HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens)
Subject: On the subject of Kant..
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:00:00 GMT


THe post I just read mentioned the Kantian mob.

I have heard Rand refer to Kant very negatively. I just
finished a philosophy course where he was briefly introduced.

We did not cover his work extensively, and I am
curious as to exactly where he contradicts
Objectivism.  I would also appreciate suggestions
on which specific works of his that I should
be familiar with.  He seems to be a favorite
of those who refute Objectivism.


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

Human Factors Research Lab
University of Minnesota
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Anarcho-objectivism
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:06:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>>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.
> 
>Different, yes.  Much stronger?  The closest real-world analogies
>we have, I think, are mafia-style gangs and large corporations,
>none of which are really willing to accept the principle of
>non-coercion. [...]

	Stunning comeback.

        The incentives that exist in our society are not the same as those
that exist in customary law societies, as historical evidence amply
illustrates.  Read _The Enterprise of Law_ before you start jumping to
wild conclusions.  I would take you much more seriously if you did.
You can get that book from Laissez Faire Books.


Mark Sulkowski
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 03:11:50 GMT

In article <106767@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.001318.17140@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>a typical "objectivist" false dichotomy.
>
>>so far i have seen a lot of bluster, but no demonstration from you
>>of anything dichotomous.
>
>The false dichotomy posed by objectivists is "either you agree with
>our ethical principles or you deny the existence of objective reality".
>My point is that there is a lot of ground between the two positions.

fine. then you will have no problem explaining how your yacht example
demonstrates your point. i haven't seen it.

>>>Personally, I wouldn't care a helluva lot about their philosophical
>>>convictions, as long as they threw me the life preserver.
>>
>>so what? everyone would feel that way. irrelevant.
>
>Oh, give me a break!!! In the immortal words of the great American
>philosopher Foghorn Leghorn, "it's a joke, son!"

if the rest of your posts weren't so filled with aggression and vitriol,
i might have been more inclined to see the humor. my apologies.

--
charles
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: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:53:28 GMT

   Wait a minute. Am I understanding this correctly? "Profits at the
expense of others"? Are you then the Grand Protector of the
Proletariat, another Marx, a Mesiah? 
   Is it not total nonsense to argue that all profits derive from
exploitation? Are there really people still living who preach this
dead religion? I would welcome a cogent explanation of how this dogma
relates to reality ...

Bill

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:37:23 GMT
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5100742@macro.bu.edu>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <MERRITT.93Jan5100742@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu 
(Sean Merritt) writes:

   >For Goedel's theorem to apply you must have, or be capable of
   >representing the "natural numbers" (1,2,3...). Bertrand Russell
   >proved that although it is extermely difficult you can get a
   >representation of the natural numbers from Logic. Objectivism appeals
   >to Logic. Therefore it follows,that there exist conjetcures
   >which will not be provable (false or true) within the frame work
   >of objectivism.

 This is an amusing piece of nonsense. Putting your bizarre reasoning
to one side, the basic point you need to get clear on is that "provability
within the framework of Objectivism" has no mathematical meaning at all.
There is no such formal system as "Objectivism". Godel's theorem applies
to (a class of) formal systems, nothing else.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:26:20 GMT

>formulated, A=A is not so much a proposition from which everything is supposed

>to be derived but rather the cardinal rule one must always be sure to observe
>when one is using logic to operate on information to produce further
>conclusions.  Of course, if you take a (somewhat straw) formulation that you
>can derive everything directly from "A=A" and "Consciousness is the faculty of

>identification", you can defeat that.  But it is rather more useful to look at

>these propositions as the basis behind what you do with logic and data.
>
>As far as producing a little lemma, Rand talks about the primary ethical
>responsibility of living beings.  Basically her argument is:
>
>1) Living things exist
>2) Continued existence requires a certain course of action
>----
>3) Living requires a certain course of action
>4) In order to have any values at all, a living thing must first continue to
>   live

I respect you for being the first to actually step up and give this
logical argument a whirl. I have serious reservations with the above
statement, though. I also think that this is a point where o(O)bjectivism
begins to break down.

If you study evolutionary biology (particularly selfish gene theories),
you will immediately see a counter to this statement. Individual
organisms can be sacrificed to better spread their genes.

I think that the o(O)bjectivists out there should reformulate this
statement. It would seem to be a crux of the philosophy (way more
than A=A, which is very hard to extrapolate to humans). If you
are going to postulate a selfish organism as being of value, then
you must be able to counter the selfish gene. I would very much
like to discuss this theme.


>----
>5) The primary value of a living thing is its life

Again, same questions.

>6) Ethics is the science of how people ought to act
>7) People ought to act in order to achieve their values
>----
>8) Man's primary ethical requirement is to further his life
>
This doesn't follow.

>Now, I don't claim to be a logical giant, and, in fact, just did this little
>ditty off-the-cuff, but at least this is a starting point for people to argue
>over.
>--
>Dan  ***  dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>*******************************************




>Disclaimer: Due to budget constraints, The Ohio State University cannot afford

>to express official university opinions on Usenet.


Dig the disclaimer!!! A fellow Buckeye can appreciate this, though
if the opinion has to do with football, there seems to be plenty
of dough to go around.  ;)

Andrew Hall
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Re: So where are the objectivist governments?
Keywords: objectivist
Organization: SCTC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:16:05 GMT

byafuso@athena.qualcomm.com (Byron Yafuso) writes:

>It seems to me that objectivism has a thread of natural selection beliefs
>running through it.  ... [more omitted]

>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?

>Just my contribution to the debate-fuel in this group (food for thought),

I think this is great food for thought :-)>

In my own, humble opinion I believe that laissez-faire economics and
governing styles associated with it tend to be suppressed in an
attempt to balance between stability and productive growth.

People in general see stability (i.e. the ability to find food and
shelter predictably) as a requirement for individual surivial.  True
"free markets" do not guarantee any such stability.

Economically, lassiez faire capitalism seems to act as a self
organizing economic principle that arises when there are no other
organizing forces in the economy. Since they favor "natural selection"
based on criteria that are unknowable in specifics, they work against
stability and even predictablility when it comes to individual
outcomes. This uncertainty applies both to individual people and to
companies large and small. I think the pressures _against_ free market
capitalism are driven by this uncertainty.

Uncertainty obviously affects individuals; when given a chance most
people will probably vote with their stomachs. I think this is also
true of organizations tied into the economy and markets, which tend to
lobby for legislation that strengthen their economic strength and
authority.  The trick during the Reagan years was to put the
appropriate free market appearance on your economic manipulation
goals.

As long as there are tools to control and manipulate the economy,
people and organizations will try to do so. The argument seems
to be that the lower efficiency caused by "managing" the economy
might yield greater stability. The unsolved (if not unsolvable)
problem is to identify the class of manipulations that actually
contribute to stability with the least impact on productivity.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Date: 06 Jan 93 00:05:49 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
| Why this fascination with the wit and wisdom of dead people? 

It was the wit and wisdom of dead people who provided you with
the language you are using.

Think about it.

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Private Roads in an Objectivist Society
Summary: Private Roads in an Objectivist Society
Keywords: Private Roads
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:02:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <frankp.726588412@galena>, frankp@galena.bellcore.com (Frank Perez) writes...
>Dear Objectivists:
> 
>I am a strong supporter of laizze-faire capitalism, but I have the following
>concern.
> 
>It is my understanding that in an Objectivist form of government, ALL roads
>would be private.
> 
>I could see this implementable for turnpikes, highways, or long-distance roads.
>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 ?
> 
>An answer to this question would be most greatly appreciated.

	Well, I don't have all the information in front of me, but it
is my understanding that private roads in front of private residences
already exist (in places) in the US without causing too much of a problem.
In fact, they tend to improve the safety of the neighborhood because a
gate can be closed on either end at night time which tends to scare
away burglars.  I believe the rules of use of such streets are subject
to a contractual arrangement of some sort which guarantees use to everyone
who lives on that street.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:45:28 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan8103208@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>#     Come now. If "to Ayn Rand" her axioms were associated with a well-defined
>#   language and rules of inference, please specify the language and the rules of
>#   inference.
>
>English.

With this answer, I hope Torkel Franzen's prodigious stamina may
finally give out, as there is clearly no point in talking to Mr.
Merritt about this topic.  English is not a formal language, and has no
formal rules of inference, AS THESE TERMS ARE CONCEIVED BY MATHEMATICAL
LOGICIANS.  If you believe otherwise, you are simply misinformed.  You
can set up your own definitions if you like, but don't pretend that
they are the same as those mathematical logicians use.

>#     Again, to refute my assertions you need merely specify the language and
>#   the inference rules. This is not a matter of opinion.
>
>Is the problem that you have that AR's definitions are somewhat
>"operational"?

They are INFORMAL by the standards of mathematical logic.
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Religion?
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:03:56 GMT

bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:

>
>   Libertarianism is most certainly based on religion, as are all
>other isms. In this case the religion is:

Bill;

Just thought I'd note that you do a mean Balph Eubank imitation even
without knowing who he is.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:17:24 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1993Jan12.140908.27210@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
(Robert Baruch) writes:

   >(1) means, "if Santa Claus exists, then Santa Claus exists."

  You're still talking about the trivial argument that you read into the
puzzle. Keith Ramsay was commenting on the non-trivial argument that
you missed.

  If you want to talk about the trivial argument you should not use the
statement (1), that is the sentence defined by

 (1)     If (1) is true, then Santa Claus exists

since this does not not mean "if Santa Claus exists then Santa Claus exists".
From: rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Objectivism, the Handicapped, and Unwanted Children
Date: 8 Jan 93 04:33:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department


In her works, Rand describes Reason as the means of
preserving man's life, which is his ultimate source of value.
In this discussion she assumes that each human being is
capable of using his mind to preserve his life -- without the
aid of others.  There are (at least) two special cases for
which this isn't true: children and the mentally handicapped.

Neither children nor the mentally handicapped are capable of
the kind of self-sustained, rational thought so necessary to
maintaining life.  What is to be done with them?  How would an
Objectectivist address the following two situations?

1) Mary is a young woman of limited means.  She gives birth to
a son, but quickly discovers she cannot take care of him. 
What is to become of the child?

2) Residents of a neighborhood in New York discover a man
wandering their street one morning.  He is quite
out-of-control (because of severe schizophrenia, not
because of any form intoxication) and putting the residents in
danger.  What is to become of him?

In both cases the problematic person is not capable of
sustaining his life through rational thought.  Is charity
necessarily the answer?  What if no one around them feels any
charity, pity, or compassion?  Are they simply to be left to
die?  (After all, according to Objectivism, no one *owes* them
anything, such as food or shelter.)

Though these cases are extreme, they are not unbelievable,
nor are they even rare.  Collectivist philosophies have easy
recourse to the problem: these people are the responsibility
of the tribe, just as everyone else is.  But what is
Objectvism's response?

Thanks for your input.

Rob DeLine
Computer Science, University of Virginia
deline@Virginia.EDU
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:35:34 GMT
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> <106150@bu.edu>
	<1993Jan05.223006.29473@news.mentorg.com>
	<TORKEL.93Jan6002412@bast.sics.se> <MERRITT.93Jan6131932@macro.bu.edu>
	<TORKE <TORKEL.93Jan6231809@bast.sics.se>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: torkel@sics.se's message of 6 Jan 93 22:18:09 GMT



# In article <TORKEL.93Jan6231809@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:


   In article <MERRITT.93Jan6162020@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu 
   (Sean Merritt) writes:

      >You say that there is no mathematical consequences of
      >applying Objectivism, but this patently false.

 #    I haven't said this, and in fact I can't even make any obvious sense of
 #  it. What I have said is that "Objectivism" is not a formal system, that
 #  there is no formally definable set of consequences or theorems of
 #  "Objectivism".


 What you also haven't said is that Objectivism however informal it is
 offers an Epistomology, a basis for knowledge. Forget about philosophy
 although I am curious at seeing the term "Objectivist Philosophy"
 over and over again.

 If there are "no definable set of consequences" of Objectivism,
 then there are no(ZERO) Humans acting in a in a manner that
 applies Objectivism. The whole premise is then reductio ad absurdum,
 and we should all move on. I say that there are certainly 
 consequnces of putting Objectivisim into practice and before
 one blindly starts to act in this manner one should consider
 the implications.

 -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
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Capitalism and the environment
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 14:16:05 GMT

In article 20361@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
> 
> 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?)

Remember that air is something which I use.  By polluting the air
I breathe, the polluter is interfering with my well-being, or
if not my well-being, then my natural enjoyment of clean air.
If the air smells like sewage, it may not be harmful, but it
certainly reduces my enjoyment.  Why couldn't I take a polluter
to court for that?

> 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!")

That's reality.  It *is* my own land, and if I don't affect you,
you have no say in how I use *my* land, or *my* resources.  After
all, I *did* buy them with my own money.  Will you now say that 
I can only use my money in "public-sanctioned" ways?

--Rob
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, the Handicapped, and Unwanted Children
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:41:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.043342.28376@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
}
}In her works, Rand describes Reason as the means of
}preserving man's life, which is his ultimate source of value.
}In this discussion she assumes that each human being is
}capable of using his mind to preserve his life -- without the
}aid of others.

False.  She assumes that competency is the rule, not that it doesn't have
exceptions.  Furthermore, she doesn't assume that the competent exist in
a state of economic autarky, but in a catallaxy, as the Austrian economists
call it.

There are (at least) two special cases for
}which this isn't true: children and the mentally handicapped.
}
}Neither children nor the mentally handicapped are capable of
}the kind of self-sustained, rational thought so necessary to
}maintaining life.  What is to be done with them?

Charity.  In a free society, the standard of living would easily be enough
for the incompetent to be provided for voluntarily.

How would an
}Objectectivist address the following two situations?
}
}1) Mary is a young woman of limited means.  She gives birth to
}a son, but quickly discovers she cannot take care of him. 
}What is to become of the child?

Charity again.

}2) Residents of a neighborhood in New York discover a man
}wandering their street one morning.  He is quite
}out-of-control (because of severe schizophrenia, not
}because of any form intoxication) and putting the residents in
}danger.  What is to become of him?

Those he endangers should defend themselves against him, and he should try
to get charity.

}In both cases the problematic person is not capable of
}sustaining his life through rational thought.  Is charity
}necessarily the answer?

Yep.

What if no one around them feels any
}charity, pity, or compassion?

What if no one thinks they're worthy of getting charity from 'em?  Then that's
unfortunate, inevitable under any possible social system, and probably the
exception, not the rule.

Are they simply to be left to
}die?  (After all, according to Objectivism, no one *owes* them
}anything, such as food or shelter.)

Yes, sadly.

}Though these cases are extreme, they are not unbelievable,
}nor are they even rare.

Yes, they are rare.

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