HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:45:36 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan7202235@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>"A
>is A", however, is a mere slogan in the sense that it has no definite
>content at all, but is invoked in justification of whatever
>Objectivist doctrine is put forward at a given moment.  Somebody who
>does not accept Objectivism is simply at a loss as to what "follows"
>from "A is A", and by what principles. Thus, to make "A is A" into an
>axiom in any reasonable sense, you need to explain the role or the
>meaning of "A is A" in such a way as to allow anybody, Objectivist or
>not, to draw conclusions from it. This isn't done by "explaining" that
>"A is A" means "we must know what we are talking about before we make
>assertions", since whether "we know what we are talking about" is very
>much a matter that in turn must be decided by whatever principles we
>accept as valid. Similarly for the other statements associated by
>Objectivists with "A is A". In short: this supposed "axiom" simply has
>no definite content, either in terms of meaning or in terms of
>deducibility.

It is entirely possible that the "A is A" has been "explained" in ways
that don't allow conclusions to be drawn.  Have you never heard anyone
explain the role of "A is A" in such a way that conclusions can be
drawn?  It has been stated that the phrase "A is A" denotes Identity.
Does the acceptance of Identity, along with other axioms, not allow
conclusions to be drawn?

From John Galt's speech:  
	"... A is A.  A thing is itself.  You have never grasped the
meaning of his [this] statement.  I am here to complete it: Existence
is Identity.  Consciousness is Identification.
	"Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an
attribute, or an action, the law of identity remains the same.  A leaf
cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green
at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time.  A is
A..."
-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine)
Subject: Re: Atlas Drowning in the Fountainhead
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:49:04 GMT

In article <106763@bu.edu>, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
> By the way, I have now read most of Galt's speech in "Atlas",
> and am amazed at how little validity there is to this supposed
> "proof" of Randism from the premise that A=A. Without
> passing judgement on the ethical assertions he makes, it is
> more than fair to say that there is not the slightest semblance
> of rigorous derivation of the conclusions from this premise.
> And I don't mean a formal derivation, either, I mean a
> good old-fashioned, plain English, clearly reasoned argument.
> The speech is almost 100% pure rhetoric, in which one thundering
> dictum succeeds another with no attempt at all at showing genuine
> logical dependencies. 


You're quite right that Galt's speech is not the most logical
"linear" treatment of Objectivism.  That would be quite inappropriate
in the middle of a lengthy novel.  (It is supposed to be an improptu
speech made over the radio, after all.)

For a more coherent presentation, please consider the following:

"Introduction to Objectivist Ethics", _The Virtue of Selfishness_
"Philosophy: Who Needs It?", _Philosophy: Who Needs It?_

Each of these essays is the first chapter of its respective book. 
(Both of these books, by the way, are very illuminating -- but if
you're short on time, you can just read the first essay of each.) 

Although neither of these essays is a straightforward "proof"
starting with a set of premises like "A is A", the first one comes 
the closest I've seen to this sort of presentation.


Rob DeLine
Computer Science, University of Virginia
deline@Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1993Jan7.203839.6974@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:05:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.203839.6974@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.
acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:

   >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.

  This is a shrewd suggestion. Ignoring outside criticism makes life a lot
easier. And truly, for those who adopt this suggestion, I wish you the joy
of your rites.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Free Markets are ecomomic anarchy
Date: 07 Jan 93 20:52:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
| The laissez-faire-free-market* is economic anarchy.  

Free markets don't work in anarchies.  There are rules in
laissez faire -- a code of laws inforcing contracts and
a police/judicial system to monitor such.

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
From: dleslie@phakt.usc.edu (David Leslie)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Religion?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 00:04:57 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article <C0CvED.4I1@acsu.buffalo.edu> sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>	The accusation is: *some* Libertarians come to accept Libertarianism
>for religious reasons.
>	There are plenty of atheistic Libertarians, thank-you-very-much.
>Libertarianism is NOT based on religion.
>Mark Sulkowski

I'd be curious to hear what both Libertarians and Objectivists think of 
John Locke and his Second Tretise on Govt. It seems he reached similar
conclusions, through devine reasoning. IE: God gives certain natural
rights - life, liberty, and property. Anyway, it seems that he describes
what would be an acceptable govt. to both aforementioned groups..

 /  Amiga  ///    |  U.S.C. Trojans  | O Bar  | David Leslie        \
|         ///     |     Fight On!    | E O    |                      |
|     \\\///      |        --        | Meu    | dleslie@usc.edu      |
 \     \XX/ A1000 |     Go Kings!    | Lar!   |                     /
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:04:05 GMT

In article <106899@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.210150.12133@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>helping others is in your self-interest if you genuinely want
>>to help them, for any reason and you act voluntarily.
>>this is true by definition.
>
>Would you also agree that drinking poison is, by definition,
>in your self-interest if you genuinely want to drink it,
>for any reason, and you act voluntarily?

given all the usual assumptions (i.e. no children, mentally
"challenged" people, intoxication, etc.), then yes.

>Of course, drinking poison is generally a bad thing to do

"generally"? if by that you mean "most of the time", fine.
but there are times when drinking poison is the best course of
action. i'm sure you don't need examples.

>whereas
>helping others is generally a good thing to do.

only if the person who is doing it thinks so (am i getting through
here?)

>My point is that
>calling it "in your self-interest by definition" is quite false,

why? prove it is false.

>and merely attempts to subsume a non-selfish class of actions
>under the class of selfish actions as an inexpensive way of
>allowing real-world objectivists to behave nonselfishly
>without appearing to violate their principles.

the cop-out is yours. all you can come up with
is "that's false, they made it up to cover their asses"?
don't you think you could explain *why* it is false?

you seem to be really good at repeating this kind of claim
(i believe the phrase "100% rhetoric" has been used to describe
this form of argument by some people in this group recently) but not
very good at substantiating it.

you don't impress me with your understanding of objectivism.
and you should understand it damn well to justify the scathing
attacks you have been leveling at it. sorry to be blunt, but
i am losing patience with this line of argument. if you want to
be aggressive toward objectivism, you should be more careful
about what you say.

--
charles
From: madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar)
Subject: Re: A=A
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 23:17:31 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

In article <106108@bu.edu>, ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) 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?  ...
|>  
|> >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.
|>  
|> Funny, I was going to "answer" the above question with a sarcastic
|> "don't you know? - it's 'A=A!'", but someone else got the jump on me.
|> Unfortunately, their answer appears to have been presented in earnest.
|>  
|> Professional philosophers in general regard "objectivism" as something
|> of a bad joke, and with claims like this - that one can derive an entire
|> system of "ethics" from the premise that "existence exists" - it's easy
|> to see why. Here's a person looking for a rational justification of this
|> rather grotesque social doctrine, and what does he get? "A=A". Yeesh.
|> No wonder this is an "alt" group.


Some people think professional philosophers ARE a bad joke. I don't. In any
case I would be interested in references to serious critiques of Ayn Rand's
Objectivism.

Incidentally. I do not believe "existence exists" is the only premise that
Objectivism states as an axiom. Also "A=A" should be read as "contradictions
do not exist". Are you saying that it is false ? If so how do you propose to
show that it is false without using it ? Or are you saying that it is
too obviously true ? 


Madhav Nerurkar


Disclaimer: These are my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Objectivism and the financing of government
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:05:36 GMT

siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:
>    The official Objectivist posisition regarding the financing of
>government is that this is a very complex issue. The general idea is
>that the government would charge a fee for its services.

The section in "The Virtue of Selfishness" on this topic that I read
was one of the lamest bits of writing Rand ever did.

Immediately after trashing the idea of a voluntarist (i.e.
anarchocapitalist) society on the basis that *she* couldn't think of
any solution to the problem of what happens when someone who
subscribes to Security Company A is in a conflict with someone who
subscribes to Security Company B (a question that is fairly easily
settled, actually), she proceeded to handwave that among other things,
government could pay for its police and defense systems by using,
essentially, artificially high fees on government court systems. She
noted that people that do not pay an "insurance premium" to the
government on a contract might not be able to have it enforced by the
government. All fine and well, but she forgot that commercial
arbitration services are big business and that the whole of commercial
law was developed entirely in a court system at medieval trade fairs
where the only mechanism for enforcement available was ostracism. One
might therefore note that, in a system where the government cannot
enforce a monopoly on courts by force, competitors will arise that do
not overcharge so that they can subsidize the police and army. These
competitors will have a huge advantage in so far as they will be able
to charge much lower prices, and the lack of police power associated
with them will likely be acceptable most of the time. The result will
be that the government will be out-competed in its revenue generating
business and will likely go bankrupt. A rather fine mess.

The amusing thing is that Rand, a person with a clear vision and
understanding of economics, could not see so clearly that competition
could easily apply to government courts. I suppose one might be kind
to her in so far as at the time she was writing the body of literature
on competitive legal systems was not very well developed -- David
Friedman and Bruce Benson hadn't produced their magnum opi at the
time. (See, by the way, Benson's "The Enterprise of Law: Justice
Without The State" for an exquisitely well documented body of
historical evidence for the viability of anarchism, and answers to all
those questions on the subject that Rand couldn't think of answers
for.)

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: The Beef Before Me
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:20:20 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

Well, at last!  A genuine purported proof! Hallelujah!!!
 
Seriously, I respect and thank the below-quoted poster for his serious
attempt to put his money where too many others have nothing but mouth.
 
So let's have a look, shall we?
 
dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley) derives:
 
>1) Living things exist
 
What, no "A=A"??? I'm a little disappointed, but so far, so good.
Living things exist, I'll grant that.
 
>2) Continued existence requires a certain course of action
 
I don't know about this (what course of action do rocks follow?),
but it doesn't really seem to figure in the reasoning that follows.
 
>3) Living requires a certain course of action
 
Assuming we're talking about animal living, OK, agreed.
 
>4) In order to have any values at all, a living thing must first
>   continue to live
 
Uh, sure, why not. Agreed. Looks like I'm losing so far!
 
>5) The primary value of a living thing is its life
 
Well, it isn't exactly self-evident what is meant by "primary
value" here. Does it mean "objectively most important aspect of"?
Does it mean "aspect which is most valued by the owner"?
Does it mean "aspect which *should be* most valued by the owner?"
In any case, (5) seems to be doing a bit of question-begging.
Certainly, it in no way follows logically from (1) through (4).
In fact, suitable articulated, (5) would, I suspect, be seen
to constitute the very conclusion stated in (8) below.
 
>6) Ethics is the science of how people ought to act
 
Sure, why not.
 
>7) People ought to act in order to achieve their values
 
This not only fails to follow from anything stated
previously, but it seems patently false, even by "objectivist" standards
(as I understand them). If my "values" consist of sadistic enjoyment
obtained by kidnapping and torturing children, does it follow that I
ought to kidnap and torture children?
 
But perhaps I misinterpret. If (7) means "people ought to act
in order to better manifest the most valuable aspects of their
existence", I'd be inclined to go along with it, but in that
case, "objectivism" will only follow if we accept that nothing
is more valuable than the pursuit of one's own well-being.
And isn't that sort of what we're supposed to be proving here?
 
>8) Man's primary ethical requirement is to further his life
 
Seems to presume a certain disputable interpretation of (5).
 
Conclusion rejected.
 
Perhap if we add premise (0), "A=A"???
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:54:19 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <7JAN199316314132@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>I know I may often sound argumentative, but I *am* interested in objectivism.
>When I get the time I will expound more; my initial reaction is that 
>if objectivism is based on reason and the few "tenets" presented here,
>I don't see how you can deny your links to anarchism.

we shall see.

>At any rate, I think it's possible to be an anarchist *and* an objectivist.
>Anyone agree?  Why or why not?

ok, i will bite this worm.
i am a small-o objectivist, and though i am probably less knowledgeable
about formal objectivism than some others on this group i have a reasonably good
brain, so why not.

i do not deny that objectivism and anarchism have many similarities, and
are close on the spectrum, compared to such things as socialism.
but there is a significant difference.
objectivists feel that there is a role for government in protecting
the individual rights of the people. anarchists do not.

that should get us started. i hope we can keep this clean.
the other thing i would ask before we
possibly confuse each other is that you tell me exactly what you
mean by "anarchism". what i think you mean by it is no government
of any sort; basically a free-for-all. if i am mistaken, please
clarify.

--
charles
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Free Markets are ecomomic anarchy
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:22:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan07.205251.28742@microsoft.com>, johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes...
>In article seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>| The laissez-faire-free-market* is economic anarchy.  
= 
>Free markets don't work in anarchies.  There are rules in
>laissez faire -- a code of laws inforcing contracts and
>a police/judicial system to monitor such.

I have said many times anarchy may or may not have [voluntary] rules...

You are ignoring the fact the anarchists societies may or may not have 
well developed court systems.  There are an infinite number of solutions
to the "monitor contracts" problem; anarchy simply says that participation 
will be voluntary.

If you choose not to participate in *any* enforcement system, you will
find it *very* hard to get anyone to enter a contractual agreement 
with you.  This is fair, IMHO.

Have you not been reading earlier posts and the discussion of the free
market developing it's own system of arbitration?  Do not equate
anarchy with chaos.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: markb@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Mark Bower)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(4)
Organization: Martin Marietta
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:02:29 GMT

>> 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.

Cool! I have heard this argument several times before, but have been unable
to identify specific examples. It sounds like you have several!!

Please give the time period, the nations involved, and proof that they were
operating in a truly regulation-free, tariff-free, and full-knowledge
environment. Also, show that existing power structures arose from the market
forces themselves and not from pre-existing systems; i.e. European aristocracy
derived it's power from feudal land holdings obtained by force of arms so does
not speak to this situation.

It would add a great deal of weight to your argument if the
examples were post-industrial revolution and, of course, the more recent
the better! Thanks for your help!!
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Obj. Philosophy
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:23:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan03.014433.15175@news.mentorg.com>, madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:

|> I am curious to know what method you used as a medium to conduct a debate.
|> The last time I tried such conversation, there was a deadlock when the
|> yoga guy insisted we can not be always logical.

I have never known any human being who is _always_ logical.  By the nature
of our makeup - biology, emotions, whatever - there are times when it is
beyond a person's capability to reason logically.  Ayn Rand was not
_always_ logical.

-- 
***********************************************************************
 Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
 Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
 phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Free Markets are ecomomic anarchy
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:00:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <7JAN199316592640@mivax.mc.duke.edu>, seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (SETH) writes...
>In article <C0GIED.9zn@acsu.buffalo.edu>, sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes...
>>In article <6JAN199314364571@mivax.mc.duke.edu>, seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes...
>>>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.
> 
>>	I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.  Anarchy in what sense?
>>"Complete anarchist freedom?"  There would clearly be property rights and
>>protected contracts.  There would be rules of behavior!  Wouldn't you have
>>to be able to violate any rule in order in order to have "complete
>>anarchistic freedom" (in the usual sense of the word)?
> 
>Anarchy does not mean there are no rules, especially in the sense of 
>voluntary agreements.  Anarchy doesn't mean you can't protect yourself
>from violence, or even being ripped off.  There would be court systems
>(perhaps), but no government.

	Okay.  I just wanted to be clear on what you were talking about.
When I hear someone talk about "complete...freedom", I assume they mean
freedom to do anything at all.  You however are talking about a subset
of that freedom -- the freedom into interact voluntarily with others.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism