HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: julio@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Julio Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Objectivism vs Libertarianism vs Anarchism
Date: 2 Jan 93 19:35:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


	  I liked Geoff's exposition of Rand's ideas. I have some
	 questions though. I have never read Rand's work.

 cl836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Geoff Stark) writes:
>
>
>Objectivism is a philosophical concept that states reasoning is
>man's only way of perceiving reality and reality is independent
>of man's feelings, fancies, wishes or whims.  
 
   Is this a denial of artistic reality ?  For instance is the
   concept of beauty unreal ?
>
>  No-one has the right to force
>his desires on anyone else, physical or ideological.  A
>government, absolutely necessary under objectivism, cannot
>interfere with anyone's goals (as long as those goals do not
>collide with anyone else's individual rights).  The government
>acts only as a law enforcement agency...  

   How can law be enforced without this being considered 
   an imposition of society's desire ?
>
>... "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote;
>
 
   Does she give a list of individual rights ?

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julio , U of Penn, Philadelphia 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jredford@shearson.com (John Redford)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<1992Dec28.225220.12977@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Dec29.022326.22794@genie.slhs.udel.edu> <jclarke.725767675@teal>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:17:00 GMT

In article <jclarke.725767675@teal> jclarke@teal.csn.org (J Christopher Clarke) writes:

   nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
   >>
   >I think that another thing that would happen in a free market is that
   >there'd more more research into making medical care cheaper--my impression
   >is that the incentives for doing so aren't that strong now. (I mean
   >making care cheaper while maintaining quality.)

Gee. More research! That'd be wonderful. That'd solve everything.
Spend money on research. Spend Spend Spend. That'll make it cheap.

   Unfortunately, systems such as the HMO take advantage of ignorance to make
   money.  Most people, particularly the elderly, trust their doctor implicitly.
   Why good health care and profits conflict, what do YOU think the doctor is 
   going to do?  Prescribe an expensive testing program, when he/she knows that
   if they just tell the patient that it will be OK with asprin, the patient/
   sheep will do as they are told.

Wow. Golly. How'd all you people git this smart? I never even
suspected that The Doctors of the world were all cold blooded killers
who are eager to lose their patients.

   P.S.: His/her plane leaves for Mexico in a couple of hours....

Who, the patient or the doctor? What was the point?

In case you didnt know, all fair profits are based on exploiting
ignorance. One person values a thing more accurately than another and
can buy/sell at a profitable price.

--
John Redford (AKA GArrow) | 3,600 hours of tape.
jredford@shearson.com     | 5 cans of Scotchguard.
From: dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(2)
Date: 3 Jan 1993 14:43:52 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

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.  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.  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.

If you substitute Jesus for John Galt, and Christianity for Objectivism,
you would be describing the Bible quite nicely(with the obvious fiction
vs history debate). Though I have never met anyone like Jesus, and it
would be impossible for anyone to be that 'idealization'. It seems
that Christianity doesn't fall short in the real world,(or do you
think it does?), why should objectivism?

 /  Amiga  ///    |  U.S.C. Trojans  | O Bar  | David Leslie        \
|         ///     |     Fight On!    | E O    |                      |
|     \\\///      |        --        | Meu    | dleslie@usc.edu      |
 \     \XX/ A1000 |     Go Kings!    | Lar!   |                     /
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1993 21:52:44 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan2.202500.10898@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan2.173308.5495@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
|> }In article <lewchuk.725933905@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
|> }>gelinas@merit.edu (Joe Gelinas) writes:
|> }>>Such is not my understanding of Ms. Rand's philosophy.  She did not 
|> }>>so much think altruism evil as non-existant.  The whole point of 
|> }>>'altruism' is doing something for nothing.  No human being ever does 
|> }>>anything without getting (or at least hoping to get) something in return
|> }>
|> }>>Hmmm.... maybe altruism _is_ evil after all:  it generally requires
|> }>>one to lie to oneself, something Ms. Rand would never tolerate.
|> }>
|> }>No, Altruism can simply be "doing something because you think it good
|> }>in and of itself".  That is, one rewards oneself and others when doing it
|> }>by "knowing you done good".  I find little evidence of altruism in the sense
|> }>of "doing something and expecting nothing in return".  Doing something usually
|> }>means motivation in some sense which usually means expecting something to
|> }>happen.  Perhaps not "in return" per se, but that something will come about
|> }>as a result of the action.
|> }
|> }my interpretation of the types of actions with which Rand took issue
|> }were those where an individual performed them out of a perceived
|> }obligation to place others' lives ahead of his own. this particularly
|> }if the "others" were unknown, or worse, acting in a way contrary to
|> }the well-being of the individual.
|> }
|> }that said, i can see Rand saying that she would not support charity,
|> }but i can't see her claiming it all as unjustifiable "altruism".
|> }
|> }--
|> }charles
|> 
|> 	Not so.  Rand wrote that voluntary donations to/support of charity
|> out of benevolence was proper.  What Rand objected to was the altruistic
|> notion of an obligation being involved.

	I believe there IS a very real MORAL obligation involved, an obligation,
however, not to be enforced by government.  Do I and Rand have a difference of
opinion?

Steve
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:43:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec29.160532.5193@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes...

>Now my question.  In which type of society do you think you would be freer,
>contemporary society or the type of society Rand defines as rational?

Clearly Rand wins this hands down.  But this is knocking over a scarecrow
(contemporary society).   I was just wondering if objectivism had moved
beyond Rand or if it was still stuck on her [this is not a slur; compare
Bacon & Smith as a *starting* point for intelligent discussion of *modern*
free market economics].

My solution to pollution:
         1) Sue the bastard who pollutes (damages) your property.
         2) Pay restitution for your own pollution.

But where do we draw the line?  Can lung cancer victims sue me for driving
a car that uses leaded gasoline? (not if they smoke!)

Let common law (juries) decide along with free market pressures.  
Any decent objectivists could reason with a jury and reach a reasonable
agreement... :^).

We have this problem over in alt.society.anarchy where it's hard to tell
if people are talking about anarchy as if it already exists (utopia has been
established!) or if they are talking about how to establish anarchy in
a totalitarian global climate.  Big difference.  Some arguements in one case are
moot in the other.  Take this paragraph, for example,...
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:32:01 GMT

dege@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles) writes:

>  You DO have an obligation to help
>those who need help, as do I, and every other human being.

>   As I said, you have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate than
>you.

>    Society as a whole has an obligation to help those in need. 

	Excuse me, who made this a law? Where does it say I am OBLIGATED
	to help others in need? Seems to me this is an individual decision.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cl836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Geoff Stark)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Objective government (by the will of the individual)
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:36:55 GMT
Reply-To: cl836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Geoff Stark)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



I want to discuss where politics and government fit into the
Objective philosophy.

"    I will list the essentials for your furture reference.  But
do not attempt the shortcut of accepting them on faith (or as
semi-grasped approximations or floating abstractions).  That
would be a fundamental contradiction and would not work.
     The essentials are: in metaphysics, the Law of Identity; in
epistemology, the supremacy of reason; in ethics, rational
egoism; in politics, individual rights (i.e., capitalism); in
esthetics, metaphysical values."
                                   - Ayn Rand     

Politics is a branch of philosophy that depends on a _firm_
foundation of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.  Rand defines
these terms objectively in "Philosophy: Who needs it" and the
definitions are well worth reading.

The objective individual realizes that the governement is
essential if he is to live in a civilized society where the use
of physical force is banished from human relationships and
interaction.

A government is the only body that can legally use force, and can
only resort to using force if another individual or group first
initiates the use of force.  It is given exclusive right to
enforce objectively defined laws and it is granted this exclusive
right by the will of individuals.  A government is a servant, and
it governs "by the concent of the governed".

An objective government includes: a police force, and army, and
law courts.  The police protect individual rights from criminals
and thugs.  The army protects the geographical area and those
individuals living in it from outside intervention.  The courts
act as arbiters in disputes over things like property, contracts
and fraud.

No other government agencies are required save the above three. 
Education, unemployment, welfare, daycare, health care,
scholarships, artistic expression, scientific research, anti-
trust legistaltion, and the economy are private matters and are
NOT THE CONCERN of an objective government.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: warn@newton.uvm.edu (Patrick D Warn)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: default
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:51:22 GMT

In <1993Jan2.040315.8974@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:

>Objectivism is a philosophy built on moral principles, but those moral
>principles themselves have no foundation.  Religions can build their
>morality on divine inspiration, science builds precepts on what is
>proven to work; but philosophies such as Objectivism stand on nothing
>other than the very shaky grounds that "it sounds right to me".
>People join religions on the basis of such inner resonance, and
>rightly so.  National policy should be based on something a little
>more solid.
> 
>A moral code that leads to an absolute assertion of property rights
>seems especially shaky.  "What's mine is mine because I possess it,
>and nobody can tell me what I can do with it!"  would seem to require
>a considerable amount of justification from more basic principles,
>since arguments about our common heritage from the Earth are pretty
>strong (we'll put aside any arguments that everything a European,
>African or Asian American owns in the USA was ultimately stolen from
>the indigenous folk here).  On the other hand, some scientific proof
>that such a code would lead to some ultimate good would be nice to see
>-- but has so far been lacking.

I find it interesting that you think that a mans rational thought is not
a sound basis for a morality, but a mans irrational thought (religions) 
is a good basis. 


--
                     Wondering what it all means,
                                 Pat

******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:57:26 GMT

robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen) writes:
>Have any objectivists looked at theories of 20th-century logic, such as 
>Godel's theorem which in my admittedly deficient understanding state that
>any logical system has statements which are undecidable, and cannot be
>guaranteed to be free of contradictions?

Well, let's see:
The theorem is that every logical system is either incomplete (cannot prove
things which are true) or inconsistent (can prove things which are false).

It does not deal with philosophies or reality structures per se except
to imply that you can't be omniscient without holding at least one set of
contradictory statements at the same time.

What this probably means is that Objectivism is limited in scope: it can
only do so much.  The logical conclusion is that other systems will be needed
to supplement it either when it is implemented or further on down the road as
we evolve a greater understanding of reality or basically change so that we
don't deal with concepts like "economy" per se.  This will probably take quite
some time, knowing our species and its fondness for archaic systems.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Limits of Self Defense
Date: 2 Jan 93 09:06:23 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec31.175747.9921@microsoft.com>, johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
|> 
|> Let us consider a case where person A has initiated physical
|> violence against B. 
|> 
|> B is entitled to respond to the initiation of physical force against
|> A, providing it is done [relatively] immediately and only against A.
|> 
|> Now, are their any moral limitations on the use of force by
|> B in this situation?  
|> 
|> My classic answer, which I thought was supported by Rand, was that
|> the retaliation was unlimited, and B could arrange for A to hit
|> room temperature in whatever gruseome fashion B wished.
|> 
|> Is this accurate?  Does the particular action A took 
|> (stealing food vs shooting B) influence what is permissible?
|> Does the character of A (child, retarded, drunk, or fully
|> in command of his facilities) effect the question?

	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.
	If B stole food, the threat of violence isn't really all that high, so a
correspondingly low reaction level is called for.  If B has a gun, you're pretty
much entitled to kill first and ask questions later, because the threat level is
so high.  If B drops the gun and raises his hands in surrender, the threat level
has diminished considerably, and blowing B away is probably not a morally viable
option.

Steve

By the way, what does QED mean?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Limits of Self Defense
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:40:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.214231.4139@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>of course it is hard to decide
>exactly what falls under which category; i would say that the
>benefit of the doubt should go to the one upon whom the violence
>was initially perpetrated.

But what is violence?  How can a moral code or philosophy such as
objectivism claim to have the answer to violence without having a clear
definition of the word?

If you build a nuclear weapon, but don't actually threaten to use it,
does the mere act of building it constitute violence?  If you get drunk
and give your neighbor a cheerful hello and resounding hearty backslap
that damages his spine, or a firm handshake that breaks his finger, is
that violence?  If you neglect to check your instruments at your nuclear
reactor plant, and a meltdown causes thousands of people to die, is that
violence?  Does it depend on your motivation for the neglect?

Can someone please clearly define the word violence so further discussion
on this issue won't get mired in arguments about meanings.  Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Additional Information
Organization: SCTC
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:00:25 GMT

knowledg@netcom.com (Theodore J. Coombs) writes:

>I recently finished Atlas Shrugged, and it answered a lot of questions about
>life in general for me, and put a lot into perspective.  I'm very interested
>in learning more about Objectivism and related philosophies, ...

I think Nathaniel Branden's book "Judgement Day" is an excellent sequel
to "Atlas Shrugged." It's an autobiographical work about his life with
Ayn Rand. Mind bending, to say the least.

If you found the economic examples in "Atlas Shrugged" to be particularly
engaging, you should read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It
looks to me as if Rand took Hazlitt's examples and dramatized them.

Both books are available form Laissez Faire Books, 800-326-0996.

Happy Holidays!

Rick.
smith@sctc.com        arden hills, minnesota
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Additional Information
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:56:18 GMT

In article <lewchuk.725778073@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>What would you recommend for someone who picked up "Atlas Shrugged", read the
>first 30 pages, and then thought it was manic/depressive?  I have this slight
>problem with Atlas Shrugged: I find it too, well, uncomprehensible.  Is there
>some "Cole's Notes" or something else which summarizes it nicely, or has
>someone hacked down her novel to around 300 pages with more constructive plot
>and better characterization?

If you're looking for better literature, try reading "The
Fountainhead."  Then, if you're interested in her philosophy, read
"Atlas Shrugged".

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Why the hostility?
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:44:40 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec28.154610.15741@news.acns.nwu.edu>, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec26.212840.11849@news2.cis.umn.edu> rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens) writes:
|> >I'm sure most of you are aware of the
|> >opposition that Objectivism faces on the college
|> >campus.  I have my reasons for why I think this happens,
|> >but I'd be interested to hear others opinions on this.
|> >
|> I have a pretty good idea.  The Free Shit Brigades which control several
|> college campuses are:
|> 
|> 1)  Diametrically opposed to Objectivism.
|> 
|> 2)  Wholeheartedly opposed to any free speech other than their own.
|> 
|> The left wing at this campus has figured out a long time ago that they'd
|> rather not debate the Objectivists, since this would entail thinking rather
|> than what they are used to, which seems to be memorizing their propaganda. 
|> The solution?  Simple.  Systematically shut the Objectivist (and other hostile
|> ideas and groups) down.  When the Objectivists advertise a debate, a
|> discussion, or some other sort of meeting, the better funded and more powerful
|> left wing groups go out and destroy all Objectivist fliers within hours of
|> being put up.  Since they have little funding, power, time, or allies here,
|> the Objectivists get their fliers destroyed, no one knows about them, and
|> their numbers dwindle.  Meanwhile all of the socialist and similar groups win
|> by default, since they have become quite good at making theirs the only voice
|> that is heard.

	Being a startup activist group is never easy.  Having people in positions
of power is a wonderful help -- and the statists have been working on that for
decades, centuries.  We must have equal patience.  Moreover, if fliers are torn
down, we must sacrifice a little time and money and put up new ones.  Yes, it's a
sacrifice.  If the outcome is worth it, however, we'll make the sacrifice and be
glad to do it.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Re: Limits of Self Defense
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 13:50:56 GMT

In article <Jan02.090623.23463@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>
>By the way, what does QED mean?
>

QED (no periods necessary) is short for Latin "quod erat demonstrandum",
meaning literally, "which was to be proved". It's used to "sign" a proof,
indicating that one succeeded in proving what one set out to prove.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism