HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 18:47:29 GMT

In article <BxKo0s.8E8@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.023924.2795@eecs.nwu.edu> ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>>I don't claim to be conversant with the details of this work, but there
>>is work in sociobiology which suggests that it may be evolutionarily
>>advantageous to be "altruistic" (in some sense) towards people you are
>>related to.  
>
>I think that the "sense" in which it is meant is vitally important.  
>In one sense, the actions are detrimental to the life of the organism.
>THAT is altruism.  In another sense, the actions of the organism amount
>to a "trade" in which the net benefit is helpful to the life of the 
>organism.  That is NOT altruism.  It is self-interest expressed in a 
>trade.

Mr. Yoder speaks of that which he does not know.

Evolutionary advantage is conferred on genotypes, not phenotypes. The
notion of altruism being advantageous when directed towards relations
is based on the fact that they share some amount of your genotype, and
has nothing to do with things that benefit your "life".

To take a concrete example. A genotype that somehow encourages saving
several siblings from drowning at the expense of its carrier will do
quite well in an environment where such events are common. A
particular instance of the phenotype (maybe the organism that is Mr.
Yoder) may die as a result of this altruistic effort (and this is
presumably bad for the organism that is Mr.  Yoder), but good for its
genotype (or some subset thereof).

Since it seems rather meaningless to use moral terms like
self-interest in the context of genotypic frequency, I suggest that we
drop this line of argument.

-- paul
-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.logic
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Subject: Re: Theory?
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
	<1992Nov4.173117.1688@netcom.com>
	<JTURNER.92Nov4145031@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<1992Nov4.211811.11331@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:35:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.211811.11331@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>  In article <JTURNER.92Nov4145031@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>  >	You're adding words recklessly.  It may be true that,
>  >"I like cauliflower".  To say that it is objectively true is
>  >to remove all meaning from the word objective.  The statement
>  >"I like cauliflower" is obviously (and you admit it) subjective.
>  >It is true for some person at some time.  Since you also admit that
>  >its truth depends on the veracity of the speaker and cannot therefor
>  >be tested I do not see any objectivity in it.

>The statement "Jeffrey likes cauliflower" is true for any person.  (Note that
>does not mean "with the name 'Jeffrey' replaced by any person's name.)

	Iff I hven't lied.  Nor is it necessarily true
for all time.  Besides, there's a whole metaphysical
question of identity.  If someone tried testing the hypothesis
by presenting me with a large dinner of steak, salmon and lobster
and asked me to eat my fill, then presented a varied dessert cart
again with the same request, then presented me with a head of
cauliflower, I doubt I would/could eat any.  Also, I probably
wouldn't eat cauliflower on ice cream with chocolate sauce.
Would those two experiments disprove the thesis?  As I said,
I could be lying about cauliflower.  Obviously, my preference for
cauliflower is highly subjective and conditional and cannot be
said to be universally true.  By tomorrow I may never want to
see another cauliflower again.

			--Jeff Turner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Burning cats ... was Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:44:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <37596@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>The only alternative to allowing the individual to live his life
>by his own judgement is NOT allowing the individual to live his life
>by his own judgement. There really is no middle ground.

   This is idiotic.   Do you have complete, total freedom to
   do as you wish without coercion of any kind?   Of course not.
   Do you have ANY freedom?   Of course.    There's your middle
   ground and you're living in it.    (why is it even necessary
   to explain this stuff?)


---peter



Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4865 talk.philosophy.misc:2411 rec.arts.books:19933
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:51:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: gordian.1992Nov11.175134.29213
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <1992Nov11.045042.15247@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> I was referring to Rand's use of logic.  Logic is created 
> by freezing or killing language so that it can be used
> mechanically: that is, unlike almost anything in nature,
> the same initial state will always yield the same result.  

  ??! Are you actually saying that, in nature, that given
the same initial condition and process you will not necessarily
get the same result? This flies in the face of all of science!

> The same premises will always yield the same conclusion.  
> (This situation does not occur in normal language, which is 
> fuzzy and flexible.)  In that sense, it is mechanistic.  

  Is this a fault of nature or a fault in language? To say
that language does not exactly model nature is obvious, and
has to do with man not being omniscient. It does not alter
the fact that nature is reproducible and "mechanical". 

> In 
> the Randian world, one is free to do as one wills but one 
> is not free to believe as one wills.  For some, this is
> obviously a pleasure, if not a blessed relief.  For
> others, it would be a prison.

  To the extent that man cannot just dismiss nature because
he "believes" or "wishes" it otherwise, this is true. A person
who practices this sort of life plan is not long for the world
though.   
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4831 talk.philosophy.misc:2371 rec.arts.books:19802
From: root@rgm.com (Ray Mendonsa)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:06:24 GMT
Organization: RGM *nix - Sacramento, CA

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>In article <9211071042.03@rgm.com> root@rgm.com (Ray Mendonsa) writes:
>}This is true, there is a certain quality about Objectivist writing and
>}discussion that lends an excessive certainty to its own conclusions.
>}Anyone touting any philosophy must understand that their basic metaphysical
>}assumptions ARE IN DISPUTE.  No one can ever agree or approve as fact the
>}basic assumptions of the philosophy.

>That's an anti-foundationalist position.  Foundationalists disagree.

Fogive my lack of familiarity with "foundationalism", but I'm curious about
how they can believe that everyone must/will agree with their own premises?
Anyone can (and many do) assert that the supernatural has 'leapt into their
hearts and shown them the truth'.  Arguing against that assertion is impossible
and a futile effort.  One is forced to merely request not be held accountable
for the revelations of others.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------->
Ray Mendonsa ---- root@rgm.com ---- Admin., rgm.com --------->
916/923-5013 8n1,HST -- login: new -- Public access Usenet -->
"I've voted and I can't get up!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Burning cats ... was Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:12:59 GMT

pbd> Paul Barton-Davis
gs > Gary Strand

pbd> The nasty thing about 'libertarianism' and its ilk, is that it takes a
     very complex system of interdependency between independently complex
     biological systems and reduces it to a set of conscious choices
     covering only explicit and immediate interactions between empowered
     individuals. 

gs > The nastiest thing about "statism" and its ilk (socialism, fascism, the 
     Republicans, Democrats, &c) is that they take a very complex system of 
     human interaction and interdependency and reduce it to a boot-stomp on 
     the face and a mace to the head, unless these individuals OBEY.

pbd> I don't know if its the atypical background in computers that leads Lib-
     ertarians to think in such binary terms or not. Since when was the only
     alternative to Libertarianism "statism" ?

  I don't know. Why don't you ask the statists, who claim that the state is 
  the optimal means towards the given end for a whole list of ends. To me,
  that implies that the true simplistic reaction is the statist one, as I
  said, a belief that most, if not all, interactions between humans (and hu-
  mans and the environment, &c) can best be managed by use of state force.
  I disagree.

  Also, as for libertarians failing to take note of the "non-empowered" in-
  dividuals, I'd rather be treated as an adult than as a baby. The ultimate
  goal for statists is to make sure that who is empowered and who isn't is
  under their control; that way, they can play the opposing groups off each
  other, with carrots and sticks, all the while increasing their own true
  power. I'm surprised, and disappointed, that so many people fall for this
  old trick.

pbd> Continuing with the metaphor, however, my wife notes that the problem
     with Libertarianism is that everyone has their boots on.

  The problem with statism is that those who have boots must have taken them
  from someone, and those without boots aren't responsible for their bare
  feet. Find me a statist who has figured out how to make everyone booted
  without forcefully taking away the boots of those who have them, and I'll
  listen.

  Statists differ only in degree, not in kind.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 9 Nov 1992 10:41:51 CST
From: Myself!!! <U57567@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What am I? fascist, leftwing loon or what?

     Wow!  You are asking for it, aren't you?  Judging by your description
of yourself, you could be a mix of what ALL current parties consider evil:
thus, you prove yourself to be sane!  :-)  :-)  :-)
     In all seriousness, you probably would come under the Libertarian label.
This is based on MY impressions of the Libertarians, and the other parties,
NOT the party spokes-people.
Since the libertarians seem to favor more of your statements, V.S. the other
parties, you fit there.  You have what would be considered simultaneously
Right and Left leanings by our political standards, which is good in my
opinion.  Since you favor sane principles rather than the "party line" it is
a little harder to place you on the spectrum, but I would say you are moderate
left, by the CURRENT reference of USA politics.  This places you in the center
by my thinking.  :-)
     All in all, I agree with most of what you say.  I differ as a matter of
degree, rather than principle, with the rest.

Al --  "No fancy .sig, and 30% less calories!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:06:27 GMT
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.meta
Distribution: na
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
> many people wrote:
>>> the answers to philosophical questions are matters of objective fact
> 
>> Sometimes, they are matter of *subjective* fact. Do you have feelings?
> 
> I completely disagree.  Do you think that the proper answers to any
> philosphical questions ought to be derived from feelings?  What's so
> subjective (in the factual vs. arbitrary sense) about feelings anyway?
> 
> Could you give an example of this principle?

Religious conversion.

Granted that the answer won't be accepted by others, but it is very
often sufficient proof for the converted of the existence of
deity(ies).

Follows directed OUT OF sci.classics.  I'd like to think that most 
people pay attention to where they're posting.

	Larry "Crotchet" Hammer
--

                         \   Absence diminishes small loves and increases
LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \  great ones, as the wind blows out the candle 
sometimes a Wombat         \ and blows up the bonfire. -- La Rochefoucauld
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:50:43 GMT

Just a little protest to Gordon Fitch:

There are many who do not call themselves Randians that still
have pretty much use for Objectivism. I am one, but probably
not notable enough to you [yet]. Others are include Nozick,
who is not exactly "middlebrow", and the "Rasmussens". On the
Objectivist list of Jimbo, who probably has wisely departed
from this list, there are more, including even a professional
british neo-Platonist[!], who have interest in Rand.

I could also mention David Kelley, whose willingness to let
go of Time as any kind of primary, in a discussion of QM, shows
Objectivism as it is developing to be far from "middlebrow".
Kelley is the leader of "Institute for Objective Studies".

Next, the assertion that Objectivism embraces Determinism is
simply false. This is seen from the Objectivist position on
Free Will.

Though I am not to be called an Objectivist, and did some
"Rand-bashing" in my unknowing youth [mostly due to a certain
person who misrepresented Objectivism so that it looked like
a real monster. He even called himself Objectivist!], I have
long since found that Rand-bashing is not only stupidly
childish, but also counterproductive. Rand has a lot of interesting
ideas that would be worth a look into. If you do not agree, you
will at least get to widen your perspective beyond the aqyired
scepticism that is so prevalent among MIDDLEBROW academics.


Solan
(solan@math.uio.no)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 20:40:51 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <1992Oct31.102353.4117@u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu writes:
> Here's my proposed test for voters:
> 
> 	In the voter's booklet, each candidate includes a statement.
> 	In addition, each candidate includes 5 multiple-choice
> 	questions, and the answers to those questions.
> 
> 	The ballot for a given office looks something like this:
> 
> 		Who do you vote for?
> 
> 			[list of candidates]
> 
> 		Question 1: According to Candidate X,
> 
> 			[one of the multiple choice questions from X's
> 			 statement in the voter's booklet]
> 
> 		Question 2: According to Candidate Y,
> 
> 			[A question from Y]
> 
> 		...
> 
> 	Your vote only counts if your answer to each question matches the
> 	answer from the voter's booklet.

Pray tell, what is a voter's booklet?  Tennessee has no such.
Also, the sheer volume of candidates makes this a ridiculously difficult
system.
In my precinct, for example, we had 14 presidential candidates, six
congressional candidates, and 18 for a Metro Council seat.
Suggested modification: you must give the correct answer for the candidate(s)
you are voting for and one other candidate.


Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Bitnet: lipscoja@vuctrvax)
From: U57567@uicvm.uic.edu (Myself!!!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Term Limits Alternative
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:38:27 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <92311.134048TSMITH@auvm.american.edu>, <TSMITH@auvm.american.edu>
says:
>
>An Alternative to Term Limits
>
[4 steps deleted]
>     This proposal would accomplish two goals.  First, it would
>take away from congress the privilege of granting itself pay
>raises; something that has been always a sore subject with the
>constituents.  More importantly though, it would force turnover in
>congress for economic reasons.  Sooner or later, the elected
>official would have to step down because trying to live in
>Washington DC would, with inflation, eventually become
>prohibitively expensive.  The new people coming in would not have
>this problem initially, thanks to the built-in cost of living
>adjustment driven by the CPI.  Eventually they too would have to
>step aside on economic grounds.
>
     Sounds good at first glance, but what about the temptation to skim
off the top to make up the difference?  I know they can (and do!) do this
now, but if you are activly "losing ground" W.R.T. current pay the
pressure increases to do it.  On the other hand, banks manage to keep
people from skimming from the cash flow they handle.  On the other other
hand banks tend to put trustworthy people in these positions, something
we DON'T do with congress!  :-)  :-)  :-)
    Still, it IS a novel idea.  It can't be worse than what we got.

Al
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:53:07 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson

pn> All I assert is that no evidence has been presented that ethics DOES have
    some objective reality.

  However, it is fairly obvious from empirical grounds that certain ideas about
  ethics have had more success than others. Since the test of an ethical idea
  is whether or not it "works" in the real world, you cannot say that all ideas
  about ethics have no connection to objective reality.


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: pquince@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Quince)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Burning cats ... was Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:49:57 GMT
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL

gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>pbd> Paul Barton-Davis

>pbd> The nasty thing about 'libertarianism' and its ilk, is that it takes a
>     very complex system of interdependency between independently complex
>     biological systems and reduces it to a set of conscious choices
>     covering only explicit and immediate interractions between empowered
>     individuals. 

>  The nastiest thing about "statism" and its ilk (socialism, fascism, the Re-
>  publicans, Democrats, &c) is that they take a very complex system of human
>  interaction and interdependency and reduce it to a boot-stomp on the face
>  and a mace to the head, unless these individuals OBEY.

The nasty thing about demagogues is that they tend or pretend to be incapable 
of distinguishing ideologies.  To speak of 'fascism' and 'Republicans' as being
of the same ilk not only mixes categories but demonstrates an overly simplistic
perspective, no doubt in knee-jerk response to some perceived insult from
Paul, who was doing his best to point up an inconsistency in libertarian
ideology.  Now to make amends, I shall finish with an Ianescan syllogism:

Socrates was a fascist.
Socrates was a Republican.
Therefore, Socrates was a dead six-legged cat.

(I just saw _Rhinocerous_, so these very important distinctions are heavy 
 on my head...)

regards

pquince
--
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4751 talk.philosophy.misc:2296 sci.logic:1945
From: sahle@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Eskinder Sahle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.logic
Subject: Rejection.
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:20:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Organization: VPI&SU Computer Science Department, Blacksburg, VA


Hello all:

I was wondering if anyone can direct me to work done on rejection.
Rejection as in: this thing here is not a bird.  It's sort of
categorization theory approached in a Popperian way....  Any thoughts...

Thanks
Ahmed
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What happens when the Trade War starts?
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:11:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <92311.104035U57567@uicvm.uic.edu> Myself!!! <U57567@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>   I have been keeping an ear on the talk about the "Trade War" that is
>brewing with France, and probably the rest of the E.C.  They are talking
>about 200% tariffs on French wine, I think prompted by their refusal to go
>along with us on some sort of seed oil talks.  The implications SOUND huge:
>The complete collapse of the GAT talks, which have been in trouble for a
>while; all sorts of very hostile trade barriers and tarrifs going up all
>over the place; the USA, the E.C., and possibly Japan, involved in the
>economic equivelent of the military war.  Instead of Superpowers involved
>in Global Thermonuclear War, we will/could have Supereconomies involved in
>Global "Themotarrific" War.
>
>My questions are:
>
>1.  Is it a real danger?  Can it happen?
>
>2.  How bad could it be?  Will we all be hording imported goods because
>    of the price increases?  Will it be impossible to get imported goods?

>3.  The world economies are much more tightly linked - could this cause a
>    new Depression/government collapse/really bad things/etc?


  Ask the Austrian Economists -- they allegedly "know how economies work".



>These all seem like good seeds for a discussion.  I hope to prompt some.

  I dunno.  I've noticed that Usenet is dominated by Americans and
  Americans tend to take very little interest in events beyond their
  borders.  I've also tried to start discussions on this with only
  only modest success.

  One thing I find interesting is that the US is allegedly trying 
  to promote democracy all over the globe.  France is a democratic
  nation and their voters have made it clear that they WANT some of
  their tax money used for agricultural subsidies.   So when the
  French government follows the wishes of its own voters the US
  starts getting all huffy and starts a trade war!   I mean, it's
  like we're saying democracy is good, democracy is fine, just as
  long as you make policies that WE approve of.  Otherwise forget
  all that democracy stuff and do what we say!

  To be fair, France *is* a signatory to GATT, and GATT has agreed 
  that they are subsidizing their farmers, so technically the US
  has the *legal* right to impose tariffs.  What I'm questioning 
  is our moral right to do so without looking like hypocrites.
  After all, it's not like we're NOT giving agricultural subsidies
  to our farmers.   


---peter





Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4874 talk.philosophy.misc:2416 rec.arts.books:19956