps ubiquitous).  There is a strong tendency for an
> un-occupied niche to be filled in time.
> 
> My question is:  if objectivism and Laissez-Faire government could be
> so effective, and yield such greater productivity, why hasn't it prevailed
> anywhere?  Or am I just not aware of where it has prevailed?  Or is it
> where mankind is heading, but just not yet arrived?

A partial answer to this question is supplied by the "Public Choice" school
of economics, founded by Noebl Laureate James Buchanan.  The main insight
which led to the development of this discipline is the idea that 
agents within governments act out of self interest.  Before he propounded
this thesis, most poltical economic theory assumed that economic agents
in the market act out of self-interest, and governmental agnets acted in
the "public good".  

Buchanan's analysis of the state provides some insight into the questions
of why does government grow and not the opposite, why do taxes and
govt debt tend to increase, etc.  Governmental agents act out of self
interest to expand their own power and increase their domain.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blumen                          | robert@tcs.com
Senior Software Engineer               | 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3759
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (SETH)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Free Markets are ecomomic anarchy
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:59:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <C0GIED.9zn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes...
>In article <6JAN199314364571@mivax.mc.duke.edu>, seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes...
>>The laissez-faire-free-market* is economic anarchy.  While it may be difficult
>>for the anarchists to achieve/justify/defend the total, utopian concept
>>of anarchy for all, I don't see how objectivists can deny that in
>>economic terms, they want complete anarchist freedom.

>	I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.  Anarchy in what sense?
>"Complete anarchist freedom?"  There would clearly be property rights and
>protected contracts.  There would be rules of behavior!  Wouldn't you have
>to be able to violate any rule in order in order to have "complete
>anarchistic freedom" (in the usual sense of the word)?

>	I'm not an Objectivist (in fact, I'm best described as an
>anarcho-capitalist), but I can clearly see that any economic system
>requires rules of behavior in order to function.

Anarchy does not mean there are no rules, especially in the sense of 
voluntary agreements.  Anarchy doesn't mean you can't protect yourself
from violence, or even being ripped off.  There would be court systems
(perhaps), but no government.

I believe USENET is anarchy.  There are rules and restrictions in some
senses, but all in all you're free to do as you please.  The only thing
someone can do to you is complain to your sysadmin.  If you find USENET 
to be too oppressive/dictatorial, you are free to leave. (read the last
sentence again) You are also free to start another USENET.  
The key here is that the f*cking government hasn't ruined it for us (yet).

One point I forgot in an earlier post is that in an anarchist society,
you'd be free to suscribe to a "government".  That "government" would
be free to operate in a reasonable manner so long as it wasn't forcing
people to join, forcing people to stay, or harassing non-members.

If a government is not reasonable, violence is justified.  
Just ask Thomas Jefferson...
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: A=A
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:47:15 GMT


   Time out! I'm late to this obviously enlightened exchange so I
missed something crucial. What is, "A=A" supposed to mean? Is it
supposed to impart information, is it a secret code? On its face it is
as simple-minded a tautology as I've seen anywhere, a statement that
conveys no meaning, contains no information and contributes nothing to
intelligence discourse. Can someone explain to me the significance of
this apparently nonsensical equation?

Bill


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Why the hostility?
Date: 04 Jan 93 19:26:37 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

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.

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

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 04 Jan 93 23:01:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article dege@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles) writes:
|    By no right.  Like I said, the rights of the needy have nothing to do
| with it.  The obligation is assumed because of the values of the giver
| of aid.  It is, of course, possible that your wife's value system is such
| that she doesn't recognize any such obligation.  But I know of no moral
| or ethical system that teaches such.  

The problem is the word obligation.  Basically, you are taking the
position that they have no obligation (an enforceable requirement)
but that *nice* people would feel a self imposed duty to help.

Most people are relatively generous, at least to the 'deserving'
needy.  That includes most objectivists.  But use the word 'obligation'
and they will a) get very nasty and b) close their wallets.

There is ethical system that teaches no such obligation: Objectivism.

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

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: A=A
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:49:35 GMT

gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:
>Yes, your knowlege of those concepts might enable you to form other concepts.
>However the objects of Eucldean Geometry have no Objective existence and
>hence can not have any relation to the Objective world.

Yes, but this does not mean they are not objective as opposed to subjective.
In fact, I find that they are more objective rather than subjective simply
because they are based on our understanding and perception capabilities
rather than our perceptions of reality.
I guess what I'm saying is that humans' thought processes make a square
a square.  It is a logical construct that will not change if we discover
that "reality" has 4, 5, or 100 dimensions.  Our understanding of "apple"
may change but our definition of "square" will not.
Point:  "reality" has more to it than "what is out there".  Much of reality
is what is within "us".  That is, if I "love" someone, what is "love"?  I
cannot prove its existence any more than I can prove an electron, but we
must have a way to talk about both without being able to point to anything
and say "it is this".

>>The fact that mathematical and physical law restrict the number of
>>possiblities for human action and create moral dilemmas that humans
>>must solve means that they most certainly do have something to say. 
>Mathematical and phisical "law" reflect our perceptions of Objective reality
>not visa versa.  >Guy >gthomas@native-ed.bc.ca

Actually, mathematical and physical "laws", whether they exist or not, whether
they are based on fact or probability or hocus-pocus, are somewhat irrelevant
since you must be able to defend that notion of the nature of existence.  I
don't think physicists would be happy with you putting them out of work, when
they are just starting to play with weird concepts like probabilistic reality
and the nature of reality being not "solid" but "fluid".

Mathematical and physical laws *may* restrict human action but may or may not
restrict human potential (especially if we evolve into a non-human lifeform).

Moral dilemmas are created by humans' morality, not by an objective universe,
and must be solved according to our beliefs and potential.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Funding the govt.....(Re: Just a few...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:46:53 GMT

============================
 baruch@nynexst.com writes:
>When I pay my income taxes, I certainly don't do it out of duty or respect!  I
>do it because the government has a nice jail cell and a shiny pistol waiting
>for me.

 Yep, every time I fill IRS papers, I can almost sense the mafia
 guy pointing the shiny pistol and say... you know too much....    :)

>When I have said that without taxes, the government would be reduced to
>donations, I should really have said that government is reduced to selling
>a service, which people can either purchase or not purchase.
>
>>  Sales tax seems most reasonable. If you get more property, you need more
>>  protection, so you pay proportionally more.
>
>A "tax" is usually meant to signify a _mandatory_ giving up of wealth.  So
>if you get more property, and you must pay taxes on it to get more protection, 
>this is another way of saying that if you get more property, you must pay
>for it's protection regardless of whether you want it or not.  Sounds like
>Mafia stories, doesn't it?

 Yes, but here is the difficulty. The final product you or I use has gone thru
 a lot of value addition steps - from raw materials, to say this monitor
 you are right now gazing at. Now, all thru these steps, it would be
 difficult to know how many citizens would want protection service and how
 many wouldn't, don't you think so? As our society becomes more and more
 knowledge/thought based, the levels and intermediate stages, products need
 protection increase. In absence of future protection needs, wouldn't some
 arbitrary "protection price" need be added to the value addition prices.

 In other words: you may choose no protection for the property
 you purchase/possess - I agree with this. But does that mean the property
 you are going to purchase shouldn't implicitly include the property's past
 protection costs? My first thoughts are - it would/should.

 Thanks for bringing up that "I don't want to be protected" argument.....

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism