HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Greg James)
Subject: Re: A Warning to the Uninformed
Organization: The University of Calgary
	<Jan04.200248.57942@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <76166@apple.apple.COM>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:49:19 GMT

Is there any guarantee that the resulting billing bureaucracy for an
Objectivist socity will not be larger than a government one? If we assume that
current government spending approximates the magnitude of demand, then there
will (hopefully) be private concerns to provide ex-government sevices to all
that want and are willing and capable to pay for them.

However, the result would be a billing nightmare. Public roads, for example.
"You travelled on road segments a,c,d,e,g,... on your way to work and we expect
payment." Bike trails? Toll booths every 10 metres?

I don't think parks would be a problem. however. With no government zoning
regulations, it would all become built up. After all, who would pay for a chunk
of land, then fence it in, call it a park, and charge admission? I could walk
beside it and enjoy it and they couldn't touch me. Of course, the toll booth at
the end of the street would charge me for walking on the sidewalk they own.
Just bill the cars? Pshaw! As a car driver I don't want to pay for the pedestrians!

Basically, everything you did that involved anything that didn't belong to you
would be billed directly to you. I can imagine my mailbox (including the mail
delivery bill) at the end of the month. Of course, the shipping company that
got my food to market also has to deal with many different companies that own
many different road segments that have to somehow expensively control and bill
anyone who travels over their pavement, so they pass that cost to me.

I contend that the result would be communities or cities that become attractive
to live in simply because they don't have this nightmare. "I am an Objectivist,
and I can maximize my personal benefit by avoiding 20 hours of paperwork per
month by paying everything in a lump sum to a private organization that
provides me with parks, roads, etc. without checking into every little movement
I make. Plus the police cost less because they have fewer unpaid bill
allegations to investigate."

--
In Canada, room temperature IQs went down	| Greg James 
51 points in 1977.				| Computer Science Grad Student
						| University of Calgary
"Morals just ruin your weekend."		| greg@cpsc.ucalgary.ca

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: Unbreached Rationality
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:47:51 GMT

======================================
>svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
>>That would seem to be a desirable 'personality trait' for anyone, regardless
>>of what philosophy they subscribe to.   Anything else would seem to be self
>>destructive.  There should always be an answer to the question, "Why did
>>I do that?".   If not, our actions and reactions would have no central theme;
>>it would be like living life with emotions running amok.
>
 lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>I disagree.  Emotions do "run amok" of their own nature: they are illogical
>and entirely subjective.

 I disagree. While we are doing this "assert without proof" game, let me add:
 Emotions are logical and objective. Emotions have causes.
 For example, anger always results when we sense injustice..... 
 I admit that we do not understand all about human emotions, the cause hidden
 behind emotions etc.... but our ignorance of something is no justification
 for invoking chaos/subjective/"run amok" theories;
 Our current ignorance is no proof that we will be eternally stupid.

T.Y.				(know yourself and be yourself :) )
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
its just that we are underlings.
It may help to keep staring into the dirt,
lest the lake show us the stars.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:01:56 GMT

Steven,

   I object mostly to claims of certainty about anything, by anyone.
This has to include not only religion, but most philosophies and even
Science. Certainty requires not only complete knowledge of the thing
in question, but also a correct understanding of that knowledge; an
impossible circumstance.

   It has been assumed since the time of Aristotle, that logic can
discover Truth, but I'm not aware of any convincing demonstration of
that axiom. In fact, it seems that logic is most successfully employed
in exposing the fallicies of those claiming possession of Truth. If I
can't trust logic, then what's left?

   To denigrate a belief because it's based on faith or inaccessible
to logic, is to misunderstand the role of belief, faith and logic. I
believe that any claim to certainity arises from arrogance, however
the claim is justified. Religion offers as much substance as
philosophy or science since in each case it is the desire to believe
that decides the question.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:26:20 GMT

In article <C0IK8L.FHp@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Charles M Kozierok (cmk@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>: In article <C0D6Eq.MHD@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>: >   Is altruism the act or the motive behind the act? Can you condemn
>: >it or those who believe they practice it without knowing the soul of
>: >the Altruist? Maybe this is something to accpet at face value ...
>: 
>: *i* can't condemn any altruist.
>: i can only condemn his attempt to force his altruism
>: upon me. and i can pity his decision to voluntarily enslave himself
>: to those who care not for him.
>
>Charles,
>
>   I think you are at least confused on this point, possibly entirely
>wrong. How can an altruist force is altruism on someone; doesn't that
>contradict the meaning of altruism? What you must really mean is that
>you don't want those claiming to be altruists, the insinere, the fake,
>the manipulative hypocrites, using you to enhance their illusion.

boy, you really *are* behind in your posts... i had forgotten all
about this post... :^)

my statements were quite vague, i will admit.
my point was that personal altruism i have no problem with.
i *do* have a problem with collectivized altruism, a la our government
deciding that "we" all must "sacrifice" to do what's "fair", etc.

>   On the other hand, who is the more contemptable, the one who genuinely
>wants to do good but bungles his attempts, or the one who accepts the
>mercy and compassion of others even though he despise them. Would you
>really prefer a world where there were no altruists, where no one even
>attempted to help others? 

no i wouldn't. you are confusing what i want and what i am, with what
i feel others should be compelled into. my problem with altruism is
with the doctrine that others should be placed *above* the self, or
that man is not worthy unless he devotes himself to others. that
is *not* inconsistent with charity. it *is* inconsistent with the
prevailing attitudes that self-interest is somehow wrong.

--
charles
Xref: sparky alt.philosophy.objectivism:494 sci.math:17936
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.math
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorm ....(Re: Where's
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:48:03 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1993Jan10.171519.23129@athena.mit.edu> tyadav@athena.mit.edu
 (T.Y.) writes:

    >What happens if GT is applied to GT itself?
    >Is GT complete or incomplete?

  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).
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Atlas Drowning in the Fountainhead
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:15:48 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan12190703@lludd.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <C0r4nv.FK4@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
> writes:
>   >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.
>
>  But is Mark Hayes trying to convince you of anything in this passage? Not
>that I can see. He is saying, rather, that he finds none of the alleged
>logical reasoning in Galt's speech. Of course this will not convince anybody
>of anything, but perhaps it might prompt Objectivists to exhibit some
>of this supposed logical reasoning, if only to clarify what they mean by the
>term?

Examples of Objectivist reasoning have already been presented by
another person and me, to clarify what we mean by the term.  All you
have shown is that the reasoning is not based on a formal mathematical
system, which I accept.  I wanted to make clear that despite my
acceptance that Objectivism is not a formal system and that
Objectivist reasoning does not have formal, mathematical rigor, I
refuse to accept or be convinced by baseless statements against
Objectivism.

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: seamus@ravel.udel.edu (James G Dilmore)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Just a ping.
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:14:29 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

Hi ya.  I'm just having problems with my editor and am making sure
it works before I write alot.

bye

-- 
Jim Dilmore - seamus@brahms.udel.edu    or    dilmore@che.udel.edu 
   Deconstruct your Gender          Safe sex doesn't mean no sex.          
Give me life, Give me pain,         It just means use your imagination. 
Give me myself again.  Tori Amos.            Billy Bragg 
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(4)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 03:20:02 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan3.232711.19654@netcom.com>, mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
|> 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.

	My friend, you are describing statism quite nicely.
	What do you mean by "tyranny"?  If you mean violation of the rights to
life, liberty and property, the purpose of government is to prevent that, and
while it doesn't always do so, it's generally better than the alternative, which
is total anarchy (which is always hard followed by tyranny).
	If that's what you mean by tyranny, I challenge you to name one time in
history when lassiez-faire produced tyranny.
	Lassiez-faire, by its very nature, is the exact opposite of tyranny.  it
is the economic system in which every individual is truly free: free to live
without being molested, free to believe and produce and to enjoy the benefits of
producing, without suffering the physical restraints of others.

Steve
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:11:40 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan12.183432.14924@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>In article <1993Jan07.025827.22542@news.mentorg.com>

>madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
>>I have bought a copy of Coppleston's "History of Philosophy" and plan
>>to read about Kant and perhaps get references to any works of his that
>>are suitable for layman reading.

>This is silly.  If you want to find out about Kant you need to read
>Kant.  I suggest the 'Critique of Pure Reason' at least.

This is not fair. One can hardly expect a layman to make much sense
of something like the Critique on its own when professional philosophers
have been unable to make good sense of it for 200 years.

I agree, of course, that one should read at least parts of Kant
to get a feel for what he said, but I would certainly recommend
doing this with some assistance (preferably not from a Randian).

Besides, yeesh! Telling someone they can't learn anything about
Kant without reading the Critique (a long, rambling, inconsistent,
occasionally incoherent philosophical treatise) is like telling
someone the can't learn anything about Rand without reading
"Atlas Shrugged".

If Mr. Nerurkar is really interested, I will be glad to look
up some good secondary sources for him.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: test
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:30:22 GMT


test
-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Funding govt.........(Was: A Warning to the Uninformed
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:44:57 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

==================================================
 greg@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Greg James) writes:
>Is there any guarantee that the resulting billing bureaucracy for an
>Objectivist socity will not be larger than a government one?

 Well, why do we need billing bureaucracy in the first place?
 Collecting payment/bill/contributions is an economic task - best left
 to competition (free markets). There are very cheap ways to collect
 funds - check into the cash expense of running visa/mc/amex/discover.
 The responsibility of payment for a just and fair trade lies with the
 customer...

> ------[delete]--------
> However, the result would be a billing nightmare.

 Billing ain't the real nightmare. Actually, it is very simple.
 Much like your "ATM + VISA + PHONE" card, one would have
 "ATM + VISA + PHONE + SERVICES" card. Integrating payment is simple
 and is a productive service. People will pay, very much for the same
 reasons as they do now - for credit rating etc......
 Other technologies lie hidden in the undiscovered territory - the future :)
 But for technological marvels to happen, the technological questions have
 to come first - free market provides that incentive, those questions.

 Back to the subject of funding govt.
 The real question is "is billing the best way to fund govt?"
 I am still brooding on this. May be, the answer is a flat estate or
 property charge with the option that every individual has the constitutional
 right to _not pay_ - and non-payment implies the indidvidual does not get
 govt services (like court or police etc.). Late payments would carry hefty
 penalties - like our favorite credit card company's lending rules.

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: End of Iceland's Anarchy
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:24:31 GMT

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

Why shouldn't an anarchist force be well organized? I would see no
reason for this. Anarchy doesn't mean chaos or disorganization -- it
merely means an absense of coercion. I work for a large, bureaucratic
organization right now -- VOLUNTARILY. No reason security companies
couldn't form large armies.

In any case, even anarchosocialists, who I'm not fond of, have shown a
capacity to field and manage large extremely organized military forces
-- take Nestor Mahkno(sp?) and his people who held a large fraction of
the Soviet Union during its civil war early in this century. His
people were only crushed after all the other forces had been defeated
and Lenin had the opportunity to concentrate all his available forces
on the Mahknoists.

>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.

Or by being paid or other voluntary exchange. In any case, as I've
noted, anarchy doesn't imply chaos or disorganization -- merely a lack
of violent coercion. Thus, there is no reason that armies with modern
weapons couldn't be fielded by an appropriate organization in an
anarchy.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 17:16:32 GMT

In article 93Jan8165357@lludd.sics.se, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.152006.14458@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
> (Robert Baruch) writes:
> 
>    >Yes, I know that's what the _second_ "I am not mistaken" means, 
>    >but within (1) you have hidden the _first_ "I am not mistaken".
>    >The second sentence is
>    >clearly designed to trip up the non-analytic reader into thinking that the
>    >second "I am not mistaken" is the same as the first "I am not mistaken".
> 
>   No, you miss the point of the argument. In your version you may indeed
> stipulate that "I am not mistaken" refers to different things in its
> different occurrences. In the paradoxical argument it is essential that it does
> not. It is precisely to make this clear that the standard formulation is
> 
>   (1)   If (1) is true, then Santa Claus exists
> 
> or
> 
>     If the sentence I am now uttering is true, then Santa Claus exists.
> 


The first argument apparently asserts that (1) is true, then goes on to say
that if (1) is true, Santa Claus exists.  To determine whether this argument
is valid, you need to apply "A=A" to (1), determining the meaning of (1).

The second argument can be assigned a value of "false" without paradox.

In any case, I fail to understand the significance of these.  I started out
by claiming the usefulness of "A=A", because it tells you to analyze the meaning
of something before you use it in an argument.  I presented an example where
not invoking the law of identity leads you to accept the example as valid, when
it is not.  Do you not understand the example?

--Rob

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Betsy Speicher)
Subject: Ayn Rand on Charity
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:02:15 GMT

madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes --
 
>The other day on TV, I saw a Muslim woman that was raped by a Serbian
>militant and who gave birth to a daughter who she did not even want to
>see. Even the nurses all hate this child which will probably die in
>such situation. I felt really sorry for the child. I want to reconcile
>this feeling with rest of my rational thought in which Objectivistic
>ideas figure prominently.
 
No problem!  There are many situations, like the one you mentioned,
where helping an innocent person is a selfish thing to do.  It is a
matter of the good old Objectivist virtue of Justice -- something always
in one's self-interest -- of seeing that people one values (like
innocent children) do not suffer unjustly.
 
In her "Playboy" interview Rand stated --
 
>There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are
>worthy of the help and you can afford to help them.  I regard charity
>as a marginal issue.  What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a
>moral duty and a primary virtue.
 
                                 Betsy Speicher
 
Betsy_Speicher@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:14:27 GMT

In article <C0Hr5E.B5w@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.181000.2522@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes:
>|> 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.
>
>This attitude among "objectivists" is one of things criticized in
>this group.

hold on there just one minute...

this "attitude" has been expressed exactly *once*, by *one* person.
it has been argued against by both objectivists and non-o's alike.
i haven't seen even *one* other person agree with the sentiment on
either side.

so don't start with baseless generalizations, please.

--
charles