HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(7)
Date: 04 Jan 93 23:35:53 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan4.054534.19899@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
| The nearest we have gotten to an experiment in the value of
| Objectivism was the era of Reaganomics.  

Hardly.  1865-1890 or more modern times in Hong Kong.


| as the virtues of selfishness led directly to the
| wholesale looting of the economy and the treasury.   

Any looting of the treasury was done with political power.  The
S&L crisis wasn't possible without deposit insurance and massive
regulation of the financial industry.

The economy did incredibly well in the '80s compared to the '70s.
The percentage of all manufacturing employeement within the OECD
countries located in the US has continued to increase (along with
Japan's) primarily at the expense of Britain and France.

| We are all now suffering from its damage.

And crying all the way to the bank.

-- 
-------------------------
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: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: National Defense as a Public Good
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:21:41 GMT

sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.215633.16486@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes...
>>In any case, one may state that IF national
>>defense were a public good THEN it might be underproduced in the
>>absense of any coercive mechanism to fund it.
>
>	Absolutely.
>
>
>>On the other hand, the
>>question of whether it is a public good is far from settled, and I'd
>>tend to state that it likely is not.
>
>	Do you have any suggestions on how money for national defense
>could be raised voluntarily?

Well, not "voluntarily" except in the literal sense, but as part of
insurance contracts for general security.

I don't have time right now to produce a good argument (as its late
and I have to leave my office -- can't read netnews during the day),
but I promise that if you prod me I'll write an extensive article on
my reasoning within a day or two. I'll admit in advance that my
arguments are fuzzy, but I think that they renders the arguments that
national defense is a strictly public good at least equally fuzzy.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W "GrimJim" Lai)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:41:50 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan5105601@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean
Merritt) writes:
>#In article <lewchuk.726183011@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael
>#Lewchuk) writes:
># 5.  Concepts which are measured in relatives ("red", "green") are best
>#       used when related to objective measurements (such as light wavelength).
>#       Thus, in some sense, perceived quality must be objectively
>#       quantifyable.  That is, it doesn't matter if my "red" isn't your "red"
>#       as long as we can each perceive a certain light wavelength as the
>#       color it is, no matter what we call it.  Since the crux of this is
>#       dealing with "reality", one would assume that some social norms of
>#       perception of quality would evolve over time (like telling red from
>#       yellow and social definition of "red" and "yellow").  The notion of
>#       what really "is" yellow is irrelevant as long as "you" and "I" can
>#       communicate about "yellow".  Since we are non-telepathic, the best we
>#       can do with communication is either direct example or analogy or
>#       subjective description.  If the individual is really interested in
>#       knowing the "real" color of a "yellow" canary, the individual should
>#       go and see the "yellow" canary.  Otherwise it is assumed that the
>#       simple subjective description "yellow" suffices.
> 
>When you resort to physics, or other hard sciences the inaccuracies of 
>perception, are either known explicitly or well estimated. They do exist
>so you are accepting a result that has an intrinsic subjective content
>before you cognate.  (Some hold the view that the act of cognition
>introduces these, the result is still the same: Flawed). 
>The observation of the wavelenghts of light is directly limited
>by the uncertainty principle.{ delta Energy = Hbar *  delta omega} 
>(Hbar = Plancks constant divided by 2*pi)

We can quantify "redness" by means of studying human perception.  For instance,
if one does some research, one finds that there is a physiological reason we
perceive three basic colors (hues), of which all others can be generated, and
this fundamental perceptual quality makes it highly unlikely that a culture
could ever "evolve" the concept of "red" into "yellow".  Colors can be defined
in science and industry in terms of a "standard" observer.  However, each
individual observer may have perceptual idiosyncrasies (that can be detected
by testing).  There is more to perception than mere cognition.  All acts of
perception involve physical/chemical interactions with the world, so the
"inaccuracies" are ineviatble.  But what is subjective about a photoreceptor's
response to an incoming photon?  There is certainly no cognition at such a low
level.

On a tangent, how would an objectivist view deal with the hypothesis of a
totally-immersive VR which cannot be differentiated from reality while one is
within it?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(7)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:53:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.054534.19899@netcom.com> mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
>The nearest we have gotten to an experiment in the value of
>Objectivism was the era of Reaganomics.  The eighties were the triumph
>of objectivism, as the virtues of selfishness led directly to the
>wholesale looting of the economy and the treasury.   Massive debt was
>incurred, not to increase productivity, but to funnel personal wealth
>into individual pockets.  This debt was incurred without regard to any
>ability to repay it, and the wealth that individuals accrued was kept
>in spite of severe and predictable inability to repay.  Property
>prices were artificially ballooned to extreme levels by a cynical and
>criminal manipulation of the Savings and Loan and banking industries,
>making those who understood what was happening fantastically wealthy
>and those who were marginally surviving homeless.  And the poor saps
>who just wanted to buy a home have been left holding the bag.

oh my. just when i thought you just *might* be worthy of being
taken seriously, you post this?

Reagan's policies were *not* objectivist by *any* standard. he was
totally fiscally irresponsible. at best he implemented only a very
small part of *some* objectivist concepts.

>It might be argued that this looting was not performed by
>Objectivists.  I suppose that all true Objectivists are safe and
>secure academics who would never dream of actually doing anything.
>Reaganomics was driven by people who were happy to take the precepts
>of Objectivism to their logical conclusion.  The looting of the nation
>in the eighties was performed by people looking out for number one,
>and it's a small semantic leap from "the virtue of selfishness" to
>"greed is good".  The result is immediately visible.  We are all now
>suffering from its damage.

this is a pitifully simplistic and cliche argument.
 
>It might also be argued that Objectivism was not truly unleashed in
>the eighties, that it was still restrained by some regulation.  Still,
>what little we did see of this way of thought was sobering enough.  If
>this experiment is to be continued, I very selfishly hope that it is
>conducted on someone else's economy.  The Russians have recently lost
>an ideology and have shown themselves capable of withstanding almost
>infinite misery.  Maybe it could be tried there.

again: what are your suggestions, Mr. Know-it-all? please. we're
all waiting on the edge of our seats.

--
charles
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:52:12 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) speaks:
 
   (re: Roark letting the guy drown by not bothering
    to throw him a life preserver)
 
>                as to "what he should do" -- he should do whatever
>he feels is right, based on his prioritization of actions and consequences.
 
This is an absolute total cop-out. Hitler, presumably, felt that
his actions were right. This is clearly not a criterion for
moral or any other kind of acceptability.
 
>i can't understand why he would do this. either he had a very
>important reason for not throwing the life preserver that
>i don't understand, or he is an extremely selfish person with
>whom i would not wish to associate".
 
But I thought selfishness was the ultimate virtue! How can
an "objectivist" use this term with negative connotations?
 
>objectivists don't behave this way; your example is just another
>re-hash of the "objectivists are all selfish bastards" stereotype that
>is as old as Rand's ideas.
 
Of course it's a straw man. And I rather doubt that even Rand herself
would have let our hypothetical drowning man perish. I'm not
saying "objectivists are all selfish bastards", not at all.
I am saying that their views have consequences which one would
have to be a selfish bastard to act on.
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
	<Jan05.215159.69662@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:50:26 GMT

In article <Jan05.215159.69662@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> sa114984@longs.
LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold) writes:

   >Except, perhaps, to enlighten the rest of us about Godel's theorem and
   >exactly WHY it is not applicable.  No math teacher answers, either 
   >("the proof is over your head").

   For a presentation of Godel's theorems, I recommend the recent book by
Raymond Smullyan, _Godel's Incompleteness Theorems_, which is very readable
and presupposes only some slight familiarity with predicate logic. To
explain why Godel's theorem does not apply to Objectivism, it is quite
sufficient to point out that that there is no mathematically defined set
of "theorems of Objectivism", and so we can prove nothing mathematically
about what is or is not a "theorem of Objectivism".

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: A Warning to the Uninformed
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:31:28 GMT

In article <76057@apple.apple.COM> brandyn@Apple.COM (Brandyn) writes:
>
>    From OPAR (Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand) page 366:
>
>        [The purpose of government] entails three and only three
>        governmental functions.  In Ayn Rand's statement, these are:
>        "the police, to protect men from criminals--the armed services,
>        to protect men from foreign invaders--the law courts, to settle
>        disputes among men according to objective laws."  Any additional
>        function would have to involve the government initiating force
>        against innocent citizens.  Such a government acts not as man's
>        protector, but as a criminal.
>
>    Welcome to America.

I don't understand your last line.  Are you saying the paragraph from
OPAR describes (present-day) America?


-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Anarcho-objectivism (was Re: Thoughts on the group)
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:48:49 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>[anarchism vis a vis objectivism]
>
>>I'm a small-o objectivist, and also an anarchocapitalist.
>
>>I see no contradiction. From my perspective, being a small-o
>>objectivist means that I believe in things like the virtue of
>>selfishness, capitalism, and the non-coercion principle. I don't see
>>any reason all those can't be promoted by an anarchist system, and
>>indeed, I believe that they would be promoted MORE effectively in such
>>a system.
>
>The first problem anarchism always runs into is that of social
>stability, especially when dealing with large enough systems
>that iterated prisoner's dilemmas become inapplicable.  When
>combined with an ethical system based on selfishness, it becomes
>incumbent to show why many people in the society wouldn't turn
>to use of force; there would be no external constraints, and
>few internal ones (you can't guarantee everyone would want to
>have the same non-coercive goals as yourself).
>
>I haven't seen this done, though that doesn't mean it can't be.

Iceland, 900AD to 1252AD. Three hundred fifty two years seems stable
enough for me.

Now, here we have a really interesting question. For some reason, Mr.
Holt believes that although a free market vendor of protection
services would have "no external constraints", a government purveyor
of those services would. A priori, this would seem silly, as
governments are made up of people just as private companies are, and
thus there is no more reason to believe them to be immune corruption
than a private organization, and indeed, there is reason to believe the
private organizations to be better. Lets analyse this more closely.

If a government starts turning on its people, those people have
virtually no where to turn without overthrowing the system through
violent revolution. If, on the other hand, your security company
starts trying to shake you down, you can go to a competitor down the
street, who will then protect you from your original company. There is
a natural check on bad behavior. At the very worst, collusion between
protection companies would mean that the situation would degenerate
into the government situation. Corruption can always occur in a
private enterprise, but competition acts as a check on this, whereas
in a government run enterprise or service no such check exists.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Religion?
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:52:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <C0F2Mu.7KD@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes...
>Mark,
> 
>   Libertarianism is most certainly based on religion, as are all other isms.

	Oh really?  How very interesting.  What is your definition of religion?


>In this case the religion is:
>"I-Can-Do-Whatever-I-Want-Because-I-Am-Human-And-Man-Is-The-Crown-Of-Creation"

	Bzzzzt!  Wrong!  Try again.

	I don't believe that I can legitimately do whatever I want.  In fact,
WHAT DO YOU THINK INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE?  They are obligations not to perform
certain actions with regard to others.  Libertarianism is clearly very
strongly in favor of such rights, and thus is a limitation on human behavior.

	Also, Libertarianism has never made the statement that man is the
crown of creation.  Whatever gave you the idea that it did?  Are you a
believer in animal rights?  Or are you religious yourself (in the usual
sense)?


>Your particular branch of this religion insists on its atheism
>because it rejects all authority.

	Libertarianism does NOT insist on atheism.  *I* insist on atheism
for my own life.  I do not require it for other people.  I do agree with
the First Amendment that there should be freedom of religion (including
the freedom NOT to have religion.)  So do Libertarians.

	Also, neither I nor Libertarianism rejects "authority".  I personally
reject the existence of a diety or dieties until the existence of such is
proven.  I am not an atheist out of some desire to escape morality.  I am a
very moral person.  My morality extends far beyond the socio-political
morality of Libertarianism, BTW.  Do not dare suggest otherwise.


>Your religion is little more than solipsism.

	I am not a solipsist.  Nor are atheists necessarily.


	I suggest sir, that you get a clue before you post.


Mark Sulkowski
From: siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Apology
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 02:20:14 EST
Reply-To: siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz)
Organization: Modem Madness BBS    1+516-295-9435

        My sincere apology for my first introduction post appearing
here twice. It was completely my fault and I take full blame.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US
Stimpson J. Katz

     Subscribe to the Introduction to Objectivism Mailing List.
Send mail to "Server@Momad.LI.NY.US" containing the phrase
"Subscribe AYN-RAND" in the body of the message.
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown (FLAME)
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:06:58 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

Pardon my flaming, but this guy is *really* getting on my nerves.

Consider this post my personal stand against an especially
offensive variety of intellectual incompetence.

For what it's worth, my hair waved in the breeze while I wrote it.

Those disinterested in my personal debate with Mr. Kozierok
should tune out now. But I promise, I will pursue this particular
dead end no farther after one final comment...

In article <1993Jan13.022916.23365@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

>...  everyone else has the right to voice their
>opinions about what [Roark] would do too, because what Rand's character
>would do is only the interpreter's opinion, in this case yours.
>but of course you attacked anyone who gave you their assessment
>of what Roark (Rand's) would do.

Last time: I am not now, nor was I ever, interested in "what Roark
would do", particularly considering that he is fictional. Nor am
I interested in what you, or Rand, or anyone else would do.
I presented a fictional scenario, using a familiar character
to be cute, and raised the question of what position "objectivism"
would take with respect to a certain course of action (letting
the guy in the water drown).

You continue by quoting me:

>>He is no more made of
>>straw in my scenario than countless Randian villains are made of
>>straw in her fiction. To argue whether or not the "real" Roark
>>would have done this or that is a little silly, now, isn't it?

and reply

>no, the paragraph above is. 
>because the first "fictional character" was made up by Rand, and she
>decided what its attributes were, and therefore, what it would "say"
>and what it would "do"...

Look, guy, you just don't get it, so I give up. You obviously
cannot, or will not, or want to pretend that you cannot, grasp
the concept of a hypothetical example presented to raise an issue.
If it helps, try reconsidering my points, substituting the name
"Philbert Desenex" for "Howard Roark"; it doesn't make a damn bit of
difference to my point, as should be obvious to anyone with any
grasp of philosophical debate. Jeez!

>... you have no business stating what Rand's Roark would do.

*groan*

It makes my stomach hurt to think about the kind of density that
allows you to make this sort of remark. It puts Reardon Metal to shame.

>if you *still* don't understand the difference, well, i give up.

Good, let's leave it at that, then.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Anarcho-objectivism (was Re: Thoughts on the group)
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:46:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <C0nKx2.Frw@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes...
>Do you really think that a protection agency is subject to the
>same kinds of constraints and accountability as a government?

	No, protection agencies are subject to *different* and much stronger
constraints and accountability than government.  The constraints are
visible if you understand the system of incentives involved.  If you
aren't thinking of the incentives, then protection agencies can do
'anything' in your mind.  (Though you will tend to give governments the
benefit of the doubt because you are used to them and hold their incentives
for granted.)


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:09:05 GMT

In article <106727@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) propounds:
> 
>    (in response to my scenario of Roark not bothering to
>     throw the drowning man a life preserver)
> 
>>If the contemplation of his own glory is truly more valuable to him
>>than the possible consequences of expending a little effort that means
>>saving some one's life, then, IMO, he has acted in accordance with
>>Objectivist principles.
> 
>By your own standards, though, who are you to impose this condition -
>that the contemplation of his own glory is *that* valuable - on Roark?
>Suppose he just doesn't *feel* like tossing the life preserver to the
>drowning man. He just isn't in the mood. It isn't a question of awesome
>values clashing in the heavens: he just doesn't particularly care
>whether the guy lives or dies. Is this still "in accordance with
>Objectivist principles"?

In this case, no, it isn't.  Despite your naming your fictional
character Howard Roark, Ayn Rand never portrayed her Howard Roark in
this manner.  It has been pointed out that Francisco acted in a manner
opposite to *your* Howard Roark.  Furthermore, Ayn Rand would be the
first to say that a person's *mood* should not keep him from doing
what is right, and that a question concerning life and death is
certainly important enough to be characterized as one of "awesome
values clashing in the heavens".

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: A=A
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:52:23 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In <2m8VwB3w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@momad.li.ny.us (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:

>        If you complain that little can be drawn from this axiom, then I 
>submit you would be demonstrating further ignorance. Euclidean Geometry 
>proceeds from amazingly few axioms.

This little axiom being A=A.  Well yes, Euclidean Geometry does procede
from a set of axioms that has as one of its members A=A.
However Euclidean Geometry has nothing to say about the physical world
much less about ethics or morals.

>        The specific axiom to which you are complaining, "A is A", is a 
>demand the concepts have clear meaning before they are subjected to 
>logical manipulations. The acceptance of this axiom in mathematics could 
>have eliminated much the problems it has been running into with respect 
>to internal contradictions.

The people in sci.math would love to here more about this.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism