Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Eiuol

    Heirs to dictatorships

    Sure, you don't need to correct every injustice, nor is it even reasonable to assume they always can be fixed, or to assume that every injustice is your concern. I'm discussing here the times when there are injustices that you care about; I'm not trying to say that you should save the world. Still, there are things that happen in your world, so to the extent that they are in your world, it is in your own interest to have those injustices fixed. I was speaking generally on purpose. As in injustice is not a desirable thing. If you want to discuss which injustices you want to care more about, that's a fine discussion. It's worth asking yourself if there are injustices you should fix. In the context of political science, we might want to ask if there are any observable effects of those past injustices. I think I might be overly abstract here. I think a good example of "past injustices" without immediately getting into really complex social questions is the one Doug Morris posed. In this case, you would recognize that someone took an action that caused property damage. If the buried "chemical bomb" blew up immediately after someone bought the house, that person who caused that damage should pay for. (I'm assuming that it would be the justice system you are a part of, not just something going on on the other side of the world under a government that you can't actually worry about right now. I don't want you to get the impression that I'm advocating fixing every environmental injustice done to others in the world. If you exist in a society that protects rights, it would be in your interest that people's rights are actually protected.) What difference would it make if the damage was 30 years later? The next step would be to ask if anything can be done about it. As I mentioned before, maybe the guy got away with. Maybe no one will ever know who did it. Some people might say "well, the government should intervene, we should all give this person money to fix the damage, even though we will never catch the person who did it!". That would be wrong. Fortunately, in a capitalist system, we don't suddenly intervene and say that "we can't catch the guy, so we gotta do something through the power of the government!". In fact, the best solution really is for the victim to persuade others that a little help is needed because their house blew up due to the fault of another person who was criminally negligent. They could say "I moved here to get a PhD in physics, but now I have nowhere to live and can't afford it, so I like you guys to help me out. I think I deserve it, and it really sucks that the guy got away with it."
  3. Today
  4. Ilya Startsev

    Transcending Objectivism and Kantianism

    Ordinary human reason, i.e. common sense, is a ground shared with Rand, since she also made much effort to base the content of her philosophy on the experiences of non-philosophers.
  5. Doug Morris

    Heirs to dictatorships

    Suppose that instead of burying a container of chemicals on the land, a very sick person goes to a hill away from the land, but from which the land is visible, and sets something up which will detect when the land is being built on and fire an incendiary at the building when there are no people present. This booby trap is sufficiently inaccessible and well-concealed that no one detects it, and it still works after the thirty years. Wouldn't that violate the twenty-year-old's property rights?
  6. It is a continuum at the heart of current defense spending discussions. I would agree with both of you. Based on the amount of military spending and the number of military bases the continuum seems to be weighted more heavily toward "react based on what the other guy says" than based on what he does (or can do).
  7. Easy Truth

    Heirs to dictatorships

    Then when you have rights, that implies "no moral requirement (and thus no political requirement) that every rights violation be fixed"? Is this the alienable brand? What I am hearing in that statement is: "Sometimes it is okay when people steal from you". I doubt that is what you mean. I would argue that in principle there is that requirement. It just can't be done in practice.
  8. Easy Truth

    Heirs to dictatorships

    One is man-made (in fact mixing of labor with the land) I wonder if that indicates ownership/responsibility. Once you own a car and it rolls and crashes into something, you are responsible.
  9. Easy Truth

    Correcting the nonaggression "principle"

    Then according to Rand the act of "refusing" can be an exercise of a type of force. (but it refers to refusal when you don't have the right to) Which supports the idea that refusal is an exercise of force. So entering into a society give one a right to certain information from others? (as it is needed for one's survival?). If one does not give people permission to leave their premises after they were given the right to enter, very few will visit other people. I assume some societies may choose to have that type of "system"/culture. (you know ahead of time that entering has a very high risk (although dysfunctional and inefficient)) The implication is that some societies may decide that you initially "own" all the information you have, and others may universally agree that you don't "own it". Isn't this going to an agreed on (perhaps voted on) issue per government? At that point, people would add as part of their agreements that you are giving away some of your privacy by entering in this contract. In other words, couldn't refusing to obey a subpoena in a certain Objectivist country be considered a violation and not in another Objectivist country? Furthermore, an Objectivist/Minarchist country, you pay for legal protection, and that comes with an agreement. If you have agreed that the court system owns some of the information that you have/or that you would cooperate in a certain way, then not obeying the subpoena would be a breach of contract and an absolute violation. One would probably lose all police and legal protection at that point. There are cultures that are very privacy oriented and bend over backward to have privacy as their highest value. Clearly, they give up something for that but I am not sure if it is involuntary.
  10. Invictus2017

    Heirs to dictatorships

    "Justice" is not a floating abstraction, any more than "should" is. Among other things, there is no moral requirement (and thus no political requirement) that every injustice be fixed. But the treatment of "justice" as a floating abstraction does allow the absurdity of imagining that justice can be done by stealing from one person that which he has earned to give to another person that which he has not earned on the ground that the second person's parents were deprived of what was rightfully theirs by someone who is long dead.
  11. Invictus2017

    Heirs to dictatorships

    More or less. Note that precisely the same harm could have happened from an undetected sinkhole. When you claim unowned land, it's on you to check it out before putting it to use.
  12. Invictus2017

    Heirs to dictatorships

    I forgot to add: civil forfeiture, wherein the government steals your property on the ground that it might have been involved in a crime -- prior to any proof that the crime even happened.
  13. Your right to self defense kicks in at the instant someone forms the intention to use force against you. However, you may only act in self-defense once you have sufficient evidence that the intention exists. You might make your inference from a persons actions, from his words, or even his body language. But it must be a rational inference, not "I hate his words and I take them as a threat" or some such excuse.
  14. Ninth Doctor

    Rubin on Rogan on Rand

    Just that Dave Rubin has accumulated quite a history of excellent interviews over the past couple years. Yaron Brook did an outstanding job particularly on his first appearance. Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell (naturally), and Alex Epstein's appearances are particularly worth checking out. https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport/videos Rogan is a new name to me.
  15. Think of it as a continuum. There's some point between having a negative thought and plunging a knife into someone such that the border between each adjacent segment of action might not be easily perceptually identifiable but where the extremes are, and where acting in self defense of negative throughts is too early and when the knife is already in your chest is too late.
  16. How would it be in one's interest to ignore helpful opinions? If the opinion is informed and evident, it qualifies as having greater value than a less-than-informed opinion, or an opinion based on a faulty principle. It would stand to reason that a PhD in a given field of expertise would have a professional, evidence-based, and therefore valuable opinion, whereas the opinion of a high school drop-out would most likely be of considerably less value. Let me offer an example for your hedonism category: It feels absolutely great having a sexual experience with the love of your life, but others hold to the opinion that there is something wrong with your relationship. Do you weigh the opinions of these "narrow-minded" people, or do you objectively decide for yourself that the affair is in your best interest? The prudes have opinions based on their principles; let's say they have Christian, or Muslim, or some other religious or tribal convictions soundly supported by their sacred scripture. You have objective truth. Without developing an extended short story of our star-crossed lovers, assuming nothing in their relationship other than the opinions of others is harmful to them, how is the opinion of the traditionalist prudes right, and the lovers wrong? The prudes have principles, the lovers have the truth. Someone in this story has a subjective opinion of hedonism, and I would say it's the prudes. Regarding narcissism, one risks the dangers of Hayek's "fatal conceit." One must weigh the risks of any decision, and decide what is in one's rational best interest. Putting thought behind one's decisions, be they large or small decisions, is practicing rational egoism. In the quote you sited from my earlier post, I was quite specific in pointing out that subjective opinions have less value over facts. I'm not sure what the argument is.
  17. Doug Morris

    Heirs to dictatorships

    Is the point that this sort of possibility has to be accepted as part of the risk involved in claiming new land?
  18. But when does one's right to self-defense kick in. Only after, you got hit or stabbed or worse? (is that the only way force is identified?) Isn't identification of threat relevant to one's safety? Doesn't what an enemy says make "some" difference? Doesn't what a potential assailant says have some relevance to how you should protect yourself?
  19. What something "comes across as" is irrelevant. Only thing that matters is what it is.
  20. I'm going mostly after the way it was phrased and I think you agree with me. I just want to make sure that (new readers) understand that is not a complete disregard/disdain of everyone. (I maintain that neither you nor I nor anyone on this forum has a complete disregard for other's opinions or we would not try to have proper grammar). I would not have brought it up if the statement said: If your inquiry into Objectivism is earnest, you will find that rational egoism disregards subjective opinions of others, and instead, focuses on truth as based on verifiable evidence, and the pursuit of one's personal happiness without conflicting with the truth. (Sorry to rehash the reasons) ... Reason being: 1. "Disregard for a subjective analysis, as expressed by another person ", refers to a subset of all opinions. 2. How does one find out if their opinion is subjective vs. objective when there is a complete disregard for it? A complete disregard does not allow identification (of subjective or objective) to take place. 3. It is only when phrased as "disregard for some opinions" based on some logic, it becomes valid. When the implication is that everyone (past present future) has nothing of value to contribute then the statement loses validity. Examples of Hedonistic would be when one feels comfort in shutting others out without any principles behind it. No thought behind it, it just feels good to ignore, pay no attention to the existence of others. Narcissistic may also include an unadmitted fear of truths (from others) that may be painful.
  21. The short answer to your question: No. Disregard for opinions is disregard for a subjective analysis, as express by another person. The rational egoism of which I refer to includes reasoning out and/or researching one's own conclusions. As for selfishness, one's must always deliberate and act on the decision that is best for one's self. Perhaps you're siting some semantic argument over the definition of an opinion; there are opinions supported by evidence, and their are opinions that are entirely the product of someone's imagination, or popular belief. Disregard of the latter is rational. Now, if one decides for one's self that giving a fair hearing to the opinions of others is in one's self interest, of course it may be required to do so. I suppose it's nearly impossible to be completely oblivious of the opinions of others, but if those opinions do not serve your best interests, or better stated, if those opinions hold no value to you, it's best to regard such opinions in the same manner one might regard the weather. One's own fact-based judgment -- one's own objective analysis -- overrides the subjective appraisal of anyone else. If the opinion is based on fact, that's what matters. And one may examine the facts closer, depending on how crucial the judgement may be.You'll have to give me some sort of specific example as to how objective analysis of an important decision might qualify as narcissistic or hedonistic.
  22. Yesterday
  23. Isn't disregarding any (and all) concern for the opinions of others irrational. Isn't it narcissistic, selfish in the negative sense? (Maybe hedonistic for that matter) It must be a disregard for certain opinions, or opinions at a certain stage of the argument, there must be some limited specification. Choosing to have NO awareness of what others think or feel is not survival qua man.
  24. Eiuol

    Heirs to dictatorships

    I find it shortsighted to leave it at "the past is in the past, so it doesn't really matter now". It's fine as a TL;DR, but I think Easy Truth would rather know *why* this is a fine answer. The thing we need to consider is that injustice occurred, so generally speaking, we should ask in what way we can assure that injustice is fixed. For example, if someone burns down your house, one solution is to have the government force that person to pay for damages. Of course, not all injustices need to be fixed in that way. If someone was really mean to you, the solution might be for them to buy you chocolate to apologize. Since right now we care about force being initiated (or someone threatening to initiate force), the kind of injustice that directly prevents another person from acting or using their mind, we can leave aside other types of injustice. We should remember that grave injustices have occurred throughout history. Oftentimes, the effects of those injustices extend quite far out. Imagine if it were the Holocaust, your family was murdered, your money destroyed, and everything you did is gone. This could have effects for several generations, in the sense that you can no longer as easily choose to support or promote various ideas or technology even. Clearly, if the Nazi government were still around, it would be straightforward to just force them to repay the damage in some way. Slavery isn't too different than that, and even after the Civil War, people who were once slaves were barely compensated. This was partly the fault of President Johnson, who more or less let the South get off easy. So in this case, the injustice might be even worse in the sense barely anything was done about it originally. There is a degree of injustice committed upon the descendents of slaves, in the sense that they may have been in a better condition today if justice was served. The world is not how it should be - it is up to us to fix any wrongs or place the world in a better condition (after all, someone made it worse). One answer is compensation with reparations. But this doesn't seem much better, because the people paying for it didn't actually do anything wrong. It might not be as unjust as slavery, except it's still an injustice. Another answer might be to establish a nation to send these descendents. The issue here is that you need to ask where you get the land from. Israel was created as justice for the Holocaust, but this is extremely problematic still because it was created from land by the very same people who unjustly acquired that land. (I'm not talking about the current state of affairs, I mean way back when Israel was first established.) Another answer is to forget about these grand solutions that require state intervention, not think about justice as a matter of collective or racial history. Around here, we even ignore who has started with "unfair" circumstances. Instead, the best answer is to continue to offer opportunities to people who demonstrate themselves, on an individual level. You may seek to develop an area that's very run down after a long history of racism and slavery. The answer certainly isn't to double down on collective or racial identity, because that is in injustice (even if it is not as unjust as reparations). In a capitalist system, justice is well served when you focus on what individuals are doing now and plan to do in the future. There is no quick solution to years of injustice. It will depend upon how long it has lasted, and of people continue to commit those injustices. Yeah, the past sucked, but it happened. It's over. The people in the past got away with it. Still, there are things you can do to fix some of the damage. That might be establishing a university in the area, or improving the living conditions of the area. In the context of slavery, removing Confederate statues from public display is a good idea where possible (put them in museums). "Quick solutions" like reparations do more harm than good, not to mention you are using collective guilt.
  25. Invictus2017

    Heirs to dictatorships

    Can you elaborate? No need to; I had already said everything relevant to your example.
  26. Invictus2017

    Heirs to dictatorships

    "one-party rule" There are two parties in name, but they're differentiable only by exactly which rights they want to violate wholesale. The "one party" is the political class, which rules for its own benefit. "executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses" Drone strikes, done to American citizens, without any attempt at arrest or trial. Murder done by cops for such "crimes" as "driving while Black". Executions done "to uphold the law" when there is real evidence of the prisoner's innocence. (Read Herrera v. Collins and be chilled.) "the nationalization or expropriation of private property" Kelo, anyone? Pretty much the entire medical profession, under Obamacare? "and censorship" That thing sometimes called FOSTA, sometimes called SESTA. Campaign finance laws. "A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw." America is not a conventional dictatorship, but only because its ruling class realizes that it can gain more power and treasure by allowing a measure of "freedom". But it is not real freedom -- it can be abrogated almost at will by the government -- and its presence does not save America from the charge of tyranny.
  27. Invictus2017

    Heirs to dictatorships

    What rights of the descendants were violated? What force was used against them? Answer that, and you can answer your own question. But it is an error to start with an ungrounded "should" question.
  28. Invictus2017

    Ethics and Nature

    Read some of Branden's work before discussing self-esteem. It'll save much wasted effort.
  1. Load more activity
×