Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nigel

Regulars
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Nigel

  1. Thank you for this point. This is a good way of looking at it. My problem seems to lie in the fact that making sense of the irrational is not possible. In 2007/2008, before all of the defaults, the interest rates were between 1% and 3% higher than they are now. As more people have defaulted and risk in mortgage lending has seemed to decrease as property values continue to fall, the rational expectation is that interest rates would go up. Instead the opposite has happened. All the while, defaults and foreclosures are still prevalent. If interest rates were not artificially set and money had real value, would there still be a financial benefit to borrowing versus saving to buy a home?
  2. I am looking for objectivist info on personal debt and borrowing. Specifically, I am interested in getting an objectivist point of view on personal home mortgages. It is my contention that home mortgages, in the way that they exist today, are no more than feudalistic indentured servitude. We were told this ideal that everyone should own a home by going into debt, by being subject to signing a contract and guaranteeing the efforts of our labor to a bank. It is my contention that one should save, and wait to afford a home without this unnecessary debt. Borrowing money is ok, only so far as that it is used for productive purposes, business loans. Borrowing money for productive ends is a component of capitalism, but borrowing money simply because you cannot afford what you want seems a little illogical to me.
  3. What scares me is the herpes epidemic. Most people contract oral herpes when they are children by receiving a kiss from a friend or relative.. 90% of people over 50 have contracted some form of herpes! I think that Obama should address this issue.
  4. I am not as happy as I could be. Not working starts to get to you after while. Being a teacher, means I can't really do what I love in the summer. In the meantime, I have done lots of reading and learning, but its not the same.
  5. Looking at softwareNerd's reply, talking about investors asking for their money back from debtors, this was the case in 1893. Investors where attempting to get their money back to buy up gold, and there was, to some degree, a run on the banks to get money out to buy up gold. This was all caused by fears of a gold shortage.
  6. I hate this argument. To say that banks, with a huge lobby and the amount of funds available to them to ensure this lobby is successful, were wrongly coerced into lending is problematic. A is not A in this argument. You cannot tell me that those who could not afford homes were hiring lobbyists to get them loans that they did not deserve. The financial businesses were in favor of these regulations. Writing mortgages, not necessarily holding the mortgage afterwards, but originating mortgages was highly profitable. Then companies originating these mortgages could dump these mortgages off on good old Uncle Freddie and Aunt Fannie. Financial institutions did win on these looser regulations. Its not surprising that the initial move to amend the Fannie and Freddie charters came under a republican president, Bush. I worked in the mortgage industry in 2008 when the bottom fell out. The company I worked for did not hold mortgages, we just wrote them and sold them off to Fannie, Freddie, or other banks. The company was very successful, and before the collapse was growing at a rapid pace. People won big on this legislation, don't accept the story you heard on CNN.
  7. From my understanding, the 1893 crisis started with a perceived gold shortage. At first, people began buying up gold, limiting the supply available. This lead to questioning the use of the gold standard and great uncertainty. Essentially, the government scared off investments much the way they did during the great depression. Investors were scared that legislation would affect their possible investments. Another factor adding to 1893 recession was the end of the railroad boom, at least this is a claim--I am not sure that I wholly agree with this. The railroad industry did experience a major decline at this time, and the railroad industry had been a major boom industry prior, resulting from the invention of cheap steel. In my opinion, the railroad industry declined more as an effect of the times, not as a cause. Upon doing a little research, I learned this about Benjamin Harrison, the president at the time: This article also goes on to talk about high tariffs at the time. Trade is a necessary component of capitalism. In addition, this time period was a time period in which congress was really beginning to legislate laws regulating business practices. Although intended to increase worker safety, the industry was moving in this direction anyways, without the help of congress's coercion. Furthermore, Garet Garrett, in his book The American Story, makes an interesting point in this regard. He claims that the portrait of industrialists manipulating government is a great misconception. Citing the railroad lobby as among the most powerful at the time, yet the railroad lobby was unable to defeat the interstate commerce act. As far as the income inequality, it is true that some men got to be incredibly wealthy, but they accomplished this through ingenuity and genius. What you are missing is that as result of these wise investments and ventures by these few individuals, raises rose steadily in the second half of the nineteenth century and so did the quality of living. You should really read Garet Garrett's The American Story if you are interested in this stuff. Finally, around this time, Henry Ford, a capitalist, emerged on the scene, paying his workers twice the average daily wage of the time, and making a fortune while doing so. Capitalism benefited the working class more than it hurt them. The facts have been sort of twisted around. This is why suggested the book above, it tends to portray things in a different light.
  8. I am working on some sort of syllabus. I was looking over Introduction to Objectivist Epistemoloy first. I teach 7-12th grade science. I taught eighth grade last year, but I am moving up to high school. In part, one thing I have been considering is the break down of science into different disciplines in high school (e.i. physics, chemistry, biology, earth science). I am opposed to this methodology. Learning to integrate concepts is essential for critical thinking, and teaching science in an integrated fashion demonstrates how this is done, allowing for students to practice these skills. For example, in learning cellular biology, chemistry is essential to gain a full understanding. Chemistry should be integrated in teaching about protein structures and the structure of the lipids that make up cell membranes. Physics should also be included in the form of fluid dynamics and electromagnetism. Teaching cellular biology in a vacuum creates false conceptions and is an instance where a deeper understanding of science can be fostered. A conceptual hierarchy consisting of cellular concepts is integrated into chemical and physical conceptual hierarchies, demonstrating a complex and very high level of conceptual integration. From my experience, I would teach something like laws of motion and give students math problems relating to this. Students would forget things like how to multiply or how to set up a proportion. This is a result of not integrating concepts from math class with concepts from science class. I know students know how to multiply, but math and science concepts are discrete concepts that must be integrated to be useful together. Likewise, teaching biomes in biology is problematic without an understanding of weather from earth science. The two are dependent on each other. By teaching the process of integrating these two concepts, the teacher is fostering the students ability to integrate concepts. I want to go deeper with this, and include more concrete examples and instances where students can practice logical thinking, but this is where I am starting. Also, I like to have students evaluate scientific theories, but that can be challenging and requires a lot of structuring if it is to be done meaningfully.
  9. In Cleveland they closed the interstate last weekend, and its taking 6 years.
  10. I was in an online forum for teachers, since I am one, and someone had asked for others to define critical thinking. The definitions given related to Bloom's Taxonomy and Dewey's theories on critical thinking. I reject all of Dewey's work on education outright since he was a radical motivated by ideas not related to education. Bloom's ideas have some merit (not much); he missed a lot and his work is certainly not as sound as people like to believe. So my question is, what is critical thinking?
  11. The I405, a major interstate in the Los Angelas area, is being widened forcing closure of the highway this weekend. In doing this, a bridge spanning the interstate must be demolished and rebuilt. From my understanding, the project is being complete in two parts. The first part occurring this weekend and the second part of the work will be done in about a year from now. Now this would not be anything spectacular except for the fact that demolishing will be completed over the weekend in a 53 hour time span. Based on personal experience, road construction work notoriously takes excessive amounts of time. I remember when my street was repaved, it took over a year to repave a road that is not a major roadway--all the while, the road was closed. Moreover, I live in Cleveland. The major highway through downtown Cleveland is I90. Currently, a project has begun to build a new bridge for this interstate, replacing the old bridge, right in the center of the city, downtown. This project will take 6 years! Its amazing how some things can be accomplished so quickly while others linger for extended periods of time.
  12. It is my understanding that critical thinking skills are a matter of being able to connect and relate concepts to one another, thus creating new concepts or forming relationships among concepts. So in order to foster a child's ability to think critically, one must guide the child in forming relationships among concepts and integrating new concepts into preexisting conceptual knowledge. Is this right? I realize that a definition of critical thinking is probably necessary to answer this question, but its an ambiguous term that has no good definition.
  13. In the past 20 years, a wealth of information has been discovered indicating that homosexuality is rooted in physiology more so than a socio-cultural cause. Although evidence suggests that some cultural aspects may be be involved in the determination of sexual orientation, biological implications are undeniable. Since this is more a matter of biology, it is not possible to form an ethical judgement. It would be like saying living or eating is immoral. One cannot not condemn something arising from biology or the natural world as unethical, objectivist ethics are based on the nature of the world around us.
  14. Drivers licenses are immoral. One should not have to pay a tax to use their own property. Divers licenses are a form of taxation, as is all licenses. The more evil version is the licenses plate tag. You own the vehicle, but you must pay the state annually to continue operating property that you own. As far as two year olds are concerned, this is a silly question. No two year old can afford a car or practically operate one for that matter. Now a 12 year old is a different story. I am not opposed to 12 year olds driving, but the premise that I am using to make this statement is that parents are responsible and ensure that their children are safe. If parents can reasonably and rationally justify a 12 year old driving, surely the parents know more about their child's maturity then me. Just to add on, I have a dog and am required to pay $20 annually for a dog licenses. I don't pay it. I am not paying a tax on owning a pet.
  15. Although climate change has been blown out of proportion, the real fear is this: First, it should be mentioned that human beings (as a species) have survived extreme glacial periods (ice ages) in the past. If one were to occur again, there is no doubt that individual survival would be challenging. However, given the ingenuity and adaptability of those individuals who chose to utilize these qualities, there is no doubt that some humans will survive. Past evidence supports this theory. However, it is only those that are willing to adapt and think that will be able to get through a tough period such as this. Essentially, altruism would be a death sentence. The fear in climate change is not so much that the human race can survive, but that the human race cannot survive using the ideals that the alarmists value.
  16. With regards to beyond a reasonable doubt versus beyond a possible doubt: is beyond a possible doubt not reasonable? The possibility of putting an innocent man in jail should be reasonably avoided, should it not? To take away a man's freedom, is it not reasonable to alleviate all possible doubt?
  17. This is an example of two different situations. This is not an example of two differing moral perspectives on the same situation. Taking a drug for recreation and taking a drug because you are ill are in no way similar. The better example would be two me are confronted with the prospect of using cocaine. Both have cancer, but one does not know that he has cancer. The man who has cancer takes the cocaine for medical purposes, while the man who does not know he has cancer chooses not to take the drug. Both men act on ethical principles and both act correctly based on their knowledge. In this case, the man who is ignorant to his illness reaches a different conclusion. The ethical principals are not variable, they are the same. Both men chose to embrace their lives using their knowledge about themselves. Both embrace the basic premises of objectivist ethics. The first man chooses to live. The second man, thinking his survival is not in question, chooses to reject cocaine to preserve the health of his mind and his productive capability. Objectivist ethics are not whimsical. Both men reach different conclusions, but the same principal guides them in reaching these conclusions. In this case, morality is absolute.
  18. Well the press is out for blood on Anthony, they argued against the death penalty for Humberto Leal in the same week. This is nuts. This guy was here illegally for starters. No article seems to mention that fact. Anyways, they argue that even though he snuck in here illegally and gave police a fake U.S. drivers license when arrested, he should be afforded rights granted under a non-binding international law. This guy admittedly committed a heinous crime, raping and killing a girl. But he is defended in the media and Anthony is demonized, all in the same week.
  19. A thought in ones head, a feeling based on faith, is not based on rational objective fact. Also, to chime in on the first part of your question, the difference between objectivist morality and Kantian morality (or most mainstream morality) is that it is concrete and based on the individual. Kantian morality is ambiguous, and purposefully so. You are trying to apply Kantian principles. Reading Rand's ethics in comparison to someone like Kant demonstrates the difference. Rand has short clear view on ethics, while it would take excessive reading to get a clear picture of what Kant views as ethical (the specifics). Because Rand's ethics are concise and based on the needs of each individual, there is very little ambiguity. Off hand, I am having difficulty thinking of situation in which two individuals could reach different ethical conclusions.
  20. As a teacher, I have always been told about John Dewey's great contributions to education. I knew this was an embellishment somewhat and knew of Dewey's involvement in the Humanist Manifesto. However, recently I decided to read Dewey's works for myself, and they are the most perverse things that I have ever read. Example: "Examinations are of use so far as they test the child's fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of the most service and where he can receive the most help" (My Pedagogic Creed, pp. 7-8). According to Dewey, this is the only thing that should be assessed, subject matter should not be tested. That quote alone pretty much sums things up. But if that is not enough, Dewey also discusses things like avoiding emphasizing individuals when teaching history. He argues that the importance of history lies in the social aspects, heroics and individuals are not appropriate. Dewey also argues that general and abstract thought is dangerous. He then goes on to express admiration for 19th century German schools that were highly regulated by the government, and intended to produce complacent citizens. In fact, this German system was so successful and created such a degree of complacency in society, it was a major factor facilitating the committing of atrocities in the early 20th century. (see Dewey's German Philosophy and Politics) I was horrified by what read; particularly, because Dewey has been extremely influential and is held with such high regards in the field of education. Because Dewey's influence is the realm of education where it impacts so many individuals, I am scratching my head wondering if Dewey is the greatest monster in American history. Sure there where other villains, but no other villain attempted to reach into every American household and steal every American child (and he did so with a measurable degree of success). Thoughts on my conclusion?
  21. Speculation is problematic. Although your theory makes sense, the only conclusion that can be drawn is one based on the objective evidence. Don't be Nancy Grace. Like I said before, the fact that she was found innocent despite the emotional is a feat worth embracing. Reason won out and we should leave it at that.
  22. Personally, I felt that was great a moment for our nation. Rationality and reason prevailed over sentimental arguments. A decision was reached based on fact and not emotion. Whether she did it or not is besides the point. Did she do things to make one think that she may have done it, yes. But there was no real evidence that she committed the actual murder. The evidence offered was that she acted in a way to make one suspect that she may be guilty, an argument appealing to emotion. Furthermore, despite the media and dramatics, rationality and reason won out. The fact that this verdict was rendered in spite of the irrational hype is monumental. Again, I am not saying she did not commit the murder, only that our judicial system worked, much to my amazement. Watching T.V. this evening and seeing commentators on all networks appealing to emotion and crying foul was appalling. Even if a guilty woman went free, I would rather see a guilty individual go free than an innocent individual incarcerated. In short, I embrace this as a sign of hope that rationality can prevail.
  23. Looks like a sound argument to me. I would go further to say that it sounds like your sister is in a negative relationship. Her and her husband are not equals if he is exploiting her and taking advantage of her productivity. A foundation for a sound relationship is sharing the same values, which does not seem to be the case here. Moreover, the basis of objectivist ethics is that one must act in order to survive. By not working and doing drugs, one is avoiding this essential premise. Moreover, doing drugs as a means of enjoying life, even if being productive, is not necessarily ethical. Productivity in itself should bring happiness. In addition to productivity, happiness should be gained through the relationship with your sister. According to Nathaniel Brandon in The Virtue of Selfishness there are 5 sources of enjoyment in life: productive work, human relationships, recreation, art, and sex. Now with regards to doing drugs, obviously the argument can be made that this is a form of recreation. This argument is not incorrect, but the problem arises when recreation becomes an escape from reality. When one is disconnected and unable to consciously make sense of their surroundings, drug use is not enjoyment, but an attempt to seek enjoyment in escape. Does your brother in-law smile while on drugs, or sit in a stupor? You said he claims it makes him think clearly. I guess the question is what drug is he on? If he is addicted to ratlin, this could hold true, but I doubt you are talking about ratlin. In any case, recreation clearly comes after productivity. Enjoying recreation without productiveness is problematic and in my opinion not possible.
  24. Thank you all for your responses. However, with further research I have found the undeniable answer to my question. The IMF--an institution not only concerned with financial matters, but a pillar of morality in our international society--has advocated for public education. I surely trust them. Article
×
×
  • Create New...