HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carruth@mksol.dseg.ti.com (matthew carruth)
Subject: Re: failure of .......Re: Failure of Objectivism....(N)
Organization: internet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:48:12 GMT


|> 
|>  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.
|> 

Wow, can Socialism ever be killed?  How many economies must be destroyed in the 
name of social justice before Socialists will admit they were wrong?  

Tyranny requires the oxygen of governmental support, and without it cannot 
develop and thrive.  People cannot enslave others in a society where contracts
between individuals are freely entered into by both sides.  Only when some
group or organization decides it knows what is best for others and FORCES them
to comply can tyranny exist.  

Laissez-faire economics is like air.  It exists everywhere.  It does not have to 
be created by somebody. Only in societies like the former USSR (an extreme case,
granted) do we see the kind fairness and equality that results in its absence.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My views are my own and do not reflect those of my employeers....
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: robert@kohlrabi.tcs.com (Robert Blumen)
Subject: Re: Private Roads in an Objectivist Society
Keywords: Private Roads
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:19:16 GMT

In article <frankp.726588412@galena>, frankp@galena.bellcore.com (Frank Perez) writes:
> It is my understanding that in an Objectivist form of government, ALL roads
> would be private.
> 
> But what about local roads like city streets and streets next to your house,
> let's say.
> 
> This might sound a little ridiculous, but what if I own a house and the local
> road is owned by someone else and that person does not let me use his road.
> I now have a house but I cannot enter it because all the local streets 
> surrounding the house are owned by this person who will not let me use his 
> road. Do you see a possible problem ?
> 

It would be a good idea before you buy the house to make sure that part of
the contract includes some kind of access rights to the roads that lead to it.
Or perhaps the roads might be owned by some sort of neighborhood association
of homeowners, sort of like a condominium.  

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:38:39 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan6213720@bugs.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) 
writes:
>
>   >It seems to me that there are a bunch of people
>   >participating in this news group who are not objectivists and
>   >show no indications of having in any desire to do anything but
>   >cause trouble.
>
>  Certainly, and I'm one of them. More precisely, I'm interested in
>troubling Objectivists with some outside viewpoints, with criticism
>of nonsensical talk about logic, and with invitations to produce some
>of their fabled logical deductions from philosophical axioms. I'm
>sure you don't want this kind of trouble, but it's part of the net.
>Stick to the Objectivist mailing lists if you wish to mingle only with
>the faithful.

Replace the word "Objectivist" with the word "homosexual" and Mr. Torkel
Franzen sounds like another Clayton Cramer, which is precisely what he is.
The best thing to do with these people is just ignore them.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 21:59:27 GMT


|> "A is A" is not provable or disprovable.
|>  

This is true.  Reality is not a theory, nor even an axiom.  It is a fact.
Facts are neither proven or disproven, they simply are.  "I think, therefore
I am" is a foolish statement.  And furthermore, existence exists independent
of human perception which means that existence objective, not subjective.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(4)
Summary: Why Objectivism is ultimately a failure
Date: 5 Jan 93 01:03:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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.

	Care to dig up some of this history and post it here?


>What is to keep people from enslaving their fellows after
>Objectivism allows them to accumulate enough wealth to overcome any
>opposition?

	Enslaving their fellows in what way?  What form of opposition?
In what way would wealth be used to "overcome" this opposition?


>Laissez-faire economics is not exactly a new concept.

	This, at least, is true.


>It has been abandoned every time it has been tried, not because of any
>idealism but because it just doesn't work.

	Just how many times has it been tried?  Where?  Is it being
tried now?  And if so, which airline do I take to get there?  ;^)

	In what way didn't laissez faire work?  How was it abandoned?


>It would seem no matter
>how often or how thoroughly an idea is discredited, there is always
>someone willing to resurrect it.

	The problem with your statement is that there exists the
possibility that the standard, accepted history contains false
interpretations of the times.  History must never be taken to be
infallible.  I am perfectly aware that common history textbooks
have preached against lassez-faire.  I have learned it myself
in high school.  HOWEVER, there are reasons to believe that the
historians of the day may either have been biased against lassez
faire, or simply didn't check the facts carefully enough to verify
the truth of their interpretations of events.  Check out Gabriel
Kolko's book on the subject.  I believe it was called something
like _Regulations and Railroads_.  Someone please correct me if
I got that wrong.  Gabriel Kolko was a socialist would had a
surprising desire to get the facts straight about capitalism
(suprising for socialists, that is).  Through his own research,
he found that popular conceptions of the problems of lassez
faire don't wash with a careful examination of the facts.

> 
>Michael Ward
>mward@netcom.com

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5100742@macro.bu.edu> <TORKEL.93Jan5183723@lludd.sics.se>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5132621@macro.bu.edu> <TORKEL.93Jan5195646@bast.sics.se>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5150335@macro.bu.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:33:35 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan5150335@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu 
(Sean Merritt) writes:

   >So, now you accept that Godel's Theorem has applicability
   >with regards to Objectivism?

  No, but I see that you have no conception at all of what logic or Godel's
theorem is about. Hence the note of resignation in my response.

  "Provability", in the sense in which this term is used in logic, is
relative to a theory. Your question

   >More to the point is "A is A" provable? If you believe that
   >you can prove it in any formalism do so.

has nothing at all to do with "provable" as that term is used in connection
with Godel's theorem. Trivially, for any statement A in any formal language,
there is a formal theory T in which that statement is provable.

   Again, I prefer not to comment on other aspects of your confused
remarks, since the only point at issue in this thread is the
complete irrelevance of Godel's theorem to Objectivism.
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:29:57 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <lewchuk.726467048@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>... consciousness is described as perception of characteristics, which is
>described as a perception of identity in so much as the characteristics of
>an object define what it is... Consciousness can also be thought of as
>classification: logically determining what characteristics there are in
>reality and classifying objects accordingly.

There seems to be a problem here distinguishing between the logical
notions of IDENTITY and PREDICATION, the problem presumably due to the
fact that the English word "is" is used to express both.

When I say, "Superman is Clark Kent", that is the "is" of identity.

But when I say, "grass is green", that is the "is" of predication,
and is a different matter entirely.

Also, nothing you are saying here helps clarify what consciousness is.
In fact, the tasks you mention can be accomplished by an object no
more "conscious" than a coin sorting machine

>Consciousness is the usage of identity -- to determine what is a leaf, what
>is not, what is hot, what is cold, etc.

This is merely to fail to respect the distinction drawn in (1),
which any first-term logic student would be familiar with.
And again, it sheds no light whatsoever on the nature of consciousness.
I would prefer a definition that distinguishes between a conscious
being and a smoke detector.

>If you assume consciousness does not use identity you might
>reconsider the next time you try solving a math problem or finding a
>matching pair of socks.

Are you suggesting that matching socks are identical with each other???
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:35:47 GMT


   Obviously there is a great deal to learn from those who have gone
before us, most notably their mistakes. However, being a charitable
man, I will concede that during their time on Earth, some of the
dearly departed did contribute. My arguments are not directed at the
dead.

   Every person lives in a tiny sliver of time and understands the
world as it is during that time. Unless we can fully understand what
was understood as "Reality" by those then living, we can't really
critique their view of things. Granted someone may discover something
of lasting value, but they may interpret their discovery in a way we
reject (Isaac Newton being a good example).

 In our attempts to understand what a (dead) person really meant, we have
also to understand their world, failing that all we have are our own,
self-serving, interpretations. In 1849, Karl Marx was right,
capitalism in the industrial societies was a cruel exploitation of the
worker, Charles Dickens ratifies his assessment, as does Clarence
Darrow or Eugene Debs. But what relevence do they have now? Do their
appeals to justice describe anything now existing?

   Time changes everything; what people would die for in one
generation is forgotten in the next. Unless you fully understand Ms.
Rand's world, you cannot understand her. What you take from her you
reshape to fit a world you understand; it can't possibly conform to
the original. At some point you'll have to be original ...

Bill

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 15:42:55 GMT

In article <106785@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.031646.2043@eplrx7.es.duPont.com> cristy@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Cristy) writes:
>>...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.
>
>I quite agree that one is under no obligation to sacrifice one's
>life to save a stranger. BUT:
>
>This is another excellent example of the "objectivist" tendency to paint
>pictures in the exaggerated black and white of false dichotomy.
>I remind you that the hypothetical case in question sits at neither of
>these two extremes; it involves the safe, minimal-effort rescue of
>a stranger.
>
>The progression, of course, is a familiar one. We start with:
>
>	A person throws a life preserver to a drowning man
>
>but then the "objectivists" quickly start talking about	
>
>	A person risks his life to save a drowning man
>	(who might well turn around and kill him)
>
>finally arrive at
>
>	A person tries to save a drowning man, knowing
>	that it will almost certainly result in his own death
>
>and then proceed to reject a hypothetically-alleged obligation
>that has never been suggested, neatly sidestepping the original issue.

well, i (and at least one other poster) are trying to tackle
your "issue" head-on. i think you just prefer to pick the arguments
that move to the extremes so you can rip them apart. the fact of
the matter is that different people suggested different explanations.
that does not imply anything about all objectivists, despite
all the anger-infused accusations you continue to make.

>And all this in the name of the purest logic the world has ever known!

(yawn)

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cristy@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Cristy)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: DuPont Central Research & Development
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 03:16:46 GMT

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
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Free Markets are ecomomic anarchy
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:36:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

The laissez-faire-free-market* is economic anarchy.  While it may be difficult
for the anarchists to achieve/justify/defend the total, utopian concept
of anarchy for all, I don't see how objectivists can deny that in
economic terms, they want complete anarchist freedom.

* The only truly "free" market that has ever existed is the "black" market.

..and when I get the time, I'll respond to what Rand said about the 
anarchist movement.  For someone who founded a philosophy on reason, she
relied awfully heavily on insult, rumour, and unsubstantiated generalizations.
[in response to earlier post about objectivists, libertarians and anarchists]
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: A=A: My Beef with the Bull
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:08:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.062030.18989@mcc.com> srogers@teenwolf.mcc.com 
(Steve Rogers) writes:

   >I would suggest that you leave off the facetious stuff unless you are
   >more interested in arguing down these people than you are in having a
   >real discussion.

  You're suggesting, then, that the preposterous claims of hard-core believers
should not be challenged. Instead we should take a charitable view of those
claims and proceed to argue more substantial matters. However, do we have any
reason to believe that any discussion of more substantial matters is
possible with people who put forward the preposterous claims, in particular
if they believe those claims to be unassailable? Experience - e.g. of
the fantastic performance of Magnus Kempe in eunet.politics - suggests that
such a discussion is not in fact possible.

  Then of course it is simply a fact of life that those who put forward
preposterous claims on the net will be challenged simply because their claims
are preposterous, quite apart from any interest in serious discussions. This
is on the whole a harmless activity. The babbling on the net takes many forms.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: So where are the objectivist governments?
Keywords: objectivist
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:13:07 GMT

byafuso@athena.qualcomm.com (Byron Yafuso) writes:
>It seems to me that objectivism has a thread of natural selection beliefs
>running through it.  The intelligent would and should flourish above the
>not-so-intelligent.  This system, though sometimes viewed as merciless
>and cold, may be theorized as providing the greatest average degree of
>freedom possible for all its individuals.

I think you'll find that as average amount of knowledge used increases to
beyond human norm, the intelligent will no longer flourish -- they will have
to be replaced by either computers or creativity.

>I also believe that natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is
>prevalent (perhaps ubiquitous).  There is a strong tendency for an
>un-occupied niche to be filled in time.

Does your first statement correlate with your second?  If so, how?

>My question is:  if objectivism and Laissez-Faire government could be
>so effective, and yield such greater productivity, why hasn't it prevailed
>anywhere?  Or am I just not aware of where it has prevailed?  Or is it
>where mankind is heading, but just not yet arrived?

My guess:  the needed governmental laxness has not been tried and could not
be tried in the recorded past since all they used was monarchy, seemingly.
That and Iceland's anarchy. :)

>Just my contribution to the debate-fuel in this group (food for thought),
>Thank you for your indulgence, >Byron Yafuso >byafuso@qualcomm.com

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
From: rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Capitalism and the environment
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:04:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department


Under a system of total laissez-faire capitalism, how would
one "protect the environment?"  By this I mean: without any
form of government regulation, how would one keep companies
from strip mining, dumping toxics in rivers, burying nuclear
waste, etc.?

One solution that comes to mind is "active consumerism," e.g. 
boycotts, protests, etc. against companies that pollute. 
Privitization of natural resources might also provide a
solution.  If I own a river, I can make sure no one pollutes
it and take them to court if they do.  (Of course, how do you
privitize the air?)  Privitization, though, leads to the
problem of companies buying resources (land, water) strictly
for the purpose of polluting it ("It's my own d*mn land --
I'll buy what I want in it!")

Frankly, I don't find any of these ideas satisfactory or
comforting, though.  Can one of you die-hard capitalists
convince me?


Rob DeLine
Computer Science, University of Virginia
deline@Virginia.EDU
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 16:18:55 GMT

In article <11498@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>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.

probably due to so many years of people insisting that acting in one's
own best interest is somehow wrong.

>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.

good explanation.

>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.

makes sense, except Mark never intended it to be the real Howard Roark.
he is talking about his specific straw man.
and despite his smart-ass remarks about "violating sacredness" in using
Roark's name, your confusion of his straw man with Rand's Roark is the
real reason why using Roark's name in his example is annoying -- it
is needlessly confusing because it implies the conclusion you made above:
that is he is talking about the "real" Roark.

--
charles
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:52:07 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: pandit@ssd.intel.com's message of 4 Jan 93 17:29:16 GMT


 
&In article <C0CB8s.8Jz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:



   In article <1992Dec31.211808.15982@news.nd.edu> fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
   >Claiming that objectivism arrives at its conclusions by logic
   >and reason leaves me wondering... what are the _premises_ from
   >which the conclusions are logically derived?  Clearly, we ask
   >more from a philosophy than that it be self-consistent.  We
   >also require that its _axioms_, i.e. the statements which are
   >accepted without proof are actually true.
   >
   >So let it be with objectivism.  What are its fundamental
   >tenets of faith?  Furthermore, how might a skeptical, but
   >intelligent and informed person be convinced that these
   >tenets are correct?

 &  I believe from "Atlas Shrugged" that the fundamental axiom of
 &  Objectivism is Aristotle's statement, "Existence exists."  In other
 &  words, there is an objective reality independent of human perceptions
 &  of it.

By this do you mean that what the human mind precieves as red is only
an approximation of the `true' redness in Plato's world of forms?
And do such absolutes exist? So that even abstarct ideas and concepts
can be ultimatly `true' (although not provable within an axiomatic
system of logic)?

-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