From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:29:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.003018.12249@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>[ Chuck 'n' Gerry ] 

oh no. only my *mom* calls me "chuck" :^)

>
>This argument doesn't seem to be going anywhere. 
>I think both of you are trying to make different points.
>
>Gerald wants a system that entrenches and gaurantees certain rights and
>compromises that entail looking after and providin for other people
>(say: sick, poor, laszy(?) etc.)
>
>Charles want a rationally and logically consistent set of values.
>Now these values don't have the typical platitudes and warm fuzzy statements,
>and THIS is what makes people nervous. (One flaw, you can never have a 
>set of values, ie a logical system, that is free from contradiction...
>look to Godel for an explanation of that, but I digress...)

possibly, i am not well versed on fundamental theoretical philosophy.
you certainly *can* of course try to do the best possible, though.

>I think that if you follow 'self-interest', something that I think
>Objectivism relies alot on, you can arrive at some of the warm fuzzy
>things that people want to hear. A short-sighted view would regard
>things like charity etc. as altruism, and therefore useless. But a
>long term view  would regard charity as  just another tool of
>self interest (although people might not want to call it that).

which is consistent with objectivism.

>Why? because from the social nature of people, or of biology, there will
>always be envy and the like. People with less will look to scapegoats,
>instead of blaming themselves for their own misfortune. Charity, 
>philanthropy and the like buy social esteem and standing in society,
>( a kind of security).

which i would say it should. after all, if for giving away
your wealth you don't even get that, you really do get nothing.
so why do it? some people do it just to make themselves feel good
inside. others because it makes them feel good based on others'
perceptions.

>The thing that's got people feather's ruffled, is how much (if at all)
>the State should be sponsoring 'charity' etc.

bang on.

>Now there are a lot
>of areas where this exists. Even if we eliminated welfare, where does
>that leave universal education (for children), or the court system?

i believe that objectivism would not support this. if you have children,
you are responsible to pay for their education. i will admit that there
are some problems with a pure reason system when it comes to dealing
with children -- because they cannot be considered to be responsible
for themselves as an adult can. one can hold their parents responsible,
but if they shirk this responsibility, the state is usually the one
who must care for the children. even this would be preferable to
general welfare. and the problems with the current educational system,
i believe, are directly linked to the "it's the government's job"
attitude too many parents have.

>I mention the courts, because if we have a free market court system,
>maybe the wealthier can buy off judge and jury.

then we have no justice. i am not sure what you mean by a "free
market court system" -- objectivism does consider objective courts
to be a proper part of government.

>For purity, Charles wants no state gaurantees; while Gerald wants a 
>compromise of a sort.

i don't object to everything he says; in fact i said i would consider
a compromise as well. but we are talking about philosophical justification
for positions. and "compromise" is what the nasty stuff always starts out
as, before it grows out of control.

>And we also have to look at timetables for implenting things, and the
>best way of phasing things in. Last, we can't let any philosphy delude
>us into thinking that man is 100% rational. Whatever system we end up
>with has to take into account design limitations (the non-rational
>side; limited knowledge of consequences of our actions, etc.)

agreed.

>Objectivism seems just as utopian, if it ignores the irrational actions
>of others who aren't Objectivists.

objectivism is in my opinion rather defeatist, actually, because it 
acknowledges that while it may be "right" to have an objectivist
system, most people will never go for it. the reason is simply that
it is easier to be a consumer than a producer, and then come up with
a system that "justifies" transfer from the producers to the consumers,
in the name of "fairness". there are other reasons too, such as the one
you suggest, that some people aren't rational. objectivism *tries* to get
people to look at the premises underlying their actions, but accepts that
most people don't want to do this.

>So let's look at the consequences of principles, in the context of human
>nature, and not in the pure abstract (desirable as it that may be)

we can do that too.

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics