HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward)
Subject: Failure of Objectivism(8)
Summary: Why Objectivism is ultimately a failure
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:39:15 GMT

On a personal note: Ayn Rand was a consummate coward.  She tolerated
no opposition to her own ideas.  She dismissed all but her most rigid
True Believers.  She betrayed her chief collaborator after years of
intense work together.  She refused to give credit to her
contributors.  Ultimately, she failed herself, trading self interest
for self indulgence as she evolved into a cantankerous and vindictive
old woman.
 
This, of course, says nothing about the philosophy itself.  Still, 
somehow I just want a better role model for my kids.

Michael Ward 
mward@netcom.com
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Summary: Can objectivists be anarchists?
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:54:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <7JAN199316314132@mivax.mc.duke.edu>, seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes...
>At any rate, I think it's possible to be an anarchist *and* an objectivist.
>Anyone agree?  Why or why not?

	Well...  A small 'o' objectivist - maybe.  But an Objectivist, no.

	Ayn Rand was very clear on the point that Objectivism was
anti-anarchism (in any form).  An anarchism that has no legal system
she ruled out with a wave of her hand (as do I).

	She figured that an anarchism with multiple legal systems
operating in the same territory would lead to contradictions in the
application of law (between different systems), and this would interfere
with the Objective Legal Code (tm) that Objectivists would want to live
under, cutting into their values.  It is my belief that she was
insufficiently ingenious in figuring out why this might not be so.

	If _The Enterprise of Law_ were written while she was alive,
it would be interesting to hear what she would have had to say about it.
The book explains in the best detail I have ever seen how private law
evolves and how different systems would resolve disputes.  It will
change the way you think about law, period.  I wish Objectivists would
read it.  It would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the matter.

	Now, I *do* believe that it is possible that a small-'o'
objectivist *could* be an anarchist.  To my knowledge, no objectivist
or Aristotelian has constructed a philosophical defense of anarchism
based on an objective morality.  I believe it can be done.  Has anyone
read "Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order"
by Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl?  It is an impressive attempt
at using an Aristotelian natural-end ethic (similar to Objectivism,
but better developed, IMHO) to justify "Lockean" negative rights
(especially the right to property).  I believe that this philosophy
is well developed enough to be ideal for a defense of private legal
systems (in light of the systems' history).  I only wish I were a
professional philosopher so I could seriously do such a thing.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Kant=Kant
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 02:42:04 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <lewchuk.726531997@therien>, lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
|>                                                                    The point
|> is that life develops senses in accordance with its survival needs.

I found this statement fascinating. Is there any work that deals with sense
evolution and/or predicts what senses we (or whoever) might yet develop ?


Thanks,

Madhav Nerurkar                Disclaimer: These are my opinions.





Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
	<1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com>
	<TORKEL.93Jan6002412@bast.sics.se> <MERRITT.93Jan6131932@macro.bu.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:31:50 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan6131932@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu
 (Sean Merritt) writes:

   >A Turing machine could solve this problem by denying someone
   >a chute, it could not without specific input choose 5) that
   >is a human's are capaple of this. If I provide the TM with 
   >the data that chutes can be used by one or two people it
   >will again fall in line with human decisions. 
   >Can you offer a counter Objective analysis that does not use
   >math or logic at some level? Do so then. But if you do
   >than you have brought the consequences of Godel's Theorem
   >into play. For the specific conjecture above a TM may
   >or may not halt. Humans will reach a decision no matter what. 

  I can't make sense of any of this. On what do you base the claims
about Turing machines, and how does Godel come into it? And what is
the intended point of it all?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Re: End of Iceland's Anarchy
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:06:58 GMT

In article <lewchuk.726638394@therien>, 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.
> 
> 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.

This is a very interesting question.  One of the weaknesses of a statist
society is that an aggressor nation can just come in and capture the
state, and put their own agents in charge of it.  In an anarchist society,
there is no central state to surrender to the enemy.

There is a science fiction story called "And Then There Were None" from the
sixties or seventies, I think.  I can't recall the author at this moment. 
The premise is that a non-violent anarchist society based on Ghandian 
civil disobedience is subject to a visit from a huge bureaucraticly oriented
military force intent on setting up a government and imposing some laws.
Ultimately they fail because nobody will cooperate with them and there
are no organs of power that they can deal with.  

There is also some work by a Gene (someone?) that I am not familiar with
on non-military national defense.  Does anyone know what I am thinking of..?

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blumen                          | robert@tcs.com
Senior Software Engineer               | 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3759
From: joeli@dawg.bothell.sgi.com (Joel Iseman)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Objectivism vs Libertarianism
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:34:40 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

I still need some help in understanding why the Libertarian political party and Objectivist Philosopy are in conflict.  My understanding of the two indicates lots of area of agreement.

1) An understanding of the power of the free market system.

2) A fundamental distrust of government intervention in the lives of         individuals.

3) An objection to using force to redistribute wealth, opportunity etc. 

If an objectivist has to vote or support a political party, it seem to me that of all the available political parties the Libertarian Party is the most acceptable.

It also seem to me that if the Objectivist Philosopy ever hopes to make an impact in the direction of this country, they are going to have to work through some political organization.    
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth)
Subject: Re: So where are the objectivist governments?
Keywords: objectivist
Organization: internet
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:30:38 GMT

There have been ojectivist goverments: The US until WWI, Hong Kong is 
close....  I personaly feel that there was a triumph of socialist education
that made it unfashionable to be against statist solutions.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own and do not reflect those of my employeers....
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorem ....(Re: Where's
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:23:53 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <lewchuk.726773477@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA 
(Michael Lewchuk) writes:

   >Note: in no way does this say that every system is "invalid", just that
   >every predicate logic system is either incomplete or inconsistent.

  No, Godel's theorem does not state that "every predicate logic system"
is incomplete or inconsistent. There are many complete and consistent
predicate logic theories. Or perhaps you mean something else entirely by
"predicate logic system", or by "incomplete"?

  I've deleted "sci.math" from the Newsgroups line, just because I don't
think there is any reason why sci.math should be cluttered up with this.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:15:47 GMT
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
	<1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com>
	<TORKEL.93Jan6002412@bast.sics.se> <MERRITT.93Jan6131932@macro.bu.edu>
	<TORKE
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <MERRITT.93Jan7093534@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu
 (Sean Merritt) writes:

    >If there are "no definable set of consequences" of Objectivism,
    >then there are no(ZERO) Humans acting in a in a manner that
    >applies Objectivism.

  I see that you didn't understand my remark. Recall that the point of that
remark was simply that Godel's theorem is inapplicable to Objectivism
because Objectivism is not a formal system. In particular, there is no
formally definable "set of consequences of Objectivism", so it isn't
even formally possible to try to apply Godel's theorem. This is not at all to
say that Objectivism has no consequences. In several senses, Objectivism
obviously does have consequences.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: a relavant quote on logic "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality."
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:08:54 GMT

leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson) writes:
>then: a. things are not what they are; b. things can be and not
>be at the same time, in the same respect, ie., reality is made up
>of contradictions.  If so, by what means did anyone discover it? 
>By illogical means. (This last is for sure.)

(b) sounds like some recent discoveries in physics, that reality in itself
is probabilistic and not deterministic.  Discovered by "observation".  In
effect, it is not saying that relity is contradictory, but that it is in
some cases undefinable.  That is, "A=A" may not be true in that I can "show
you" an "A" which may be nothing, something, or both, or neither, and is
provably impossible to determine which it is, if it is anything at all.

Logic has no use in perceiving reality.  You can't "prove" anything
exists per se by using logic.  You must accept that your senses are correct
and then act on the results.

>"It's logical, but I don't choose to be
>logical" or: "It's logical, but people are not logical, they
>don't think--and I intend to pander to their irrationality."
>					--Philosophy: Who Needs It? pg 15

People are not entirely logical.  In some ways, they are very illogical.
This is not to say that they do not think, just that they are not logical
every waking moment.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:51:37 GMT

sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
>	The fundamental question, which all political philosophies ultimately
>must answer, is this: when, if ever, is it permissable to enslave other human
>beings?  Objectivism is the philosophy which answers: never! >Steve

No, Anarchy is the philosophy which answers "never".  Objectivism "enslaves"
people to a set of social laws, if you are talking about "freedom" here.
By the way, apart from being a nifty slogan, what do you mean by this?
In short, please explain how the word "enslave" is used above.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Randian Objectivists -- A Dead Species?
Organization: SCTC
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:27:56 GMT

While I haven't been reading _all_ the messages in this newsgroup
(after all I have a _real_ job to do, too) I've been looking for
evidence of the existence of the classical, orthodox Randian
Objectivists that I'd encountered in decades past.  Some writers call
these "High Church Objectivists."

Such people believe that Ayn Rand's writings and statements are a
source of indisputable truth.  I haven't seen any evidence that such
people are active in this group, aside from the odd "fan" who has
evidently discovered Rand's writings only recently.

I find this very encouraging. For years I'd been troubled by the smug
"All true individualists think just like me" attitude that Rand
fostered in her declining years. Reason is asserting itself again.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Unbreached Rationality
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:57:37 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.

I disagree.  Emotions do "run amok" of their own nature: they are illogical
and entirely subjective.

Why am I posting this?  Because I wanted to.  It is not necessary that I
have a central theme.  I am not a novel; I do not have to have a theme, moral,
plot, or background pages.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:13:14 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) speaks:
 
(first, he quotes me...)
->>Scenario: While contemplating his own glory aboard his private yacht,
->>Howard Roark sees someone drowning, going help-help-help and all that
->>... All Roark has to do to save the person is walk across the deck, grab
->>a life preserver, and toss it in. But he doesn't bother - why should he?
 
->because most people value saving a life over staying put in their
->deckchair. now if HR couldn't swim and his only way of saving
->the guy was to jump in, i'd say he was well within reason in not
->doing so. but if he wanted to, he would. that is all.
 
This does not in any way answer my question. I didn't ask what
most people would do. I asked what Roark *should* do, and whether
or not a certain course of action would be considered objectionable
by "objectivists". And please don't muddy the waters (no pun
intended) by throwing in suggestions that he can't swim or
whatever. Stick to my example. It's straightforward enough.
 
->>He's too busy contemplating his own glory, and no-one else has a
->>claim on his actions.
->
->this is ludicrous. objectivists simply claim that he doesn't have
->an *obligation* to save the guy. that doesn't mean he wouldn't,
->if all he had to do was throw him a life preserver.
 
Again, I'm not asking you what Roark would be likely to do,
I'm asking what he *should* do. Perhaps you don't like that word.
OK. Let me just ask then, what would be an "objectivistically"
appropriate attitude toward his failure to throw the preserver?
Since you do say that he has no obligation to save the guy,
do you have any comments on his letting him drown? Does it
sit well with your concept of the "objectivist" man?
 
->>Has he behaved in a reprehensible way, Objectivists? As far as I can
->>gather, your answer must be "no".
 
->define "reprehensible". i would think his actions were reprehensible, based on
->his prioritization of what is important. others might disagree.
->of course maybe i don't know *why* he didn't act.
 
Define "reprehensible"... OK... "wrong", "bad", "ugly", "objectionable",
"inappropriate", "immoral", take your pick. But you don't really
seem to have a problem with the term, since you go right ahead and
proceed to use it on your own, so why the demand for a definition?
 
You admit that you would find his actions reprehensible. Why?
Just a matter of personal taste, here? Or is there something
a little more objective - in the standard sense - to it?
 
P.S. - You want to know why Roark didn't act, I'll tell you;
this is, after all, my own fictional example. He was, as I
said, too busy contemplating his own glory. He simply didn't
want to be bothered taking the trouble to cross the deck,
grab the preserver, and toss it over. Great guy, huh?
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Date: 10 Jan 1993 04:52:05 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: galois.math.ubc.ca

In article <1993Jan8.171632.17379@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com writes:
>In article 93Jan8165357@lludd.sics.se, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
[...]
>>   (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 argument is as follows. Assume (1) is true. Then since (1) is
true, then by (1) Santa Claus exists. Thus if we assume (1) is true,
we may conclude that Santa Claus exists; ergo if (1) is true then
Santa Claus exists.

But this is just what (1) claims, hence (1) is in fact true. But then
by (1) again, Santa Claus exists.

The problem is, as is well known, something to do with the meaning of
self-referential sentences. The challenge is to produce a theory of
meaning which explains what exactly the problem is. It should at the
same time, for example, explain how it is that we are able to produce
apparently valid but implicitly self-referential statements, such as
statements which refer to all possible statements (which implicitly
includes the statement itself), or, "I always tell the truth" and the
like.

To say that one has to identify the meaning is fine, but does not
explain how to do it.

Keith Ramsay            "Being a computer means not having 
ramsay@math.ubc.ca       to say you're sorry."
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Limits of Self Defense
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:06:38 GMT

In article <C0DA3t.n0y@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>   Discounting Divinity (which all intellectually hip philosophers
>do), what is the basis for making any kind of moral claim? In a
>Universe without God, morality is whatever we say it is, how can
>anyone condemn another's actions as immoral without also imposing his
>own morality? In truth, the only actions we can condemn are those that
>work to our harm, or, more generally, anything we don't like.

The bases for Objectivism's moral claims are reasoned conclusions
based on axioms that have been discussed in this group and other
places.

>   A genuinely Objective judge, would have to give equal weight to
>both parites in any dispute since even the most egregious violence can
>be justified (at least potentially). The fact that you may have come
>to great harm can never be relevent if your tormentor is to receive a
>fair hearing. The only defense for self defense is that he who
>attacked you had already legitimized violence; it was to be the
>substance of your relationship. That being true, you are pefectly
>justified in responding in kind ...

You are confusing Objectivism with an incorrect definition of being
objective.  Being an objective judge doesn't mean necessarily giving
equal weight to both sides, especially when one is less credible than
the other.  The philosophy we are discussing is called Objectivism
because one of its axioms is that an objective reality exists,
independent of human perceptions.  I suggest you learn more about
Objectivism before criticizing it.  Read Ayn Rand's books, subscribe
to the Intro to Objectivism mailing list, or just read this newsgroup
for some time.


-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(4)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:04:02 GMT

markb@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Mark Bower) writes:
>Please give the time period, the nations involved, and proof that they were
>operating in a truly regulation-free, tariff-free, and full-knowledge
>environment. Also, show that existing power structures arose from the market
>forces themselves and not from pre-existing systems; i.e. European aristocracy
>derived it's power from feudal land holdings obtained by force of arms so does
>not speak to this situation.

A full-knowledge environment is slowly becoming more practical in a very
limited "fullness" of knowledge but is by no means possible.  You are
requiring people to be omniscient which is more than a tad silly.

By the way, if I had freedom of knowledge I'd have sucked up entire
libraries, centuries of classical music, etc. by now.  But unfortunately
I as a human have limited time and brainpower and what goes in does not
stay in, so in essence I have rather limited knowledge.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism