HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:58:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan03.014433.15175@news.mentorg.com>, madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
> Objectivism does not tolerate axioms that clash with its basic axioms such
> as "existence exists", "consciousness is secondary to existence", 
> "contradictions do not exist" etc. Could you produce another set of axioms
> that are different than ones Miss Rand states and which you believe
> Objectivism tolerates ?

Have any objectivists looked at theories of 20th-century logic, such as 
Godel's theorem which in my admittedly deficient understanding state that
any logical system has statements which are undecidable, and cannot be
guaranteed to be free of contradictions?

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Blumen                          | robert@tcs.com
Senior Software Engineer               | 2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3759
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:43:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.040315.8974@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
>Objectivism is a philosophy built on moral principles, but those moral
>principles themselves have no foundation.

says who, you?

>Religions can build their
>morality on divine inspiration, science builds precepts on what is
>proven to work; but philosophies such as Objectivism stand on nothing
>other than the very shaky grounds that "it sounds right to me".

no, they stand on the ground that man is a rational, independent,
responsible animal, and that certain ideals and concepts flow from this.
you would compare this to a religion? it is based on certain axioms,
yes, but the similarity stops there.

>People join religions on the basis of such inner resonance, and
>rightly so.  National policy should be based on something a little
>more solid.

such as?
 
>A moral code that leads to an absolute assertion of property rights
>seems especially shaky.  "What's mine is mine because I possess it,
>and nobody can tell me what I can do with it!"  would seem to require
>a considerable amount of justification from more basic principles,
>since arguments about our common heritage from the Earth are pretty
>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).  On the other hand, some scientific proof
>that such a code would lead to some ultimate good would be nice to see
>-- but has so far been lacking.

my interpretation of property rights is that they are a subset of
freedom rights. property represents accumulated past productive
capacity of an individual, and income represents current productive
capacity. to take either away is to unilaterally transfer productive
capacity, and the fruits thereof, from the producer to a consumer.
this is a form of violation of freedom, because your right to
do work and to benefit from it is paramount to any society based upon
individual liberty.

if you think objectivism is so poorly founded, what is your
alternative, and upon what is *it* founded? what is your alternative
to property rights, and what is its moral justification?

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 01:23:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec28.155141.5351@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, kolstad@cae.wisc.edu (Joel Kolstad) writes:
|> 
|> I think that one of the problems with objectivism is that, in a society
|> that had adopted it, you'd still have some bums on the street starving.
|> Granted, the true objectivist would have no problem with this -- if the bum
|> had no desire to work, he or she shouldn't expect anything more than to
|> starve.  On the other hand, I don't think you'll ever convince a very large
|> percentage of any population that bums on the street deserve absolutely no
|> support whatsoever.
|> 
|> I suppose that the bums would eventually all die out if they were allowed
|> to starve, but somehow I don't see this happening in our society...
|> 
|> ***"Bums" above refers to individually who have no desire to work, do not
|> work, are uneducated, and prefer to remain that way.

	Well, I have little sympathy for the people you describe.  I'm more
sympathetic with the folks who really try but are just plagued with bad luck or
who, perhaps, are simply incapable of producing anything valuable for society.  I
advocate doing something to help such folks -- I simply don't advocate helping
them by using force of arms against others.  In short, I advocate helping them by
voluntary means.  I think that with enough persuasion, a majority of the
population may come to agree with this stance.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:10:11 GMT

rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:
>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.

Government has only been known for its stupidity.  Is it any wonder that
Ayn didn't trust it?

Individuals may "lack the vision" to come up with a unified model, however
large corporations such as governments may be able to put together a coherent
model, or at least use the one thing that is at their disposal: manpower, to
come up with a better approximation.  One man can discover new systems through
vision, but I'd easily bet on a supercomputer to do more math faster than
Einstein can.  And governments, if organized efficiently, could be very
effective at organizing and managing large quantities of data.

Question: say a government must put out a contract for something such as
emergency response teams (fire, police, ambulance) etc.  How does one guarantee
that either the corporation accepting the contract (say a public health
management firm) does not cheat the government and that the government does
not cheat the firm?  How do you guarantee that the corporation will strive
for efficiency when it has federal (unlimited funds) backing?

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward)
Subject: Failure of Objectivism
Summary: Why Objectivism is utimately a failure
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:03:15 GMT

Objectivism is a philosophy built on moral principles, but those moral
principles themselves have no foundation.  Religions can build their
morality on divine inspiration, science builds precepts on what is
proven to work; but philosophies such as Objectivism stand on nothing
other than the very shaky grounds that "it sounds right to me".
People join religions on the basis of such inner resonance, and
rightly so.  National policy should be based on something a little
more solid.
 
A moral code that leads to an absolute assertion of property rights
seems especially shaky.  "What's mine is mine because I possess it,
and nobody can tell me what I can do with it!"  would seem to require
a considerable amount of justification from more basic principles,
since arguments about our common heritage from the Earth are pretty
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).  On the other hand, some scientific proof
that such a code would lead to some ultimate good would be nice to see
-- but has so far been lacking.
 
Michael Ward
mward@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens)
Subject: Libertarianism and Religion?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:32:02 GMT


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?


-- 
Robert C. Stephens		rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu		

Human Factors Research Lab
University of Minnesota
From: positron@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jonathan Haas)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:04:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.015823.5252@tcsi.com> robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen) writes:
>In article <1993Jan03.014433.15175@news.mentorg.com>, madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
>> Objectivism does not tolerate axioms that clash with its basic axioms such
>> as "existence exists", "consciousness is secondary to existence", 
>> "contradictions do not exist" etc. Could you produce another set of axioms
>> that are different than ones Miss Rand states and which you believe
>> Objectivism tolerates ?
>
>Have any objectivists looked at theories of 20th-century logic, such as 
>Godel's theorem which in my admittedly deficient understanding state that
>any logical system has statements which are undecidable, and cannot be
>guaranteed to be free of contradictions?
>
 .
Godel's theorem states, in a nutshell, "Any algebraic system strong enough
to include arithmetic is either inconsistent or incomplete." Note the
"either-or". Either inconsistent or incomplete; not both. Most are incomplete.
"Incomplete" means that there are some statements which are true but
cannot be proven... not that there are statements which are undecidable.

-- 
__/\__  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.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rogene@lenti.med.umn.edu (Rogene Eichler (Pharm-NeuroSci))
Subject: Re: Why the hostility?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:05:23 GMT

>also, I love Ayn Rand's work (fiction and non-fiction), and
>I've read some of Peikoff's stuff, but is there any other
>current work outside the Second Renaissance catalog out there?
>
>
>Robert C. Stephens		rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu		
>
>Human Factors Research Lab
>University of Minnesota


Laisse-Faire Publications is another good source of reading material.


						-Rogene



Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:58:11 GMT

jdb@crane.cis.ufl.edu (John Brothers) writes:
>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.  

An interesting concept.  Now, this is interesting in that government can
not only tax environmental damage but smoking, alcohol, etc. as affecting
the "well-being" of its citizens.

>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. 

I think that there are several dangers, the greatest of which is sheer
environmental degradation.  That is, destroying the environment to a point
where it cannot repair itself easily.  THEN we'll either switch to a more
sustainable system or humans will show up on the "endangered" and "extinct"
lists.  PREDICTING environmental damage and its effects are well beyond
modern day eco-science.  Predicting the WEATHER, a seemingly simple task,
is well beyond modern day computer processing power.  The problem is not
knowing exactly what you're playing with, and not knowing what else it
affects in other areas.  Will the extinction of that species of birds result
in the devastation of a species of predators a few hundred miles away?
Perhaps, perhaps not.  But I think soon the magnitude of our past few decades
of environmental damage will soon come to light, just like ozone problems came
to the forefront some 20+ years after they were first put forth.  The real
problem is that it's not "popular" to say "we're in REAL trouble" until you
are in real trouble, and that's usually too late 'cuz the damage is already
done then.  Saying "we're gonna be in REAL trouble in 3 years" seems silly
because people will act even sillier and say "talk to me in 3 years time".
They don't care about it unless it affects THEM in some way NOW.  Whether
it kills them off in 20-40 years is not their concern.  They're gonna deal
with it in 20-40 years and HOPE someone finds a way to solve the problem.

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

An interesting concept, although I am in favor of minor defecit spending,
say no more than 10-20% of annual government income, as a one-year deficit
caused by unforeseen circumstances which will immediately be placed on next
year's taxes.
From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Limits of Self Defense
Date: 2 Jan 93 08:56:56 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan1.104017.18685@netcom.com>, erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:
|> 
|> But what is violence?  How can a moral code or philosophy such as
|> objectivism claim to have the answer to violence without having a clear
|> definition of the word?
|> 
|> If you build a nuclear weapon, but don't actually threaten to use it,
|> does the mere act of building it constitute violence?  If you get drunk
|> and give your neighbor a cheerful hello and resounding hearty backslap
|> that damages his spine, or a firm handshake that breaks his finger, is
|> that violence?  If you neglect to check your instruments at your nuclear
|> reactor plant, and a meltdown causes thousands of people to die, is that
|> violence?  Does it depend on your motivation for the neglect?

	Consider violence and threat of violence, and plain ol' negligence.  The
last three examples you mention are negligence of varying degrees of severity. 
No intent to harm was involved, but certainly some behaviors could have prevented
the harm.
	Violence is where you set out to cause physical harm and do so.  Theft is
where you take or use what belongs to someone else when you know or reasonably
should know that it belongs to somebody else.
	Threat of violence is where you lead someone to believe that you will use
force against them.
	Unilateral violence or threat of violence contradicts the principle of
human freedom.  It amounts to a denial of the axiom that people own their own
bodies, and is therefore an affirmation of slavery.

Steve
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:54:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec30.233927.26939@shearson.com>, jredford@shearson.com (John Redford) writes...

>Aside from the fact that you write like an idiot, I agree with your

>Summary: Discussion of 'objectivism' is pretty useless, and pretty
>         unlikely.

You contradict yourself by talking about objectivism on the 
objectivist newsgroup. 

If you don't like objectivism, you don't have to be here.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Pollution controls, and other controls
Keywords: Controls etc.
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:05:45 GMT

robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen) writes:
>> If there was a solution to this other than strict governmental control over
>> pollution and frequent testing of resource (air, water, land) quality
>> (which I don't believe is being done now -- at least not frequent testing)
>> it would probably have been implemented.

>I disagree with your last comment.  There are many great ideas that in
>spite of their greatness are not implemented.  

Which are... (?)
Note: I will not accept private ownership of some natural resources as a
"great idea" simply because I consider the "right to life" contradictory
to private ownership of water and especially air.  And public ignorance is
as damaging in a Randian capitalism (and somewhat even more so) as special
interest groups are in a governmental system.  Personally I would not trust
everyone to suddenly be "informed" if a Randian system were implemented today.
There is one major obstacle left: how do we guarantee everyone the information
they need to make an informed choice?  Government is still more viable since
it is still easier to inform the government and let them decide between
several dozen alternatives than it is to broadcast the same tomes of
information to several hundred million people and let each one make his/her
decision.  When we start having direct democracy, then I think the time for
Objectivism will either have come or have gone (can't decide which at this
moment).

>As Buchanan's public choice
>school and Mises anlysis of bureaucracy has shown us, when a state starts
>controlling economic life and other areas of life, a dynamic of interest
>groups or "rent-seeking" behavior comes about, which results in the
>pursuit of interest group benefits rather than the public good....
...
unless the objectives and boundaries of said government are clearly laid out,
and based upon reasonable objective evidence and not special-interest-group
propoganda.  A government which has the mandate to maintain air and water
and land quality to certain levels, in particular public drinking sources
and air (and public food sources, namely farmland) is not likely to be
swayed a lot by public opinion any more than it would be swayed in providing
better or worse fire, police, or ambulance service.

For example, a government which had the mandate to maintain air quality in
terms of say, each pollutant below a certain level, and water pollutants below
certain levels in water sources and contaminants filtered out in public
utility water, could not easily be "swayed" by special interest groups
without violating its mandate.

Oh, by the way, remember that the government does, in fact, make the law,
which means it will always be sought out by special interest groups with
interests within the government's scope.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Limits of Self Defense
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:57:47 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation


Let us consider a case where person A has initiated physical
violence against B. 

B is entitled to respond to the initiation of physical force against
A, providing it is done [relatively] immediately and only against A.

Now, are their any moral limitations on the use of force by
B in this situation?  

My classic answer, which I thought was supported by Rand, was that
the retaliation was unlimited, and B could arrange for A to hit
room temperature in whatever gruseome fashion B wished.

Is this accurate?  Does the particular action A took 
(stealing food vs shooting B) influence what is permissible?
Does the character of A (child, retarded, drunk, or fully
in command of his facilities) effect the question?





-- 
-------------------------
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: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:15:11 GMT

In article <lewchuk.725831738@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>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?

being responsible is not the same as minding if they die. *i* would mind
if someone died, and so i might give some of my production to them. i might
even try to convince *you* that you should. but i would never coerce you
to do so, either directly or through the government.

>If they
>were being accosted with force, would you step in and defend them?

different situation. individualism and freedom say you have the right
to not be attacked, i.e. to not have something done *to* you.
that does not imply that you have the right to force others to have
something proactive done *for* you, like give you food or medical care.

>>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.

who are you to judge? do you not think there are others who "care"
more about others than you do? you are entitled to your opinion, but that
is all...

>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.

this "statement" shows clearly that you understand *very* little about
Rand's philosophy, objectivism, or even morality. respect for the rights of
others is paramount to objectivism. you just don't have a concept of what
a right is.

>In short, the social benefit from this person is likely very little.

define "social benefit" and tell me why it should be a basis for
judging others. also tell me on what basis we should be judging others
for the right to inclusion in society based on how much they respond
to others' "needs".

>>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? :)

this would seem funny if the rest of the post didn't reflect such
ignorance.

--
charles
From: mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward)
Subject: Failure of Objectivism(6)
Summary: Why Objectivism is ultimately a failure
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:41:40 GMT

"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.
 
Michael Ward
mward@netcom.com

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism