HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:25:00 GMT

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.

-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Additional Information
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:01:13 GMT

smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) 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.

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?

Generally, the first pages where her female protagonist starts rebuilding
a company by going over the head of her weenie brother does NOT impress me.
The atmosphere seems to be as depressing as the future scenes in "Terminator"
or "Mad Max".  As far as I can tell, it's a battle between "manic" and
"depressive" where the manic intellectuals win over the emotionalist
depressives.  Now personally I knowe a few emotionalist depressives and anyone
could win over them when they're in that mood.  Perhaps I'm missing something
that becomes clearer by page 600 or so, but that would mean than Ayn should've
started writing her book at page 600, not page 1.  Her initial "morals to the
story" are "action is better than non-action" and "sentimentality is not
practical".  Okay.  Is that it?  Or is there more?

I guess what I'm saying is "I found the first 30 pages downright unappealing.
Does it appear in another form or should I not bother reading it if I don't
like the first 30 pages, or does it get better later on?".

>Happy Holidays! >Rick.  >smith@sctc.com        arden hills, minnesota

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 01:19:20 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec28.201717.2669@nynexst.com>, baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch) writes:
|> In article 299@news2.cis.umn.edu, rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens) writes:
|> > One issue which I has given me considerable
|> > trouble is the health care issue.
|> > 
|> > I agree with the notion that one person cannot lay a claim
|> > on another's life.  for example, most people are under the
|> > impression that, "It's everyone RIGHT to be healthy", but
|> > these people have yet to explain to me AT WHOSE EXPENSE this
|> > would be.  
|> > 
|> > Am I incorrect in assuming that one is not born with the
|> > RIGHT to good health care and that to believe this 
|> > contradicts capitalism?
|> 
|> One quote comes to mind: "I shall never live for the sake of another
|> man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
|> 
|> The "right" to good health care implies that you may go to
|> any lengths to providing said good health care.  Including
|> taking money away from other people to finance it.  (aka "taxes").
|> 
|> You are correct (at least I feel that you are correct) in assumimg
|> that you are not born with the right to good health care.  You are
|> not born with that right any more than you are born with the
|> right to a job or the right to an education.
|> 
|> However, I too have had problems with this "right".  I feel within
|> myself that to be civilized means to take care of those who cannot
|> take care of themselves.  Lest anyone start to flame me, I try
|> to filter these feelings through the reality-screens...

	I agree totally!  I merely think that such help should be provided
voluntarily, not through the means of government force.  Here, of course, I think
I disagree with Ayn Rand, who seems to maintain that any form of altruism is
somehow evil.  Correct me if I'm giving an unjustified black eye to Ayn Rand, but
I think private altruism is perfectly OK, and I think she would disagree.

|> Capitalism (that is, the free market) would seem to take care of 
|> the problem.  If there is a true need for health care, a real
|> demand, then someone out there in the free market will provide
|> it -- for a price.
|> 
|> Of course, there will be those who can't afford it.

	True.  That, in my opinion, is where private generousity should step in.

|>  The free market
|> could come up with a medical insurance type scheme.  Of course, that
|> still doesn't address the problem of those with pre-existing conditions,
|> but then I'm not perfect.... [more deleted]

	Nobody's perfect, and neither is any economic system.  But in general,
individual freedom is the path to prosperity and individual slavery is the path
to poverty....at least, it is if the record of Russia and Eastern Europe as
compared to the West is any indication.
	I think Churchhill once said that capitalism is the worst economic system
ever devised by man, except for all the others.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Betsy Speicher)
Subject: Objectivism Information
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Distribution: World
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 02:54:50 GMT

For anyone who like to know more about Ayn Rand and her philosophy of
Objectivism:
 
You can request information by sending your name and address to --
 
OBJECTIVISM
Box 177
Murray Hill Station, NY 10157
 
This one letter or postcard will get you on the mailing list for --
 
(1)  The Ayn Rand Institute - The Center for the Advancement of
Objectivism.  This organization supports Objectivist clubs and colleges
and universities, sponsors high school essay contests, and publishes
scholarly works by Objectivist intellectuals.
 
(2)  Second Renaissance Book Service - which offers the largest
collection of Ayn Rand's works, books and lectures by other leading
Objectivists, and other "Books for the Rational Mind."
 
(3)  Lectures on Objectivism - which has lectures on philosophy by Ayn
Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and others.
 
(4)  The Intellectual Activist  -  an Objectivist review, published
bi-monthly.
 
(5)  Two-week summer conferences held by The Jefferson School and
Conceptual Conferences.
 
There is also an electronic mailing list for SERIOUS students of
Objectivism called "OSG" -- the Objectivism Study Group.  The Internet
address for information is --
 
INFO@OSG.COM
 
                                 Betsy Speicher
 
0004920191@mcimail.com
Betsy_Speicher@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck)
Subject: Just a few simple questions from a newcomer...
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:23:15 GMT

What, exactly is the role of the "government" in an objectivist
system?  Does it extend beyond enforcing the law that one person
cannot infringe on another's rights?  That, it would seem, would
require the minimal assumptions, but some questions arise:

1. Who pays for the government, and how is payment enforced?

2. Who polices the government?

3. Suppose two governments claim jurisdiction over a territory,
   or over a particular race, sex, &c within a boundary.  How
   is this resolved?

4. Is it possible for the government to be operated with 100%
   efficiency?  What force prevents the efficiency of the
   government (i.e. the assessed cost to the people) from
   assuming an arbitrarily bad value?

5. If an individual or corporation were to prove (objectively)
   that he could manage the government at lower cost to the
   people, without any degradation in quality (say, by using
   a novel technology, or by accepting lower wages), then
   should that person get the contract?

6. Suppose it were demonstrated, objectively, that the gov't
   could be operated at significantly lower cost if the
   territory were split up into smaller pieces, each with
   its own gov't.  Should the split be allowed?

7. What are the rights which the gov't protects?  Do I have
   the right to prevent someone from building a skunk farm
   next to my house for the purpose of devaluing my and my
   neighbors' property so he can buy them up cheap?

8. Could a person voluntarily give up his rights in exchange for
   money, say by some contractual agreement?  Suppose I
   offered everyone in a large region to give up all their
   rights, including the rights to leave the region, and sell 
   me all their land in return for a chance to win a dose
   of some ultra-pleasure-drug by random drawing?

9. How are the rights of infants protected? 


f.deck
physics
notre dame


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 01:12:58 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec28.191410.299@news2.cis.umn.edu>, rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens) writes:
|> One issue which I has given me considerable
|> trouble is the health care issue.
|> 
|> I agree with the notion that one person cannot lay a claim
|> on another's life.  for example, most people are under the
|> impression that, "It's everyone RIGHT to be healthy", but
|> these people have yet to explain to me AT WHOSE EXPENSE this
|> would be.  
|> 
|> Am I incorrect in assuming that one is not born with the
|> RIGHT to good health care and that to believe this 
|> contradicts capitalism?

	In my opinion, you are not incorrect in so believing.  If person A has a
right to health care, some other person must have some sort of enforceable
obligation to provide that health care.  In other words, some other person must
(and can be forced by government to) labor purely for the benefit of someone
else.  This is merely slavery, the oldest institution in the world.  It
contradicts the notion that people own their own bodies and that they should have
the rights which naturally follow from that ownership: life, liberty and property.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:02:12 GMT

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:
>}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".
>
>	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.

we don't disagree here. i was just responding to those who suggested
Rand would have considered such charity unacceptable to all, by suggesting
that even if she *personally* found it objectionable, she would
not have a problem if someone else wanted to do it. again,
if no obligation was involved.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:01:32 GMT

In article 29DEC199216413538@mivax.mc.duke.edu, seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
> In article <1992Dec29.181757.16667@nynexst.com>, baruch@nynexst.com writes...
> 
> >I like to say that the difference between anarchists and libertarians is that
> >anarchists don't believe their actions have any consequences.
> 
> This is the only part of your post I disagree with.  Maybe punk-anarchists
> don't believe their actions have consequences (I don't know many punks, just
> using an example) but the anarchists I know are also the most responsible 
> people I know.  An intelligent anarchist will realize that government will
> not go away so long as people perceive a need for it, and any intelligent
> person, anarchist or not, should act responsibly.  Anarchist utopia
> is only achievable if people are responsible enough to leave others alone.

So is the set of anarchist principles a subset, superset, or does it have
an intersection with, Objectivist principles?  Does the objectivist principle
of the free market exclude allowing government?  If so, then the anarchist
non-government principle is the same as that of the objectivist.

I guess the difference, then, between an anarchist and an objectivist is that
the anarchist just doesn't want government, and says nothing about free
market.  The objectivist doesn't want government, but also wants free market.

> In theory, I am an anarchist.
> In reality, I am more of a libertarian. 
> At times I side with Republicans to save money.
> Once my money is stolen, I want the democrats to spend it on me.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                They'll only do that if you *need* it!

--Rob
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Limits of Self Defense
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:42:31 GMT

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?

my personal interpretation would be that whatever actions necessary
are allowable as long as it is still self-defence. once the retaliation
becomes not self-defence but rather punishment or revenge, it is not
allowable under an objectivist code. 

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.

--
charles
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Why the hostility?
Date: 1 Jan 93 00:41:03 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

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.

	Perhaps because Ayn Rand herself was such a strong personality.  People
tend to have strong reactions to strong personalities.  Rand was somewhat
paranoid and not very tolerant of other people's opinions, and not very willing
to allow others to contribute to the body of Objectivist philosophy, so she
tended to piss some people off.
	Personally, I accept much of Rand's philosophy and reject some of it. 
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
like me, who agrees with 99% of her philosophy, wouldn't be allowed to contribute
to Objectivism because I don't swallow the whole party line.
	If I had to deal with crap like that, I might get hostile too.  What's
more, Objectivism is necessarily weaker because it excludes a great many people
who might be quite beneficial to the Cause simply because they aren't robots and
they don't buy everything that the inner circle of Objectivists want to sell them.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Religion?
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:43:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.053202.1416@news2.cis.umn.edu> rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens) writes:
>
>I first profess no real knowledge of exactly
>what the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism
>is.  I AM vaguely aware of the accusation that Libertarianism
>does arrive at some conclusions on the basis of religion.
> 
>If this is true then I could see why Objectivists would want
>to distance themselves from Libertarianism.
>
>Would anyone care to enlighten me on the facts?

Firstly, let me say that I am a strict (some would say fanatical)
Libertarian, and an atheist. Libertarianism has no connection
whatsoever with religion that I know of.

As far as I've been able to tell, Objectivism is a moral philosophy,
while Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Can anyone more
in the know confirm or refute this?

(by the way: I'll be glad to send out copies of the Libertarian
party platform to any who request it)

-- 
__/\__  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.
From: gelinas@merit.edu (Joe Gelinas)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:34:30 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: merit.edu

sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

>|> However, I too have had problems with this "right".  I feel within
>|> myself that to be civilized means to take care of those who cannot
>|> take care of themselves.  Lest anyone start to flame me, I try
>|> to filter these feelings through the reality-screens...

>	I agree totally!  I merely think that such help should be provided
>voluntarily, not through the means of government force.  Here, of course, I think
>I disagree with Ayn Rand, who seems to maintain that any form of altruism is
>somehow evil.  Correct me if I'm giving an unjustified black eye to Ayn Rand, but
>I think private altruism is perfectly OK, and I think she would disagree.

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.  That something may be as intangible as the feeling "I done 
good," but it is always _something_.  In the case of helping others
(i.e, altruism), the motiviation is usually external recognition.  If 
not from the recipients, then from the community.  If not from the 
community, then from God (or whatever passes for Him in the giver's 
universe).  The danger of 'altruism' is that one comes to think one
really doesn't expect a reward and then can neither understand nor 
cope with the feelings of frustration, rejection, and depression 
experienced when the reward is not forthcoming. 
 
Hmmm.... maybe altruism _is_ evil after all:  it generally requires
one to lie to oneself, something Ms. Rand would never tolerate.
 
                   Joseph L. Gelinas, Jr.
            gelinas@merit.edu    gelinas@umich.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism