Philosophiser

I agree, it is a good thing.

It looks like something happened to my last post so I will try this again: I think it would be best to move this forum in the following direction. I think we've pretty much handled the intrastate welfare issue through something like an insurance programme. The only problem of course is that this would not extend to destitute orphans, who while perhaps able to survive through charity, would nevertheless live very unproductive lives that would not contribute to the society at all. And this extends the discussion into another realm which I now digress on and which perhaps can become the focus of this forum- namely- is a welfare system able not only to provide us with the security that we require for ourselves in the event of an outlandish catastrophe, but is it also able to provide us with an actually more productive society? Here is the hypothetical: Take Africa. We all know that it is a very poor yet very resource rich continent, and the main theories for its lack of development have obviously to do with its often tyrannical and inefficient regime system. Even so.... the question for us is would us helping Africa benefit us? Lets say we leave Africa alone and let it fend for itself without any social aide whatsoever, what happens? The people remain poor, many people die of starvation, many will not afford the medications necessary to cure otherwise easily curable diseases, and much inefficiency and instability will remain on the continent. BUT- what if we do use the kind of welfare system already posited above (and this extends to the intradomestic orphan situation too). Namely a highly efficient and effectively internationally administered welfare system. First we would military change hostile and inefficient regimes. Then, we would develop a very specifically directed welfare system that would focus on basic necessities and then education. How does this benefit US (we here in the United States)? How does this serve our own selfish interest. Well for one thing terrorism would probably be reduced. But its more to it than that. PRICES for products would drop, because supply for the kinds of products we Westerns demand would increase. More corporations from Africa would compete with corporations at home to increase supply and drive down prices, as competition and international integration coincide to produce a stable international economic system. In addition, an educated Africa would give people who have intelligence opportunities they would not otherwise have had- resulting in more inventions, more devices, more things that enhance all of our lives- all because we gave them a welfare boost. In the end then, the argument could be made that we would be BETTER OFF for the international welfare programme than without it! Your thoughts?

I will submit that perhaps insurance would be an effective substitute, but my point here is that I see really no difference between that and a constitutionally imposed and effective welfare system that had serious requirements in order to qualify- that you had to be debilitated through no fault of your own, and that a facts and circumstances analysis by competent qualified professionals would be conducted to determine this. In addition, the administration would require serious and qualified proof of sincere effort in become self sufficient once more. If this kind of welfare system were actually written into the constitution, with definitive statements setting out the limitations of the system so as to most enhance and protect the independence and rights of every man- it would perhaps be more effective than an insurance system which wouldn't capture everyone in its safetynet, including orphans and those who have not yet learned in their youth to be self responsible and fully developed human beings.

Inspector, I think thats a rather weighty assumption. In the Laissez Faire system of the 19th century, many destitute people were left without aide, and some even starved to death in the most civilized of nations- including orphans and children. As far as changing the title, I'm certainly open to it. Perhaps the moderator will change it to something more appropriate.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a simple question about the Objectivist political philosophy. It is my understanding that only pure Laissez Faire capitalism is promoted. However, doesn't this gird against the principle of selfish interest? Let me elaborate- a welfare system that takes care of those who truly deserve to be helped- namely those who through no fault of their own were debilitated in some way- would be in the selfish interest of everyone. Why? Because there is always the chance that such things could happen to any of us, and it provides us with comfort and security to know that there is a responsible safetynet if we really need one, and in fact helps us to work harder since we know that- in the event some catastrophe or sudden impoverishment beyond our control were to occur, we would have something to give us a leg up to get back on our feet again.

In the case of SPIRICOM it was the building of a machine which allowed them to converse with a scientist beyond the grave. You can find the technical manual recording all of the results of their findings here: http://www.worlditc.org/h_07_spiri_000_007.htm And the link I already posted in the first message give you links to their tape presentation of what they found, with actual recordings of the spirit of Dr. Mueller contacting and conversing with them from "the other side." Finally, the World ITC mainpage surveys more modern researches who have worked with the spirits to produce images on their computer screens, television sets, and who have received phone calls and communications via similar "Spiritcom" type equipment. Their ITC Introduction Link might help you see whats going on. I'm not sure what to make of this yet, but it does seem to abide by the general principles of the scientific method and unless this is a humongous elaborate hoax or hoaxes on the part of many researchers over many years to the same effect, the results are "interesting" to say the least. The experiments obviously should be repeatable and verifiable.. and they seem to have fulfilled this criteria to an extent.

Ladies and Gentlemen, This is my first post and good to be here. I'm curious about bouncing this off of your ideas, especially those who consider themselves hard core Atheist Objectivists. I am referring to what is known as the SPIRICOM project, which provides evidence of taped conversations between a scientist who built a machine to contact those who live in a "spirit dimension". The results apparently were successful and a two way conversation was established for some time. I also provide a link to others who are experimenting using similar results, and claim to have contacted a scientific "spirit team" from the "other side". Now my question is- is this science or not? They have built a machine, and have despite a patent, given permission for anyone to replicate what they have done and we have scientists elsewhere who have successfully done so. Does this not fit the Objectivist criteria for the use of the scientific method and supporting assertions and ideas with relevant facts? If it does- what does this do to the formalist objectivist position of atheism? I submit the two links here: http://www.ghostpix.com/spiricom/spiricom.html http://www.worlditc.org/ www.victorzammit.com