HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: An Observation
Keywords: Ethical Problems,Marginal Problems
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:00:16 GMT

In article <C14t4G.6u6@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
}
}	There is plenty of evidence.  And now Michael Rothschild's
}_Bionomics_ provides one hell of a convincing analogy between economies
}and ecosystems.  Michael Rothschild was a biologist who had never
}heard of Austrian free-market economics, but ending up supporting it
}nevertheless.  Be ecologically sensitive to the economy!  Don't
}intervene!

Mark, I hate to quibble, but I know Rothschild to have both an MBA and a
JD from Harvard, but have never heard of his being a biologist.  What
do you base this claim upon?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Reply-To: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:27:36 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan22120745@echnaton.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se
(Torkel Franzen) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan22.101229.15861@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
|> (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
|> 
|>    >I have noticed that my argument differs from Baruch's. But if
|>    >it is MY argument you find inadequate, I challenge you to show
|>    >what you claim.
|> 
|>   I take it you're referring to your suggestion that a sentence, to be
|> meaningful, must be "built from elements already possessing meaning".
|> This suggestion, while natural enough, is inadequate as it stands
|> since it does not by itself constitute any theory of truth or meaning
|> such as philosophers look for, but can only serve as a starting point
|> for such a theory. For example, it is not at all clear how you propose
|> to reply to Keith Ramsay's comments, nor what follows from your
|> principle applied to such sentences as "this sentence is meaningless"
|> or "this is an English sentence", nor what kind of hierarchical
|> construction is presupposed in "already".

Your example above falls under the criticism from my last letter.
It does not build meaning from the bottom and up. A sure test on
whether meaning is built from bottom and up is whether or not you
get infinite recursion when you try to go from the top and down.

Somewhat like Foundation in ZF. Only don't take concepts to be sets.

For my answer to Keith Ramsay, see my answer to Keith Ramsay.


Solan
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.greens
Subject: Model United Nations Conference in Prague
From: chao6@husc11.harvard.edu (James Chao)
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:07:47 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

(If possible, please print out and post for people who might be
interested)

To all those interested in international relations, politics, and the
United Nations -- WorldMUN is a great forum for the discussion of 
current issues being debated by the United Nations today: 

Harvard World Model United Nations (WorldMUN) is an international
conference that brings together university students and young
professionals from around the globe to siimulate the workings of the
United Nations.  The second annual WorldMUN conference will be held from
March 28, 1993, through March 31, 1993, at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
The Czech Republic.  

Ten committees, representing the General Assembly, Economic and Social
Council, and Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, will discuss
issues from the actual UN agenda.  In addition to the formal debate of
resolutions, committee sessions will be augmented by presentations from
politicians, businessmen, scholars, and activists who have helped shape
the dramatic world events of recent years.

In this era of momentous political change, WorldMUN seeks to assess the
role of the United Nations in a new world order.  WorldMUN marks the first
truly international simulated United Nations where participants play the
roles of their own nation's ambassadors.  WorldMUN strives to teach
tomorrow's leaders about the United Nations and its methods of conflict
resolution.  It aims to foster skills in negotiation and debate, in order
that delegates may formulate resolutions on topics currently discussed in
the real United Nations.  These resolutions will be sent to the actual
United Nations committees.

WorldMUN 1993 will take place at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
The Czech Republic.  The Hotel Diplomat is Prague's most modern conference
center.  Prague is both one of the most beautiful metropoles of Europe and
an ideal location for debating current world politics and the changing
role of the United Nations.

The Hotel diplomat is a luxury resort that offers restaurants, shops, a
night club, and fitness and spa equipment.  Delegates will stay at the
Hotel Diplomat for the reduced rate of 130DM/day double occupancy, which
includes two meals a day.

Delegate registration is $US60 per delegate.  For more information, please
reply to this e-mail address or write/fax:
Joshua A. Salomon, Secretary-General
Harvard World Model United Nations 1993
Suite 23, 1430 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-3810
UNITED STATES

Telephone:  001-617-493-6995
Fax:  001-617-493-6995

James Chao
chao6@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:05:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.000657.18076@zooid.guild.org> Jose Garcia <jgarcia@zooid.guild.org> writes:
}
}     Then you (or was it someone else) have referred to Japan as a free
}market. I allways hear people using Japan as an example of what a free market
}can do. These examples are flawed. The U.S.A is a much more free market than
}Japan and although its economy is strong hasn't being doing very well.

While it's correct that Japan's market is far from free, it's unclear that
the USA's is any freer overall.  Hong Kong is the free-est market I know of.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Real Life?!?! HA!!)
Subject: Re: Actors as Rand Characters (Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:08:04 GMT

ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho) writes:


>  Yes, I agree that Matthew Broderick would look great as Keating.  How
>about Michelle Pfeiffer as Dominique?
>                                    --ac

Good, good...I think she would need black hair.  The _Atlas_ characters are
much harder to cast, I think because most Rand fans have perfect images for
them already.  Here's a few suggestions:

John Galt:	I saw a guy in a Benetton (I think) ad who would be perfect...

Hank Rearden:	Definitely DeNiro.

Francisco:	?

Dagny:		Nicole Kidman with short straight black hair

James Taggart:	Anthony Hopkins, made up a bit younger

JT's wife:	Helena Bonham-Carter

That's all I can think of now.  Any other ideas?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael T. Chaffee       | mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu  |  ______    
"It has been said - mostly by illiterates and conserv-|  \    /   HATE
atives - that the belief in God is at the base of the |   \  /  is not a
American system, and that the United States is a prod-|    \/  FAMILY VALUE
uct of Christian piety."  -  Leonard Peikoff          |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:58:21 GMT
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <C1FyKE.FqH@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
}Logic can describe
}how one thing (thought, etc.) compares to another, but it of no use in
}determining which thing or thought or idea is "true".

Nonsense.  Where do you get this idea?  Sounds positivist to me.  And where
do you get the false notion that Objectivism is mechanistic?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: God exists...
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:05:20 GMT



   I can tell by the strength of your declarative statements that you
must be right; if only you had lived 5 or 6 thousand years ago,
mankind would have been spared the agony of his metaphysics. Maybe
it's not too late, maybe you could run for office or something.

Bill
From: KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Altruism and Causes vs. Reasons
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:30:11 GMT
Organization: Somewhere beyond Political correctism...
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc210-7.cl.msu.edu

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>
>>> that said, if objectivists want to communicate with all those
>>> out there who use the word "selfish" incorrectly...
>>
>>Fascinating. Are we to understand that everyone but Rand is
>>wrong about what the English word "selfish" means?
>
>the word "selfish" means "concerned with the self". the rest
>of the negative baggage such as "not caring about others" that
>many people attach to the word is an interpretation only.
     
     Sorry to disagree with you (well, not really...B+), but selfishness DOES
have a negative meaning implied i.e.concerned with the self TO THE POINT OF NOT
CARING ABOUT THE OTHER(S).  That Ayn used "selfishness" with an archaic meaning
(if it had that meaning at all) does not change its general meaning.

>yes, words mean whatever people agree they do, but that does
>not mean there cannot be drift in meaning. and Rand wrote her
>works many years ago.

     If I remember right, she used (and redfined) the term "selfish" knowing
full well what everyone else meant when they used the term "selfish."  It was
her conscious choice, and the resulting trouble in communications was the price
paid.

>unless you can produce a degree in etymology, you will forgive
>my ignoring your challenge. if anyone out there actually
>has some *authority* to speak on the matter, please do.

     Do you know english?  Since when did a degree in etymology become the
password for talking about word meanings?  Ayn didn't even KNOW English before
immigrating to the US.

>>Just think of it, all those millions of people, for all those hundreds
>>of years before Rand was born, not knowing what this word meant.
>
>stuff it, Mark.

Ponder it, Charles.  I myself find it amusing.  B+)

Kamchatka Charlie     KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
an EX-objectivist, and glad about it.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Gandalph Exists. Proof within.
Summary: Gandalph Exists. Proof within.
Keywords: Lord of the Rings
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:29:37 GMT

Gandalph the Grey exists. How do I know.

1. Every word of Lord of the Rings is True.
2. Lord of the Rings says Gandalph the Grey Exists.
3. Therfore Gandalph the Grey Exists.

How do I know LOTR is true. I have not found a single counter example to
anything said in LOTR. (Of course that could be because I am in the wrong
Universe). The rest follows by logic commonly used in the Shire.

Conan the Libertarian

-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:57:52 GMT

hugh@mks.com (Hugh Brown) writes:
>I suggest that people who talk about a god have in mind an all-powerful,
>all-knowing supernatural being who created the universe.  Now if that
>is the point of departure, then the refutations are obvious.
>1.	The universe is everything that is.
>	Something that created the universe is not  in the universe.

Says who? If you create a house, were you never in the house to create it,
or can you never enter the house? 
>	Something that is not in the universe does not exist.
>	THerefore, God does not exist.

There's a hole in your proof.
Joe

-- 
Joe Zell               *  "I knew Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was my  
zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu  *  friend..."
                       *            -Ronald Reagan, 1992 GOP convention speech
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:42:26 GMT

In article <C19nsu.Bz9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
> robm@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Rob McCool) writes:
> 
> 
> >Sorry, Jeff, no flame, but I don't think your argument holds water. I'd have
> >  talked to you in person but I'd like to keep the discussion open to everyone.
> 
> >Jeffrey Richard Lamb (jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> >: True, lack of disproof <> proof, but failure to acknowledge strong evidence
> >: is illogical. Also the closer you come to proving a whole the more credence
> >: you should give the idea. The theory of relativity hasn't been proven, but
> >: no evidence has come up against it and every test we have been able to
> >: think of has supported the ideal. Why is acceptance of the Bible different.
> 
> >This example is not a good one. The THEORY of Relativity is just that: a
> >  theory. It has not been proven, even though the tests we are currently
> >  able to use show that it is true. However, there are a lot of holes in
> >  the theory which are unknown, and they remain precisely that. Unknown.
> >  To say that these holes must act how we expect them to is speculation
> >  and inference, not fact or logic. If one of these holes is disproven, 
> >  another theory will come along. And it will be just that. A theory.

One answer to this is Karl Popper's philosophy of knowledge.  He says that
scientific theories are not provable, only falsifiable.  The canonical
example is the statement "all swans are white".  This can never be proven
no matter how many white swans you see.  It could be falsified by seeing
one black swan.  Likewise "every word in the Bible is true" cannot be
proven, only falisified.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Reply-To: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:12:29 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan21213301@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan21.200916.26386@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
|> (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
|>    >The sentence is not meaningless because it is paradoxical, but because
|>    >it is not constructive, i.e. built from elements already possessing
|>    >meaning.
|> 
|>   This is a different suggestion from that of Baruch, and also one that
|> may be taken as a starting point for a consideration of the paradoxes. Again
|> it is inadequate as it stands.

I have noticed that my argument differs from Baruch's. But if
it is MY argument you find inadequate, I challenge you to show
what you claim.

Solan
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: 33045_211@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: Re: Atlas Shrugged casting
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:05:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.044526.12746@StarConn.com>, rat@StarConn.com ((The Rat)) writes:
> Dagny: Meryl Streep, Linda Hamilton, Karen Allen, or
>        Debra Winger


This was a game we always liked to play too!

Meryl Streep!!!! How hideous!  The others would be good, but I believe
somewhere in AS it describes her as brown haired with "grey" eyes. (I could be
mistaken).

Rearden: we always wanted a (much younger) Robert Redford. (I think he fits
Rand's physical description- again my memory could be wrong).

How about this : for Galt --> Steve Martin. I know, I know, it seems really
ridiculous, but he could do it if he tried. 


Ok.. I'll shut up.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:46:05 GMT

A few other comments on this thread:

It's been said that the bible is in need of a little "loose interpretation" every
now and then to put things into propoer perspective (culture, linguistic, etc.
differences).

This is in direct contradiction with an encyclical letter written by the
previous Pope.  I can only go by what I recall from it, which is very little.

That pope's claim was that the bible was written, and it maintained, by 
imperfect men who are under divine inspiration and are therefore infalliable.
It follows, he said, that the bible should therefore be taken literally in all
aspects of what it has to say about life, the Universe, and Everything.

Also, a textbook definition of a argumentative fallacy is the following.

"An argument involves the fallacy of appeal to ignorance when it argues either
that
1. because a statemen is not known to be true or has not been proven,
2. therefore it is false

or

1. because a statement is not known to be false or has not been disproven,
2. therefore it is true
" 		- Thinking Logically, 2nd ed, James Freeman

The above argument form (after the "or") is the basis of the argument that
started this thread.  One can't use statistical uncertainty in cases like
this to argue along the same lines, either.
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: .....logic and reason
Date: 28 Jan 1993 23:49:22 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: m66-070-5.mit.edu

==========================================

 Too many posts here seem to use logic and reason synonymously.
 But isn't there a difference?

 from the epilogue to Atlas Shrugged: (curse my memory if this ain't right :) )

  My philosophy, in essence,
  is the concept of man as a heroic being,
  with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,
  with productive achievement as his noblest activity,
  and reason as his only absolute.
					- Ayn Rand

 You see, AR emphasizes Reason, and not just Logic. Logic, to be sure, is
 a powerful tool within Reason - but it ain't all there is to Reason.

 Isn't it?
 Tell me: what is Reason and what is Logic?

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Ignoring the  Unknown
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:01:08 GMT

In article <C18ML1.G2n@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:

ideologist does not have perfect knowledge 
>(omniscience) 

I can't accept...any claim to certainty; 

SG	The rise of Greek philosophy unfortunately carried some of the 
religious past along with it. One such piece of excess baggage was divine 
omniscience as the standard of human knowledge. Since that is obviously 
impossible, religionists and skeptics alike claimed skepticism was the only 
alternative. Human knowledge, however, is contextual. We do have some knowledge 
and human certainty is relative to that. In the context of A, B is true. In 
another context, something else is true. Know your context. Objectivists use a 
context in which their mind, thru their senses and using logic, is connected to 
reality. Their claims are only valid for that context. They are not claims to 
omniscience. 
	Besides, as greeks well knew, skepticism is contradictory. Within the 
context of uncertainty, you deny certainty. Of course. That's objective! Now, 
of course, you will crawl inside self-consciousness and deny your senses. Yet, 
self-consciousness is c. of c. of reality. You sense reality, an automatic 
function. But reason is volitional and requires work, the initiation of 
thought. Religionists and skeptics don't want to think about reality. 
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:44:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.191656.22833@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>Jose Garcia <jgarcia@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>     Then you (or was it someone else) have referred to Japan as a free
>>market. I allways hear people using Japan as an example of what a free market
>>can do. These examples are flawed. The U.S.A is a much more free market than
>>Japan and although its economy is strong hasn't being doing very well.
>>
>>   Japan is a country with massive trade restrictions, not to mention
>>government telling companies what  to do in a very active way.
>>
>>    Does this sound like a free market to you? 
>>
>
>Been to Japan lately? They aren't doing too well either. Their stock
>market lost about 30% of its value in the last couple of years and
>their standard of living has NEVER been as high as that in the US.
>
>In any case, the Japanese market is hardly as restrictive as you would
>think. Among other things, there were NO taxes on capital gains until
>recently, and there are a fraction of the labor laws we struggle under
>in the US. The tax laws are generally friendlier to corporations, with
>no tax on dividends such as we have in the US.
>
>Its hard comparing countries with relatively similar levels of
>government regulation like the US and Japan. They are generally free,
>but have some differences, and it is hard to measure how these
>differences (one country having more restrictive labor laws, one
>having more restrictive trade laws, etc) alter things. Generally
>speaking, both countries are at similar levels of industrialization
>and prosperity -- with only a factor of 30% or so either way is hard
>to determine how much of the difference is due to what factors.

i agree that we need to be careful comparing the US and Japan. because
they regulate *differently*. i would argue that Japan has a far greater
amount of regulation than the US, along with corporate cartels which
effectively beat up US companies unable to muster similar resources.
they are supported by a government which comes just short of collective
planning in many cases, and which works actively to keep foreign
competitors out of domestic markets.

--
charles