HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:39:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <C0JJxy.I1r@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes...
>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>The first problem anarchism always runs into is that of social
>stability, especially when dealing with large enough systems
>that iterated prisoner's dilemmas become inapplicable.  When
>combined with an ethical system based on selfishness, it becomes
>incumbent to show why many people in the society wouldn't turn
>to use of force; there would be no external constraints, and
>few internal ones (you can't guarantee everyone would want to
>have the same non-coercive goals as yourself).

>I haven't seen this done, though that doesn't mean it can't be.

Perhaps it's in your best interest to leave other people alone.
This way, they won't band together to resist you (and then tear you
apart limb by limb...or maybe just lock you up).

Is there that much difference between these potential "violent"
trouble makers in an anarchist society and the potentially
"violent" trouble maker called government?

Getting rid of all the government is barely more utopian/unrealistic
than getting rid of 98% of the government.  This is the difference
between anarchist & objectivist politics.  How do you guarentee
other "reasonable" "objectivists" won't want to make government do
something that abhors you?  

If the government told you to jump off a bridge...
Of course you wouldn't.
Apply this logic to anything.  Think for yourself.  

But a good government wouldn't make its subjects do stupid things...
Humans are human; so is government.  Show me a government
that hasn't done SOMETHING you would disobey.
[hurmm...a computer government? Nah...]

>>My reading and research over the last few years has lead me
>>to conclude that there is no more reason to believe that you need or
>>even desire a government to manage law courts than there is to believe
>>that you desire or need a government to manage supermarkets.
> 
>Sanitary regulations were introduced for a reason...

True enough.  If there were no govt, you'd be a fool to shop at a 
messy, smelly store that didn't have an "A" from the whatever
private organization(s) that monitor the stores for a fee (and profit).  
Any store that chooses to save money by opting out of inspections
will lose money to a lack of customers.

A good example of this is Underwriters Laboratories (UL).  They are a private
company that certifies electrical equipment.  I don't think you can buy
anything that isn't UL listed (if you can, don't...unless you need to save 
money so badly as to risk electric shock/death).

This analogy can be applied to everything (in the marketplace).
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson)
Subject: Capital Punishment
Reply-To: gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:14:42 GMT

What is the objectivist position on capital punishment?  
By initiating violence and killing a man I have forsaken his right
to his life and can therefore no longer support a claim to my own.  
Does an objectivist criminal justice system apply the notion of 
'equal exchange,' that is, value for value, and complete the trans-
action by taking my own?  Or is the right to life inviolable, in 
which case I will have to make do with life imprisonment, or worse,
continual criticism from objectivists in my daily affairs. :)  Is 
there a heading in the Lexicon (I will _not_ purchase this silly 
book) on this?  

Several recent posts have discussed the limits of self-defense, but
what about afterwards, when the immediate threat has subsided, and the 
accused is safely in custody?  Mrs. Rand always argued that her 
ethics are not derailed by the various 'what if?' hypothetical, emer-
gency situations that many critics throw at her; life is not comprised 
of continual emergencies, crises, etc., but of human evalution and 
action in the short and long term.  

Other posts have mentioned Libertarian speculations about markets for
criminal justice services as an alternative to the nuts and bolts 
government advocated by Rand and others (including myself.)  Either
position maintains that the penalties for those proven guilty must be
very high in order to serve as a deterrent.  Do they, too, advocate 
CP, that most severe of punishments?  Moreover, do objectivists have
a 'theory' of punishment: i.e. punishment as rehabilitation, retribu-
tion, etc.?  Would they want to make prisons 'nice' places?

In the case of premeditated, 'first-degree' murder, I say "Sure, let
the desert law prevail!"  The execution has to be held in public, though, 
to really drive the point home.  (Lethal injections are for wimps and
cowards; if _I_ ever kill for pleasure, I would request a good public 
stoning.)
-- 
:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu  | FCC, FDA, FTC, FAA, EPA, FEMA,    
:::::======                            | IRS, FBI, FDIC, DLC, SEC, TVA,
===========  Paleoconservatives Unite! | and the Fed - STOP scrambling
===========  Re-take America, etc ...  | Conservative BandwiPH$$HDSBOBHJYQ$M@N
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Religion?
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:33:38 GMT

Gah!  No, no!  I never said that Libertarianism *is* derived
through religion!  I said that it _could_ be.  I said that they
arrive at pretty much the same conclusions (at least as free
markets are concerned), but Objectivists arrive at it through
logic and reason, while Libertarians are free to arrive at
it any way they like -- including religion!

--Rob
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:48:33 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: torkel@sics.se's message of 6 Jan 93 20:03:53 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan6210353@bugs.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:


   In article <lewchuk.726348211@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA 
   (Michael Lewchuk) writes:

      >If it [Objectivism] has axioms, and uses logic to turn axioms into
      >theorems, it's a formal system.  If not, it bases its conceptions on 
      >things other than logic, which is a shaky thing for a "rational" system 
      >to do. 

#     As we have seen amply demonstrated in this group, the terms "axiom",
#   "theorem", "logic" have a very different meaning in Objectivism than
#   they do in logic.

There has been no such thing demonstarted. If the definition of
"axiom" and "theorem" and "logic" are fundementally different than
they appear in Logic then you have no basis for knowledge and 
no relationship(at least in the sense of agreement)to the `objetcive reality'. 

Without the accepted definitions of axioms prove an event 
simultaneous with any other event that occurs. Are you
going to throw out time and space? You exist in the space
time continuum. As does reality. You can't talk about such
concepts(as time and space) and say anything valid unless you except "axioms"
as such in the purest definition.

-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Rich getting richer? The facts....
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:29:11 GMT

tthiel@cs.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:
>What a bunch of crap.  Like the treasury Dpet. is some kind of unbiased source?
>Get real.  Any moron can look at the state of the american economy including
>unemployment, taxation, and the low gross national income and see that the
>disinformation is coming from the welthy corporate assholes who support
>right-wing newspaper columnists and provide personnel as political appointees
>to the Treasury Dept.

Yes, we know what a moron might conclude. The question is what an
intelligent person might conclude.

To tell you the truth, I could care less anyway. If the poor are
undeserving, meaning unwilling to work to better themselves, it would
be fine for them to rot. Now, actually, many of the poor ARE
deserving, but the statistics that say "the rich are getting richer
and the poor stagnating" are in and of themselves flawed even if true,
because they run on the assumption that it is necessarily wrong for
one group to be getting richer while another gets poorer. We are given
no statistics on the habits of the rich and poor, so we don't know if
they are deserving. How would you react, for instance, if the article
said "the rich, who spend an average of three times more hours working
every week than the poor, gained in income relative to them over the
last two years" versus an article that said "the rich, who on average
work not at all, versus the hard working poor, gained income". I am
not arguing that the rich work more than the poor, mind you: I am
merely arguing that the entire notion that we should care that one
group is getting wealthier than others is flawed in so far as it makes
no difference -- what matters is whether people who produce goods that
are valuable in the marketplace are getting wealthier.

This is, by the way, why statistics on income are valid when comparing
ordinary citizens to government workers...

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(6)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:47:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.054140.19581@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
>"Atlas Shrugged" portrays people who, by the sweat of their brows and
>their own ingenuity create new enterprises and new resources.  In the
>real world, the people who end up in control are, more often then not,
>totally incapable of doing any creative or constructive work
>themselves.  This is becoming more and more true as manipulators of
>organizations are taking over and engineers, scientists and
>manufacturers are becoming ever more rare in the halls of the
>executive wing.

this is a nice subjective anecdote, but proves *nothing*. there are
many in today's world who achieve similar accomplishments to those
in "Atlas" and they do so in a world which is not compatible with their
ideals.

i don't care if you post all the way up to "Failure of Objectivism(9,452)";
you're not proving anything. it's just unsubstantiated conjecture,
which has been heard *many* times before, and more clearly expressed too.
if you have a part of her philosophy to dispute, do so directly.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:01:50 GMT

In article <C0r8tL.FDu@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>The strict objectivist, acting purely out of rational self-interest,
>has no such argument available.  Since there are very few such
>people, most objectivists would accept that they have irrational
>emotions that they sometimes act in accordance with.  However, the
>desire to help others, with no reward other than knowing that one
>has helped, is often termed altruism; and this is the demon that
>objectivists claim to wish to exorcize from their beings.  So
>why eliminate altruism but not love (for example)?

the problem here is the use of the word "altruism". as another poster
said, objectivism has no problem with one wishing to act in the interest
of others--the problem is when doing so becomes the dominant virtue.

here is a clip from a recent article posted by Betsy Speicher:

=
=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.

helping others is in your self-interest if you genuinely want
to help them, for any reason and you act voluntarily.
this is true by definition.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:24:00 GMT

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.052844.4774@athena.mit.edu> robscjr@athena.mit.edu (Robert S Cruikshank) writes:
>>My views:
>>A. Logic cannot bootstrap itself---there are ARGUMENTS for axioms,
>>not PROOFS.
>
>Absolutely, but Objectivism is the only philosophy that rests on
>axioms which we must all accept.  For example, you cannot say, "I am a
>Socialist because I reject Objectivism's axiom 'existence exists'."

No, but you could say "I am a socialist because I think there were
flaws in Rand's derivation of arguments against socialism based on
this axiom".

Now, as it turns out, I'm not a socialist, and I largely believe
Rand's arguments. However, there is a disturbing tendancy among
Big O Objectivists to assume that all argument must be against the
premises, and that none of it might be about the logic involved.
Objectivism is NOT a formal system like mathematics -- you can't just
apply typographical transformations in order to do your logic. There
are arguments that aren't very formal, and one can choose to disagree
with them at times. For instance, take Rand's extremely weak argument
against anarchism, which I contend rests entirely on the false logical
notion "Since I, Ayn Rand, can't figure out how to get anarchism to
work, there must not exist a way."

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: End of Iceland's Anarchy
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:48:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.194849.27554@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson
.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>The first problem anarchism always runs into is that of social
>>stability
>>
>>I haven't seen this done, though that doesn't mean it can't be.
>
>Iceland, 900AD to 1252AD. Three hundred fifty two years seems stable
>enough for me.

Someone mentioned how anarchy in Iceland came to end.  I don't
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?
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:50:57 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

cristy@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Cristy) writes:
>Concerning the drowning man.  Rand answers this question in her writings:
>   Never sacrifice a higher value for a lesser value
>That is, if the person is a stranger and it is quite clear that you will
>probably die trying to save the drowning victim then it is moral not to
>attempt the rescue.  However, if the person is your lover and you feel
>your own life would be incomplete without this person then risking
>one's life is moral.  >-- >cristy@dupont.com

Valuing your life over others is *not* a fundamental principle of Objectivism.
I keep hearing arguments like this with the implied notion that
"someone who I have never met is of no worth to me".
I fail to see why this is a "logical" conclusion that Objectivists seem to draw.
Furthermore, in an Objectivist world, shouldn't this guy go "Hi guys, I'm
Sam, pleased to meet you" instead of "help!"?  That way, you'd have a higher
chance to "meet" him and hence "value" him and thus attempt the rescue.

Yes, I do have a tendency to be both serious and flippant at the same time
without sacrificing either for meaning.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 13:52:23 GMT

mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:

>strong (we'll put aside any arguments that everything a European,
>African or Asian American owns in the USA was ultimately stolen from
>the indigenous folk here).  

Just a minor nit...there are no indigenous American peoples -- only
those who got here before anyone else.  They are not native or
indigenous in the sense that they developed here.  Or rather, except for
the very first immigrants, "native" peoples are really no more native
than anyone else who was born here.

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:37:59 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <106732@bu.edu>, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
|>  
|> But I thought selfishness was the ultimate virtue! How can
|> an "objectivist" use this term with negative connotations?
|>  

Selfishness, like religion, is neutral.  Neither good nor evil.  It is
the application that determines which way it goes.

Unfortunately, people today have forgotten what the real (dictionary) 
meaning of the word "selfish" is.  It was selfishness that caused me
to decide to have a family.  I work the job I have for purely selfish
reasons.  I donate money to my church so that they can carry on their
mission, and yes, I do that for selfish reasons too.  I like to think
that none of these are evil.  It is only when my selfishness causes
deliberate harm to others that it becomes evil.  Most of the time is
is good or at least neutral.

As for Mr. Roark, the answer is simple.  Based on the information we
have on him (including what is in The Fountainhead) it is a moot point
as he would not let the man drown.  You can argue "what if" all you 
want.  If he did in fact let the man drown, that would be reprehensible.
But not because the man drowned, because based on what we know of Roark
he would have betrayed his own way of life.  And that is reprehensible.

bill

-- 

   Bill Gunshannon     | "There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Reardon" Francisco
   bill@cs.uofs.edu    |  said softly, "except one; the refusal to think."
                       |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:57:23 GMT

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
>In a philosophy class, we once had a discussion of whether people did
>things for selfish reasons.  Our conclusion was that it is not
>possible to say that every person person performs every action for
>selfish reasons.  However, it is *possible* for a person to perform
>every action for selfish reasons, and Rand says that it is good to do so.

It is clearly not good to do so if you assume the validity of law.  Law
implies that selfishness must be curtailed to the extent that it interferes
with human rights.  Actually, you don't have to assume that law is valid,
just that it is "good" to make this conclusion.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: The fundamental question
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 07:30:20 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

	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
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, premises, conclusions, and Geodel's work
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<MERRITT.93Jan4125207@macro.bu.edu> <lewchuk.726183011@therien>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5105601@macro.bu.edu> <lewchuk.726277407@therien>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:04:52 GMT

In article <lewchuk.726277407@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA 
(Michael Lewchuk) writes:

   >On Geodel's work:
   >It DOES imply that logic is not enough to prove everything, thus anyone
   >functioning logically cannot be expected to be able to do anything.
   >Reason is the use of logic and other tools such as analogy, experience, and
   >conjecture.  Reason is probably complete yet inconsistent.

  Now, quite apart from the precise meaning of these reflections, the
invocation of Godel's theorem remains bizarre. Godel is here invoked
to refute the assertion "logic is enough to prove everything". But
this assertion is itself merely ridiculous and on the face of it
senseless, and it is not an assertion that anybody has ever made.

  On the other hand, if you wish to refute the assertion, which is not
at all ridiculous or senseless, that there is a complete, consistent,
and recursively axiomatizable extension of Peano Arithmetic, then Godel's
theorem is quite relevant. 

  By the way, your reflections are not a great improvement on the ridiculous
assertion that you reject. You tell us that "anyone functioning logically 
cannot be expected to be able to do anything" which seems an odd thing to
say. Now, perhaps you mean rather "cannot be expected to be able to do
everything", but frankly we hardly need either Objectivism or Godel to tell
us that nobody, whether "functioning logically" or not, can be expected
to be able to do everything.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: A=A
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:03:46 GMT

gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:
>Yikes.  Much of the progres that has been made in Euclidean Geometry
>is due to the fact that our Objective world appears Euclidean.  An 
>abstract system in which none of the components have any objective reality 
>can not have objective effects. The objective act of creating such systems
>does.

Perhaps not, but remember logic is in no way objective.  There is nothing
which you can point to and say "that resembles truth" and "that resembles
falsehood".  Yet we use it for deduction not because it is "real" but
because we think in this manner.

I believe what you are saying is "an abstract system not based upon objective
reality by some sort of analogy cannot be useful"?  Otherwise I fail to see
what you intended with your third sentence.  Your fourth sentence is strange.
It seems to imply that if I create a system objectively (that is, if I go
ahead and create one and it is used by more than my subjective reality
(perhaps your subjective reality as well?)), it becomes valid.  Perhaps you
meant "the creation of such things based on "the" objective universe does?

>>Similarly, conclusions based on Objectivist axioms can help us
>>understand reality and help us progress morally and ethically.

This is largely a moralistic statement, no more than "conclusions based
on Christian axioms can help us understand the meaning of life and help us
progress in a more moral and ethical fashion".

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA