HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jredford@shearson.com (John Redford)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Lehman Brothers
	<dege.725682369@umn-cs> <C02z9F.Arn@hfglobe.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:39:27 GMT

In article <C02z9F.Arn@hfglobe.intel.com> labelle@hfglobe.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:

  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.

Well, thank you for providing us with your biased crap. I suppose that
when someone show you a law you suddenly say "Keen!" and dont bother
to think that a law is not the final measure of rightness in the
world.

Aside from the fact that you write like an idiot, I agree with your
theme. I dont see why people make such a big deal over it or even
argue it though.

I have the 'right', if you wish to call it that, to do ANYTHING AT
ALL. What I can do that is perceived by others is fairly limited, of
course; what I can do that only I perceive is less limited, but still
limited to a degree.

I can attempt to help needy people if i wish. I can attempt to bomb
Iraq if I wish. I, like most people, am more likely to accomplish the
former of course. Anything one can do, one can be said to have the
'right' to do. A person can _attempt_ a very large number of things,
including things that are called impossible.

By this point I am sure that the vaguely intelligent people reading
this have the idea I am trying to convey. With that in mind, it is
still possible to say that "Society as a whole has an obligation to
help those in need" if you allow that society has an interest in
self-preservation and that "those in need" are members of society.

Which is to say that society has the same rights as the individuals in
the society. Society can place restrictions on its own behaviour, just
as an individual may. These do not remove rights, but merely create
guidelines.

The only question then is "can society force its members to follow its
restrictions?" and the answer is that the question is meaningless. Any
people who dont wish to follow the restrictions of a society are NOT
members of that society. They might occupy space in close proximity,
but that is not the same.

It is impossible to conflict with 'your own' society because it ceases
to be yours when you cease to agree.

Society has the right to attempt to force all people in a physical
locale to obey its restrictions. After all, you have the same right;
you merely find it nigh impossible.

Summary: Discussion of 'objectivism' is pretty useless, and pretty
         unlikely.

--
John Redford (AKA GArrow) | 3,600 hours of tape.
jredford@shearson.com     | 5 cans of Scotchguard.
From: brandyn@Apple.COM (Brandyn)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: A Warning to the Uninformed
Date: 3 Jan 93 08:43:46 GMT
Organization: Very Little


    An unfortunately large percentage of the "Objectivist" ideas being
posted to this group are _not_ Objectivism.  I don't mean to imply that
there isn't room for new ideas -- but it isn't fair to label an idea as
Objectivism if it isn't Objectivism.  If the uninitiated reader beleived
every claim that has been made by this group about Objectivism, he would
be forced to conclude that Objectivism is a self-contradictory pile of
nonsense.

    Anyway, it would be helpful to those who aren't already versed in
Objectivism if people gave some indication of the authenticity of their ideas
when posting (E.g., "It is my impression that Objectivism states..." or
"Ayn Rand writes..." or "I think it should be...", etc...), instead of
always writing as if Ayn were our roomate.

    Now a specific query along these lines:

lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:

> [A good Objectivist government...]
>     Provides basic education and standard of living to children.

    I've seen this idea expressed a few times now, but to my knowledge
this is not from Objectivism.  Does anyone have a reference for this?

    From OPAR (Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand) page 366:

        [The purpose of government] entails three and only three
        governmental functions.  In Ayn Rand's statement, these are:
        "the police, to protect men from criminals--the armed services,
        to protect men from foreign invaders--the law courts, to settle
        disputes among men according to objective laws."  Any additional
        function would have to involve the government initiating force
        against innocent citizens.  Such a government acts not as man's
        protector, but as a criminal.

    Welcome to America.

    -Brandyn (brandyn@apple.com)

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:47:03 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article jredford@shearson.com (John Redford) writes:
| I have the 'right', if you wish to call it that, to do ANYTHING AT
| ALL. 

No, you do not.
Your 'right' to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.  

-- 
-------------------------
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: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: Just a few simple questions from a newcomer...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:48:17 GMT

============================================
 fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
>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?

 Two options have been proposed:
 [1] Charity [2] Sales tax
 
 The charity option is very controversial. And doesn't make much sense
 to me. But then, I could be wrong somewhere.
 Sales tax seems most reasonable. If you get more property, you need more
 protection, so you pay proportionally more.
 Income tax doesn't seem fair.

>
>2. Who polices the government?

 The constitution and the judiciary when the govt is in term.
 The individuals governed when the term expires (elections).

>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?

 The consitutional rights (free speech etc.). These rights would
 evolve as we humans evolve in our understanding of ourselves.

 The skunk example is sorta like the "can X kill Y, if X wants to" example,
 or the current debate on environment in this newsgroup. IMO, you do have
 a right to unpolluted air/food/etc. All industries are based are human
 happiness/rights/.... The legislation has to come from govt, while the
 executive remains with the free markets.

>9. How are the rights of infants protected? 

 with the assistance of parents? I don't get this question.

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: randy@halcyon.com (C. Brandon Gresham)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 09:47:26 GMT

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".
>
>> wpuld seem to require
> a considerable amount of justification from more basic principles,
>

Sorry, Michael, but in the end all 'basic principles' come down to "it
sounds\feels right to me\us."

randy@halcyon.com 
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:18:25 GMT

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.

The other two types are:
1.  Action for its own sake (for example, twiddling fingers due to boredom)
2.  Action for no sake whatsoever (not normally possible in humanoids
    classified as "sane").

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Re: Pollution controls, and other controls
Keywords: Controls etc.
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:01:04 GMT

In article <lewchuk.725652752@therien>, lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
> 
> There are a few problems with state (or any other form of) regulation.
> 
> The problem is making sure the companies conform to the specified regulations.
[Analysis deleted]

> If there was a solution to this other than strict governmental control over
> pollution and frequent testing of resource (air, water, land) quality
> (which I don't believe is being done now -- at least not frequent testing)
> it would probably have been implemented.


I disagree with your last comment.  There are many great ideas that in
spite of their greatness are not implemented.  As Buchanan's public choice
school and Mises anlysis of bureaucracy has shown us, when a state starts
controlling economic life and other areas of life, a dynamic of interest
groups or "rent-seeking" behavior comes about, which results in the
pursuit of interest group benefits rather than the public good.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blumen                          | robert@tcs.com
Senior Software Engineer               | 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3759
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:33:08 GMT

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
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:08:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
| I believe you fail to see the lack of morality in Objectivism.  
| Objectivist goals define no morality.  That is, you have no 
| obligation to do anything whatsoever.  

A moral code is an ordered heirarchy of values.  (Morality
is not equivalent to Judeo-Christian teachings, though they
are a moral system.)  Objectivism is
built on an explicit moral code based upon an individual human's
[we can extend it to Vulcans when we find one] life.  Objectivism
therefore defines a morality.

Each human being has a moral obligation under Objectivism to
respect the rights of others.  Basically, the obligation is
not to bash other people with a club unless they bash you first.
Libertarians call this the non-coercion principle.


-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
From: dege@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 05:05:49 GMT

In <1992Dec31.174329.9446@microsoft.com> johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:

>In article lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>| >    Are you saying need does not impose an obligation upon those who are not
>| >in need?  That is morally unsupportable.  

>My wife is a nurse.  If you are dying, that is
>sad, but by what right do you claim the services [unpaid of course,
>you contend she has an obligation to provide it you don't want to
>bargain/pay for it] of my wife? A system where one person is forced 
>to work and the other recieves the unearned benefits is called 
>slavery and is not morally supportable.

>Need does not impose an obligation on those not in need, no matter
>how great the need or how obnoxiously ostentatious those not in need.
>It is entirely supportable morally, from those who don't believe
>slavery is moral.  

   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.  Certainly the Hypocrattic oath
requires that such aid be given.  But whether the value system of the 
possible provider of charity recognizes such an obligation or not, the
"rights" of the recipient would be irrelevent, if they existed.
 
================================


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck)
Subject: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:18:08 GMT

Claiming that objectivism arrives at its conclusions by logic
and reason leaves me wondering... what are the _premises_ from
which the conclusions are logically derived?  Clearly, we ask
more from a philosophy than that it be self-consistent.  We
also require that its _axioms_, i.e. the statements which are
accepted without proof are actually true.

So let it be with objectivism.  What are its fundamental
tenets of faith?  Furthermore, how might a skeptical, but
intelligent and informed person be convinced that these
tenets are correct?

f.deck
physics
notre dame

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Duties of care to babies
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 01:47:33 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <BzzvJx.HLs@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
|> The libertarians I've read --Rand, Nozick, Hospers -- tend to say
|> little about one's duties towards the care and feeding of children.
|> Does the libertarian ethos extend to kids as well?  That is, if I owe
|> adults nothing more than a duty not to murder them, enslave them, or rob
|> them, am I free to let their kiddies starve?  My own kiddies, too?

	Excellent question.  I believe that a parent OWES certain things to their
child because the parent caused the child to be created.  The child didn't ask
for it or request it.  It is because of the parent's acts that the child is here,
and that places a burden, a responsibility, on the parents.
	This, of course, only applies to YOUR kiddies.  Now, I think it's highly
immoral of you to not help the other guy's children if you know they're in need. 
But I don't support using force to make you help them.  I don't believe that the
moral debt you owe other people's children is one that any government can or
should enforce.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden)
Subject: Re: Limits of Self Defense
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 09:34:23 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?  

I see this as a conflict between de jure and de facto Objectivism.
Theoretical Objectivism would place all force in the control of the
government (thus the strong desire of Objectivists and Founding
Fathers to limit the size and power of government), so it would be the
place of B to sit and wait for the government representatives to come
to defend him.

To which I say, "Yeah, right!" Of course, few police officers are
going to be that fast, so you would then temporarily assume the powers
of government and make a citizen's arrest or just outright kill B. But
when Mr. Government Representative comes along, you're going to be
held responsible for those actions, and if you step over the line a
police officer would draw, you're probably going to suffer some
consequences. In other words, use your judgment.

-Bret Aarden.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Obj. Philosophy
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1993 01:44:33 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <1993Jan1.095453.28470@athena.mit.edu>, amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden) writes:
-- stuff deleted ---
|>  
|> Powerful though this idea may be, I think some people in their zest
|> for idealism tend to carry it to extremes. ...What axioms does
|> Objectivism postulate as being proper? None! Axioms are axioms! Reason
|> is the logical interpretation of experience, but you can't take it any
|> deeper than experience.
|>  
Miss Rand states axioms that are "self-evident". To agree with this claim
or not is a personal choice. I do. Consider for example her statement:
Existence exists and the act of grasping that statement implies consciousness. To 
me, just reading those words make two of her most fundamental axioms
self-evident. To prove it is like proving what is blue for me is blue for
you. The Objectivistic theory of concepts provides another infinite source
of inputs to the logical system. Again, the fact that valid concepts are
formed by abstracting out the details and retaining essentials of other
concepts or of real world percepts was "self-evident" for me after reading
her treatment.
-- stuff deleted ---
|> The greatest strength of Objectivism is its tolerance of different
|> sets of axioms. 
Objectivism does not tolerate axioms that clash with its basic axioms such
as "existence exists", "consciousness is secondary to existence", 
"contradictions do not exist" etc. Could you produce another set of axioms
that are different than ones Miss Rand states and which you believe
Objectivism tolerates ?
-- stuff deleted ---
|> and this is the real power of a rational philosophy. Naturally, these
|> principles are mere theoretical constructs and a great deal of effort
|> must be put into: first, using reality as an error-correction feedback
|> source; and second, training yourself to follow these guidelines
|> instinctively.
Objectivism uses reality for more than error-correction feedback. It 
uses it as the major source to derive concepts from.
-- stuff deleted ---
|> I spent an evening with a friend arguing with someone who had spent
|> years studying yoga and meditation, until we realized we were agreeing
|> with each other. It makes me think that Objectivism is simply another
|> path to spiritual happiness.
|>  
I am curious to know what method you used as a medium to conduct a debate.
The last time I tried such conversation, there was a deadlock when the
yoga guy insisted we can not be always logical.
|>  
|> -Bret Aarden.
|> 

Madhav Nerurkar
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward)
Subject: Failure of Objectivism(5)
Summary: Why Objectivism is ultimately a failure
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:36:37 GMT

Those societies best able to achieve a widely based prosperity --
bringing great wealth for the few, modest prosperity for the many, and
extreme poverty for only a very few -- seem to be those who have
established a well regulated free enterprise system.  This, by the
way, includes our own society.  The main argument between liberals and
conservatives should be over how much regulation makes an economy well
regulated.  Let the left and the right fight over whether it should be
total or totally absent.
 
Michael Ward
mward@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward)
Subject: Failure of Objectivism(4)
Summary: Why Objectivism is ultimately a failure
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:27:11 GMT

A reading of history indicates that when people are allowed to
accumulate wealth without any regard for their fellows, the result is
tyranny.  What is to keep people from enslaving their fellows after
Objectivism allows them to accumulate enough wealth to overcome any
opposition?  Laissez-faire economics is not exactly a new concept.  It
has been abandoned every time it has been tried, not because of any
idealism but because it just doesn't work.  It would seem no matter
how often or how thoroughly an idea is discredited, there is always
someone willing to resurrect it.
 
Michael Ward
mward@netcom.com