HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: simoni@strat.Stanford.EDU (Richard Simoni)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Reply-To: simoni@strat.stanford.edu
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 22:59:45 GMT


In article <1hqgf3INNqd1@phakt.usc.edu>, dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David
Leslie) writes:

> Hmm. Well, you seem pissed off! Would you got to a gas-station, if you
> knew that they dumped all the used oil in the gutter?

No, I wouldn't go to that gas station, but the problem is that I probably
wouldn't find out that they were dumping.  By what mechanism are polluters
discovered and exposed to the public so that consumers can make such
informed decisions?  I think this is a hard problem.

Rich Simoni


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jdb@crane.cis.ufl.edu (John Brothers)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 19:10:26 GMT

In article <ALEXJ.92Dec29110509@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> alexj@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Alexander Jackl ) writes:
>In article <1hpa8eINNgfl@phakt.usc.edu> dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie) writes:
>
>3) People are not going to be "a: driven away b:pissed off".  Nice ideal-
>doesn't seem to be what happens in relaity.  People react much too late. 
>Envrionmental damage is not obvious usually till the deed is done!  Not 
>irreversible usually but to the point where clean up is a huge, expensive 
>endeavor.  People do not know enough about the environemnt to react quickly
> to the threats pollution provides.

I agree with you.   Most people have enough problems and stress in their
lives than to actually willingly strive to seek out and stop activities
which would be dangerous to their children and grandchildren.  And, most people
consider a dollar today to be more useful than clean air, et al, than clean
air tommorow.  
>
>I do not believe that Objectivism supports the environment much unless its
>adherents are men and women of vision...  there are no short term benefits for
>a company not to pollute. 

Rand discusses the "proper" use of government in Shrugged, at least briefly.
for example, government is properly in charge of the military defense of the
country.  To this I would add:

Government is properly protective of the well-being of future citizens of
the country.  

A lot of people may disagree with me.  I would suspect those people also feel
that they should not be held accountable for the actions of previous citizens
(for example, civil rights reparations).

If the government was in charge of protecting future citizens, we could
see taxes on limited resources.  This would cause companies to either find
renewable substitutes or increase the utilization of present resourses.  In 
this manner, limited resources would be available longer.   

Similarly, the government would properly control environmental problems.  
Most people I know, myself included, really lack the vision to predict
whether what is dumped in the ocean today will affect the people of 100 years
from now.   Will they develop some incredible cleaning system?  Will it
turn all the newborn babies into three-toed tree sloths?  Who knows?  This
is where the government should step in and regulate.  If companies were taxed
on the amount of waste they produced, they would either reduce the waste,
or find some means of converting it to something else, that was not taxable. 

For the same reason, governments should not run up debts.  This will affect
the well-being of future citizens of the nation.

Awaiting comments...





Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden)
Subject: Obj. Economics
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:04:13 GMT

 
Is it possible for these discussions concerning economics to make any
progress? A lot of it (the stuff that isn't petty bickering) seems to
go:
 
A: "X."
B: "Ah, but you're just a silly narrow-minded Y-ist, and I can
disprove X with meta-X. QED."
 
Yes, meta-X is easy to see, but what's harder to see is that
meta-meta-X also exists and is arguable. For instance, using a
familiar example:
 
A: "Capitalism is good."
B: "Ah, but you're just a silly narrow-minded capitalist, and I can
disprove your contention that capitalism is good by opening up my high
school history text to page 219 and pointing out the section on the
Gilded Age which shows that capitalism allowed the railroads to
monopolize and create a lot of havoc."
A: "Ah, but you're just a silly narrow-minded socialist, and I can
disprove your contention that capitalism allowed the railroads to
monopolize and create a lot of havoc by opening up my copy of
_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_ and pointing out that the government
had started the entire problem by deciding to create a non-existent
market for railroads in the Midwest by offering land grants and
subsidies to entrepreneurs in a haphazard manner; it was thoroughly
predictable that the railroads would collapse and cause grief for
farmers in the process because of the efforts of the socialists in the
government."
 
I'm sure there must be a meta-meta-meta-X out there, and an omniscient
being could probably come up with meta^n-X's, but perhaps you get my
point. There are incredibly many factors out there, and everybody
chooses to support their arguments by selecting a few and ignoring the
rest.
 
The only way to determine which is better is to use scientific
experimentation (and no, historical evidence doesn't count because
there have been no control groups). Does anybody know of any such
attempts, or of anybody who has managed to come up with a way to find
control groups _within_ historical data? If none can be found, are we
doing anything other than arguing in circles?
 
-Bret Aarden

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:55:38 GMT

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
>member of society.  This is simply not true.  There are millions of
>people who couldn't care less whether I live or die.  It would be an

I belive much of this is "I am not responsible for people I am ignorant of".
But do you actually know that you wouldn't mind seeing them die?  If they
were being accosted with force, would you step in and defend them?  It is
not required that you care specifically for these people for you to care that
everyone has the right to be helped if "in need".

>Another person may not care about any one but himself,
>and if so, he shouldn't be forced to help any one.

A person who does not care for anyone but himself is a very poor individual,
no matter his financial status.  He doesn't belong in society because he
doesn't contribute anything towards society, and is extremely motivated to
increase his share of wealth at the expense of others -- including fraudulent
and illegal activities since he does not take the rights of others into
account.  In short, the social benefit from this person is likely very little.

>What?  The question is, *should* one group of people have the right to
>force another group of people to behave in a certain way?

Isn't that what advertising is all about? :)

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:46:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.191026.6828@eng.ufl.edu> jdb@crane.cis.ufl.edu (John Brothers) writes:
}In article <ALEXJ.92Dec29110509@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> alexj@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Alexander Jackl ) writes:
}>In article <1hpa8eINNgfl@phakt.usc.edu> dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie) writes:
}>
}
}
}Similarly, the government would properly control environmental problems.  
}Most people I know, myself included, really lack the vision to predict
}whether what is dumped in the ocean today will affect the people of 100 years
}from now.   Will they develop some incredible cleaning system?  Will it

This is not intended to be a flame but if we as individuals "lack the
vision", what makes any one think the government can do the job?
Governmental action has not been known for it's foresight.

}turn all the newborn babies into three-toed tree sloths?  Who knows?  This
}is where the government should step in and regulate.  If companies were taxed
}on the amount of waste they produced, they would either reduce the waste,
}or find some means of converting it to something else, that was not taxable. 
}
}For the same reason, governments should not run up debts.  This will affect
}the well-being of future citizens of the nation.

Point proven.



-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------
From: dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Anecdote about objectivists
Date: 3 Jan 1993 14:48:25 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu


	A friend of mine recently attended an objectivist party
with his girlfriend. Her brother had recently fallen in with them.
Anyway, the party was okay, but there appeared to be a lot of really
awesome food(especially desserts). He grabbed a plate and was about
chow down, when his girlfriend grabbed him, told him to stop, then
explained that if he ate, he would have to pay the person that brought
each dish.. HAHA.. This, IMHO, is funny, and what gives objectivists
a bad name. :)

 /  Amiga  ///    |  U.S.C. Trojans  | O Bar  | David Leslie        \
|         ///     |     Fight On!    | E O    |                      |
|     \\\///      |        --        | Meu    | dleslie@usc.edu      |
 \     \XX/ A1000 |     Go Kings!    | Lar!   |                     /
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward)
Subject: Failure of Objectivism(3)
Summary: Why Objectivism is Ultimately a Failure
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 01:10:01 GMT

Objectivism claims to be a rational approach to the world.  But the
world is a complex place, and human society is a complex system.  Like
all complex systems, societies evolve to reach a stable dynamic right
at the border between order and chaos.  Reason can somewhat handle the
orderly  part,  but fails when things slip over to the chaotic.  Even
in the orderly part, there are way too many variables to be rationally
handled.  While a free market is the best way we have yet found to
deal with the overwhelming complexity of an economy, experience has
taught us that some regulation is needed to keep that market from
plunging into chaos.  An ideology driven attempt to remove that
regulation could be disastrous.
 
Michael Ward
mward@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(4)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:39:48 GMT

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.

if laissez-faire is such a failure, please provide a description
of an alternative system which has done more to promote the overall
advancement of society; i.e. grew the pie better.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: Obj. Economics
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:01:46 GMT

=================================================
 amarcin@athena.mit.edu (Bret Aarden) writes:
>
>Is it possible for these discussions concerning economics to make any
>progress? A lot of it (the stuff that isn't petty bickering) seems to
>go:
> 
>A: "X."
>B: "Ah, but you're just a silly narrow-minded Y-ist, and I can
>disprove X with meta-X. QED."
> 
>Yes, meta-X is easy to see, but what's harder to see is that
>meta-meta-X also exists and is arguable. For instance, using a
>familiar example:
>----------[delete]-------------- 
>The only way to determine which is better is to use scientific
>experimentation (and no, historical evidence doesn't count because
>there have been no control groups). Does anybody know of any such
>attempts, or of anybody who has managed to come up with a way to find
>control groups _within_ historical data? If none can be found, are we
>doing anything other than arguing in circles?

 Cool question.
 Even though, to keep facts straight, I haven't formally researched this
 question, few arguments race my mind; and I will just state them:

 [1] For scientific experimentation, the control group should not interfere
     with the test group. Now, it seems that any "national" economy will in
     some ways be integrated. That is, such a data set can not be found within
     the boundaries of a nation. For the interference would exist.
 [2] Best comparison can be obtained by studying isolated economies. 
     => Best comparison can be obtained by studying isolated political systems.
 
 Which naturally brings us to compare historical performance of socialist and
 free market economies (political systems).

 What we need to study, to answer your question, is the
 environmental/health/etc. record of the "former east bloc (Romania et al.)" 
 and the free market economies. Study of China/India/Brazil/etc. 
 (communism/socialism) with free economies would be of interest too.

 Another way to proceed would be to study particular industries - those that
 govt interferes with and those that are somewhat free market. For example,
 education/health industry vs. telecommunications industry.
 
 What do you think?

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jclarke@teal.csn.org (J Christopher Clarke)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:07:55 GMT

nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>
>I think that another thing that would happen in a free market is that
>there'd more more research into making medical care cheaper--my impression
>is that the incentives for doing so aren't that strong now. (I mean
>making care cheaper while maintaining quality.)

Unfortunately, systems such as the HMO take advantage of ignorance to make
money.  Most people, particularly the elderly, trust their doctor implicitly.
Why good health care and profits conflict, what do YOU think the doctor is 
going to do?  Prescribe an expensive testing program, when he/she knows that
if they just tell the patient that it will be OK with asprin, the patient/
sheep will do as they are told.

P.S.: His/her plane leaves for Mexico in a couple of hours....

J. Christopher Clarke
jclarke@teal.csn.org
From: wesley@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Wesley D Scott)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Additional Information
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:22:12 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>In article <lewchuk.725778073@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>>What would you recommend for someone who picked up "Atlas Shrugged", read the
>>first 30 pages, and then thought it was manic/depressive?  I have this slight
>>problem with Atlas Shrugged: I find it too, well, uncomprehensible.  Is there
>>some "Cole's Notes" or something else which summarizes it nicely, or has
>>someone hacked down her novel to around 300 pages with more constructive plot
>>and better characterization?
>
Try "The Virtue of Selfishness".  Rand states her political philosophy
and illustrates it using quotes from her fiction.

wesley@ecn.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:43:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

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

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

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


-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Additional Information
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:10:22 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

This is nearly what I would suggest also. The original poster may also try
"Anthem" which I found short and sweet. 

For a quick answer to what Atlas Shrugged is all about, one could skip over
to Galt's speech.

Ayn Rand's works are obvious in some sense for those who already are rational
to some extent. For example, John Galt would probably find "The Fountainhead"
obvious and perhaps trivial. If people, such as Mr. Lewchuck find it so, it 
is probably to their credit and also to that of Miss Rand who helped infuse
a lot of ideas in the society. The messages such as "action is better than
non-action" are not at all accepted generally as truisms and hence are not
trivial ideas. In the part of world where I come from "non-action" is
glorified to perfection (barring isolated instances such as karmayoga being
considered superior to other yogas in Geeta: of course, the theme there is
more to unify the concepts of action and knowledge). After finding himself
unsatisfied but still curious after 30 pages, wasn't "non-action" i.e. not
reading the book chosen over reading on and finding out ? (Of course, one
could consider setting aside the book as action too.


Thanks, 

Madhav Nerurkar

Disclaimer: These are my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Religion?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 15:36:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.064306.7514@zip.eecs.umich.edu> positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas) writes:
}In article <1993Jan3.053202.1416@news2.cis.umn.edu> rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens) writes:
}>
}>I first profess no real knowledge of exactly
}>what the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism
}>is.  I AM vaguely aware of the accusation that Libertarianism
}>does arrive at some conclusions on the basis of religion.
}> 
}>If this is true then I could see why Objectivists would want
}>to distance themselves from Libertarianism.
}>
}>Would anyone care to enlighten me on the facts?
}
}Firstly, let me say that I am a strict (some would say fanatical)
}Libertarian, and an atheist. Libertarianism has no connection
}whatsoever with religion that I know of.
}
}As far as I've been able to tell, Objectivism is a moral philosophy,
}while Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Can anyone more
}in the know confirm or refute this?
}

Just for the sake of clarification, neither Objectivist nor Libertarian
philosophy are based on religion.  There are some ethical points where
there is agreement but those points are not arrived at the same way.

Jonathan is partially correct in referring to Objectivism as a moral
philosophy.  To be fully accurate, I think, you have to go to Rand herself
who saw objectivism as a fully encompassing philosophy based on
metaphysics, epistomology, ethics, and politics.  The premises of the
latter three follow from the conclusions from the first. (If that sounds
fuzzy, well so am I this morning).

Libertarianism (note capital L) is a political philosophy based on the
ethical premise that no individual, group, or government has the right to
initiate the use of force.


}(by the way: I'll be glad to send out copies of the Libertarian
}party platform to any who request it)
}
}-- 
}__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
}\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
}/_  _\  positron@eecs.umich.edu  | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
}  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: 2 questions
Summary: You dudes are sharp!
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:41:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec29.181757.16667@nynexst.com>, baruch@nynexst.com writes...

>I like to say that the difference between anarchists and libertarians is that
>anarchists don't believe their actions have any consequences.

This is the only part of your post I disagree with.  Maybe punk-anarchists
don't believe their actions have consequences (I don't know many punks, just
using an example) but the anarchists I know are also the most responsible 
people I know.  An intelligent anarchist will realize that government will
not go away so long as people perceive a need for it, and any intelligent
person, anarchist or not, should act responsibly.  Anarchist utopia
is only achievable if people are responsible enough to leave others alone.

Anarchy means no government.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

Anarchy can be socialist or free-market so long as it's all voluntary.
(though I argue voluntary socialism is, in a sense, part of the
free market)

At any rate, I see many similarities between the libertarian objectivists
and the "enlightened" or "responsible" anarchists.  So many similarities
that I sometimes use the word "libertanarchists".  Wouldn't an objectivist
reject government in lieu of his or her own reason?  It's very easy to find
situations where you would like to apply (force) government on *others*,
but as an objectivists how can you accept government that is bound to
contradict your own reason?

In theory, I am an anarchist.
In reality, I am more of a libertarian. 
At times I side with Republicans to save money.
Once my money is stolen, I want the democrats to spend it on me.
I only support monarchy if I am the king.
I only support theocracy if I am the god.

Live responsibly and by your rules.

Special thanks to Richard Schwartzman for giving me a clue on Ayn Rand.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism