Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

Showing all content posted in for the last 365 days.

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Is it immoral to litter on public roads, assuming you don't leave anything that would endanger others or their pets? If the government wants to confiscate my property, why can't I treat public property like my own if it's more convenient for me to throw my coffee cup out the window than keep it in the car?
  3. Today
  4. His moral arguments are mostly about sentimentality and regard for your fellow man. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it's basically neoliberalism, which is what you would get if you voted for any of the Democrats. It's more like asking about Trumps particular brand of neoliberalism. But as soon as we talk about different brands, we already grant that some of them could be just as bad or worse than socialism. The only brand I can pick out from what you're saying is anti-socialism. I mean, if that's all you care about, if he said he would exterminate all the socialists, you would still think he is closer to capitalism.
  5. Not to mention that one of the main points of Smith's economic work is in free trade and against what he called mercantilism, so it's not exactly clear how name dropping Smith is supposed to work in order to be a defense of Trump. First of all, it's not a "defense" of Trump. It's a pointer to his brand of capitalism, but I said it's not my focus now. It might become my focus if this blows up and becomes a main issue after the Dems choose a candidate. Then it might be important to figure this out, especially if the Democrat nominee also claims to be a capitalist. But if it's Sanders or Warren, I don't think it'll matter. Sanders enjoys being a socialist, and Warren isn't fooling me. If I were going to explore Trump's particular brand of capitalism, I would probably start with Smith's moral arguments for his economic theory, and compare them to Trump's arguments and policies. Also, I would note that we can only speculate how Smith would have responded to trade with socialistic and communistic nations, since he pre-dated them.
  6. Stephen, thanks for posting those articles (written 48 years ago!). Part of both are about the concept of selfishness and how it differs in meaning between Objectivism and others. I wrote two articles now in JARS that address this difference – “The Beneficiary Statement and Beyond” (link to abstract) and “Egoism and Others” (link to abstract). Both are too recent to be read for free on JSTOR. In the articles I address the different meanings. I didn’t explicitly say so in the articles, but a key difference is the broad categories to which they primarily belong. The common meaning of “selfishness” is primarily about an action. The Objectivist meaning is primarily about a psychological trait or motivation. Also, the actions per the common meaning are ones that happen occasionally, whereas the psychological trait or motivation per the Objectivist meaning has a role during most of one’s life while awake. It’s no wonder to me that these different meanings create such different reactions to them by different people.
  7. News bulletin to American corporations: You never got (nor ever will get) credit for going along with virtue signaling. The latest case in point? Recycling. Now, picture this with three times the bins, a stop watch, and an air horn. (Image by Ingo Hamm, via Unsplash, license.) The New York Times has just come out with a slanted, disingenuous opinion video titled, "The Great Recycling Con." Its subtitle says just about all you need to hear: "The greatest trick corporations ever played was making us think we could recycle their products." But do go ahead and view the video, because it is short -- and shows how brazen that assertion is with its own reporting. (Chutzpah? Stupidity? Who cares?) Said reporting reveals how confusing government regulations are about labeling items as recyclable. This is not to let corporations entirely off the hook -- See below. -- but the very idea of focusing a substantial amount of blame onto corporations for the futility of recycling is ridiculous, in light of the incessant media drumbeat, "activist" hectoring, and government jawboning for same over the past several decades. The role the corporations do have to play is neither small nor entirely innocent, but it is understandable: With the government on the side of recycling and most people being both misinformed and on the moral defensive against this wasteful practice, many companies understandably decided to "go along to get along," much as American railways did back in the 1800's, when they paid monetary bribes to remain viable: [W]hat could the railroads do, except try to "own whole legislatures," if these legislatures held the power of life or death over them? What could the railroads do, except resort to bribery, if they wished to exist at all? Who was to blame and who was "corrupt"--the businessmen who had to pay "protection money" for the right to remain in business--or the politicians who held the power to sell that right?But look what happened: It was the railroads who got the blame for playing a game they didn't create. And now, American companies are getting the same treatment after their attempts to morally bribe environmentalists by racing out to label everything as recyclable -- and even though they followed the very laws the environmentalists put on the books. The corporations thought they were buying goodwill with these labels, but all they got was blame at a later time -- recycled from the very fact that they used the labels at all. Perhaps, one day, business leaders will learn that a better plan is to oppose government regulation as the immoral ordering-around that it actually is. In the meantime, let me point out another video that deserves even wider circulation than that made by the New York Times: Pen and Teller's demolition of recycling -- which is hosted by BitChute -- from their series, Bullshit. They make many of the same arguments I made in a piece on recycling, but in more entertaining form. My favorite part is when they time people on a patently absurd nine bin system -- that they all profess to support -- and blow air horns when they make mistakes. Doing the same thing during the New York Times video would make it practically impossible to follow. -- CAV Link to Original
  8. Previous posts: William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 1) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 2) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 3) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 4) William Whewell's "Discoverer's Induction" (Part 5) Introduction This final part of my series on Dr. William Whewell will discuss the four tests he believes can determine the veracity and applicability of a true colligation, an induction. I have named these four tests as (1) Deductive Consistency, (2) Prediction of Past and Future Phenomenal Events, (3) Consilience of Inductions, and lastly, (4) Simplicity and Unity. Additionally, this part will discuss what Whewell termed the “Logic of Induction.” Whewell’s “Logic of Induction” will cover how inductive generalizations can be expressed in Inductive Tables and how they can represent the criterion of truth. Lastly, this part will provide a summary of what Whewell believes scientific induction to be. Continue...Link to Original
  9. That argument is convoluted. So Trump is willfully not enforcing the law and letting illegal aliens get welfare. If lack of enforcement is the issue, then Trump is at fault, he is in charge. Is the argument "vote for Trump because he will enforce the law even thought he failed to do it all this time"?
  10. Oh Eiuol I'm sure they're fine with all illegal immigrants that don't try to fraudulently get welfare, then, and totally won't all of a sudden manifest some new goalpost to shift to.
  11. It's a distinction you might not care about, but I think it matters. I don't care about lack of enforcement over welfare very much nor should you (to a degree, I think fraud is appropriate with welfare programs, but not as a rule), but I care a lot more about introducing laws about welfare. Without the distinction, you end up blaming them by nature of being illegal immigrants (and that they somehow must not care about America), rather than an act of fraud.
  12. I'm slow to understand. Willfully failing to enforce welfare laws is giving welfare to illegal aliens. In either case the illegal alien gets the cash. That's what he cares about, and we care that we're forced to pay for it. This reminds me of a debate back in 2003: Did Bush lie when he sold the public on invading Iraq? Con: He personally believed the falsehoods. Pro: He willfully refused to examine the evidence.
  13. But failure of enforcement is a different issue. The survey question asked about giving welfare to illegal immigrants, not a failure to enforce welfare laws. I wouldn't like a law attempting to make welfare even more expansive (even if I don't know how laws could succeed at doing it without providing documentation to the immigrants), but it is the last area of welfare I even care about.
  14. Yesterday
  15. Eiuol, More and more we live under what Sam Francis called Anarcho-Tyranny where the law is enforced or not to our detriment. “[W]e refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).” What does it matter if on the books it is illegal for illegal aliens to get welfare when the government makes little effort to enforce the law.
  16. Seems to me that they would still be documented in some sense. Still bugs me that it emphasized the immigrant part, because it suggests that welfare to citizens is perfectly fine.
  17. The survey might have been referring to Democrats passing laws that give health benefits to illegal immigrants. California has already done this.
  18. If you are trying to say that minds simply aren't "systems of information" I agree, and was being a bit loose with the concepts. That doesn't change the fact that if this form of information teleportation becomes feasible with a large enough "bandwidth" that complete mind transfer via this method should be possible. This is one of those situations where somebody will read what I've proposed here in 50 or 100 years and say something like "Damn, that guy thought so far ahead of his time other people didn't even know what to make of it".
  19. If they have to commit fraud to get welfare, then you recognize that they at least need false documentation. Those people are receiving welfare premised on the belief that they are documented immigrants, not the belief that they are illegal immigrants. Clearly, you can't give an illegal immigrant welfare through legislation. The question in the survey was if tax dollars should go towards giving illegal immigrants welfare.
  20. Not to mention that one of the main points of Smith's economic work is in free trade and against what he called mercantilism, so it's not exactly clear how name dropping Smith is supposed to work in order to be a defense of Trump.
  21. World-first Temple? Ancient site older than Gobeklitepe may have been unearthed in Turkey Boncuklu Tarla is estimated to be around 12,000-years old. Boncuklu Tarla is almost 300 kilometers east of Gobeklitepe.
  22. Is your position based on assuming what goes on in the privacy of Trump's head or office? Because mine is based on what he explicitly says and does before the eyes of the world's media. I said he isn't the best spokesman for capitalism. How did that become "some sort of champion"? The survey is an example of Trump making this an issue in the election. It's not evidence for a claim I never made. I can give you more examples of him making this an issue, if you want. He did a campaign ad about it too which played on YouTube.
  23. Trump may not be a thorough-going capitalist but viewed against Bernie Saunders and OAC he is much more a capitalist and much less a socialist than they are. This is so obvious I don’t know what to say to explain it further. Do you want your tax-deferred retirement accounts confiscated? Obama was laying the groundwork for it and OAC and friends might well go down that road. I doubt such a thing would enter Trump’s mind, crazy as he sometimes appears to be.
  24. There is a fundamental problem with that argument. On one hand none of us are the fly in the office so none of us know what exactly goes on. Yet you make all these statements about what he does. That implies you are a fly on the wall. Are you? Bottom line, this is all deductive. We all see, no just me, that he frequently rebels against advice and turns on most of his former "adults in the room". Your claim (OP) is that Trump is some sort of champion for Capitalism and the survey is a vehicle to support that. Problem is that it is simply a propaganda/marketing ploy. He is against individual rights when the polls indicate a benefit, and if you want to drop names like Adam Smith to exonerate him, you have to indicate the specific argument. There may be actual benefits to voting for Trump over someone else, but we should not support based on false information.
  25. How naive can one get? One example among many categories of fraud.
  26. Another Rand-Pittsburgh link is Fallingwater, some 60 miles away, clearly enough her source for the Wynand country house. It was originally a weekend place for Edgar Kaufmann, a department store president, and his family.
  27. Are you a fly on the wall of the Oval Office? You don't know what his advisors say and do in there. Trump gets advice from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, his Cabinet, his staff, as well as non-partisan leaders in every department, including military and intelligence officers, lawyers, and diplomats. So naming the "father of capitalism" is considered "watering it down"? If you want to know the differences, read Smith and Rand. That's not really my focus here.
  28. So... other things came before supporting individual rights. You are shifting the goalposts though, from suggesting he does support Hong Kong, to now saying that you don't have enough information to judge. If you don't know enough, fine, but then don't say that Trump supports Hong Kong.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...