Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/11/18 in all areas

  1. A morality which is defined as self-interest, and as everything in existence, restricted to adhere to the facts of reality, it necessarily will guide humans to: 1. form societies in which politically, humans are granted rights; and 2. raise, eat, and use (for research or whatever purpose) animals and plants This is inescapable from the philosophy of self-interest and the facts of reality.
    1 point
  2. To add one last thing. Babies are human and have a capacity to use reason that will fully develop. Animals can't and don't fully develop it at any point or ever.
    1 point
  3. Nicky

    Donald Trump

    No it doesn't. US regulatory policies are a huge barrier of entry for Chinese products. China answers with regulations of their own (Elon Musk is complaining about swimming in lead shoes, as his companies receive massive benefits from environmental regulations, government subsidies, federal contracts, etc., etc.). The rational answer to the problem of competing regulations would be to reduce regulations, in exchange for China doing the same...which is something they'd be very much interested in. Problem is, that wouldn't address the trade deficit...because the trade deficit is a natural consequence of China moving from socialism towards capitalism. Of course a country that does that will increase its productivity faster than a country that doesn't change. And increased productivity clearly results in imbalanced trade. And that is not a bad thing for the US. The trade deficit is not a problem for productive Americans, it's only a problem for politicians who are staking their careers on promises of curving it. The only way it could possibly be curved is if China stops moving towards capitalism...so Trump's goal is directly opposed to the cause of freedom.
    1 point
  4. Veganism: slow suicide for the sake of lower life forms. Though perhaps that doesn't apply for you...are trolls lower or higher life forms than a cow? Who here had troll bourguignonne before?
    1 point
  5. Running naked through the park: Yes you've identified a crucial problem with "public property," that is, property that has no clear owner, there is no way to regulate conflicts regarding its use without resort to arbitrary solutions. Now, Rand describes a free society in which all property is privately owned. But let's make an allowance here for some sort of land as you stipulate. Private property has its foundations in the Lockean homesteading principle, that which is unowned and I mix my labor with becomes my private property. Note that this doesn't mean all property has one single individual owner, that would be the fallacy of composition. There are of course "group owned" properties and corporate entities allow for a legal method to deal with this. Legal doctrine has traditionally allowed for some sort of "commons" area or such associated with small towns or villages. A village is built, and there is a small space in the center reserved as a "town square" that people agree is available for general use. Or consider a fishing village near a lake, in the early days of the community it was hard to get to the lake because of all the brush and debris, but the path was slowly cleared over the years and not by any one single effort, but by the combined effort of walking through the path over time. I think there's also records in England of private roads that were built during the 19th Century and then donated to public use (the builders had businesses alongside.) So there's a public space in each of these, but what is the sense in which it is "public?" Surely it isn't truly "unowned," the village or townsfolk own it. And surely it isn't "government owned," or "owned collectively by the human race" or some such nonsense. It would simply be corporately owned by the actual village and they can set the community standards for their space. Surely I, as an outsider, cannot just come to their square or path and block it off for my own personal use, nor can I start streaking. As to how they go about decision making? They can vote, they can set up a board, they can have meetings, they can take disputes to arbitrators, they can form a homeowners association. They can leave rules real loose, or they can really get down and dirty and decide who the real owners are: Sam, he didn't really clear any brush, and Jones, he was lifting fallen branches every day, Sam gets a single share, but Jones gets a 20% share, whatever. You get the point. On the last point, pollution: certainly you have to provide proof of harm. And certainly our understanding of what is harmful changes over time. That's why issues are solved through tort law, not legislative law. This specific person harmed this specific person. And multiply it many times for class action suit, even for hypothetical massive cases. Objectivists accordingly view these issues like climate change as scientific issues, not political ones. One looks at scientific evidence, in a court of law, and if the plaintiff proves their case, then the court stops the pollution. Environmental crusaders are always looking for problems to solve, instead of becoming lobbyists and trying to buy influence from politicians, their efforts would be better served in a more Randian society as litigators for the aggrieved. But what Rand was truly opposed to was the ones that claim humanity must subordinate itself to instrinsic value of nature, or that civilization's progress must be stopped.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...