StrictlyLogical

In my book, public representatives should 1. never profit from holding Office in any way other than perhaps the same benefits everyone enjoys by virtue of the correct administration of a proper government, the upholding of the Constitution, rule of law, etc. 2. never hold any public position for more than 2 terms. Those who "need" a salary should be given one which is no more than the lesser of 1 the average of what they had earned as salary in the private sector over the past 5 years. 2 some cap which limits the salary to a reasonable recompense for public service. In the grand scheme of things, I tend to trust politicians who appear not to have profited from their time in office, or from their having held a position in office, from deals made in office, or from lectures tours, books etc. which are possible only because of the notoriety of holding office rather than any other substantive reason, or any success they had pre-politics. There seems to be a class of politician who is and has achieved nothing in the real world, but who personally gains a vastly proportionally larger sum of wealth by virtue only of their having gone into politics and what they have "done" in connection therewith, verses others in politics, who seem more interested in serving the people, and protecting their rights, and afterward getting back to real life.

Wasn't that Hunter Biden Laptop thing ALL a Russian Hoax, probably linked to that Trump - Russian collusion thing (remember something about a dossier)? I coulda sworn I heard, from cross-your heart-its-true Government Officials and Media Outlets... whom I believe unerringly, who said at the time that it was Runnian dis... mis.. cis information or something. Yeah and don't we have a new Ministry of Truth now, can't they clear it up for us? - Eager to be told what to believe and to accept it as truth - SL

CNN lol... "gaping holes left by government" anti-conceptual from the start. What about the ongoing gaping holes left by Govt in western democracies like... TVs, computers, groceries, haircuts, books,... Govt should provide these and everything else.... so many gaping holes. get with the times CNN!!

Jeanne Calment purportedly lived for 122 years and 164 days and was mentally sharp until the end of her life in 1997. Having been born on Feb. 2, 1905, if Ayn Rand were to have lived as long as Jeanne, she would have been alive today and expected to live until sometime in 2027. Rand was known for being outspoken, and even considered extreme in the relatively free and capitalist world of the 70s and 80s. Today, such things as: ecoterrorism, oligarchs, domestic terrorism, social networks, crypto, ESG, WEF, "owning nothing and being happy", "eating ze bugs", lockdowns, global bioweapons, moves to seize farmland, mRNA vaccines, voter fraud, more and more tyranny/authoritarianism in western government, attacks on free speech, attacks on fossil fuels, BLM, antifa, woke, cancel culture, freezing bank accounts, weaponization of the judicial system, rolling blackouts, lurch towards communism in America, TikTok, etc etc. were hardly imaginable. What would Rand think of the many things arising seemingly all at once? What would she conclude and integrate as their causes? What would she SAY and advocate? How strong and compelling would her voice have been, yes indeed. IMHO She would have a field day with so many of the things out there now, and she would be so much braver and bolder, and yes true to form, more shocking to the average soy leftist, than any of the current mealy mouthed co-called representatives of her legacy, from whom we hear nothing but intermittent tentative mouse-like squeeks while the world burns.

I should point out Alex Epstein is not active in the health fields, he is pushing back on the tide of ecoterrorism (in the guise of science and government "taking care of us") attempting to hold the people of the world hostage.

I wonder how a proper Objectivist would report on the data, but I propose the following: It would be 100% fact based, no shred of anything for a. personal financial gain b. political gain c. institutional or political reputation or d. with the intent to cajole or persuade people to any so called desired behavior i.e. no social engineering of sentiment or action of any kind. It would look at medical interactions in society from the individual's perspective, and individual rights, the individual's freedom, health, and very lives. This is in many senses opposite to the so-called "public good" of public health approaches. I.e. the data would be looked at in the sense of treating individuals, how individual people fared, their health, their freedoms, their mental well being etc. not merely the so-called health of a collective... using who knows what as statistical standards. A herd which is "treated" and "managed" be said to be more healthy, even when enslaved, or if part of the heard are disadvantaged or sacrificed (culled) for the sake of the collective whole. Herd mentality is not how an Objectivist would think of it or deal with it. Sacrifice of the innocent for NO MATTER HOW MANY other individuals IS EVIL. Lives saved? I wonder if anyone has done the analysis thusly: How many people under the age of 50, how many CHILDREN would have died or suffered irreparably educationally, physically, mentally, had nothing been done, no vaccines, no imprisonment, no mandates, no muzzling. Then how many were affected because of the measures taken. Then doing the same for people over the age of 50, no measures... versus measures taken. I wonder whether in the end, in the pursuit of sheer numbers of "survivors", many of the young with their whole lives ahead of them have been brought low and in some cases died for no good reason. That whole lives were sacrificed on the altar of public good in return for survivability of the very old, good numbers, and political and institutional reputation. I have said it before, if you ask your doctor whether any proposed action is better for yourself (or your child) PERSONALLY, given all possible benefit and risks, and he/she hesitates or looks confused... THAT is no doctor, that is an agent of the State who has forsaken the sacred duty to treat you PERSONALLY for your benefit, for your life and health... and you should find yourself a new doctor as fast as possible. You see, no matter how mundane and saccharine and academically philosophical the trolley problem seems, its purported utilitarian or arithmetical solution we now see in full. For the herd, all that really matters are the numbers, whether one arrived at it by sacrificing innocents is beside the fact... the so-called public good has nothing to do with individuals... the greatest "number" of survivors. I believe Rand solved the "trolley problem" with the idea of every person being an end in himself, which already requires no purposeful act to cause the sacrifice of anyone, much less children, who knew no better, some of whom (those so called "rare" few) died because of it. Public health is inimical to individual rights and is an evil, as evil as any of the other proposed Globalist, centrally planned erosions of our freedoms, or what is left of them. I am ashamed most prominent Objectivists are going along for the ride with not so much as a peep. The only brave and outspoken Objectivist pushing back on the madness I can think of currently, is Alex Epstein.

Like it or not, they are the only ones pushing back at EVERYTHING else we've seen from the LEFT and the push for GLOBAL (read "foreign") oversight (read "intrusions and violations" ... "slavery") of societies throughout the world (read "the CONSTITUTION of the US of A, your life and your rights"), ever since the bad orange man kicked the bees nest in 2016, and threatened to tilt things way off course... More has been revealed in the past 6 years than ever I could have imagined in 2015. Even with ALL of its flaws, the GOP, right now, is the last great hope for Freedom in America let alone the rest of the world.

These can easily be remedied, although perhaps with the cost of relationship norms. A refusal to "deal" in a transaction has the analogue of refusing to answer and also refusing to excessively reveal. The trader principle does not say one MUST always trade (in fact one must not trade if it cannot be one's benefit) primarily it deals with how one trades and why. Transactionally, "evasion" does not exist, but refusal does. IF an otherwise innocent person asks you point blank for an answer you do not believe is appropriate for you to give, you do not pretend to transact (tell him something, evade and deceive) you refuse to transact. "I'm sorry but that is private" or "I'm sorry but that is not my secret to tell" or "I'm sorry I do not trust you with that information" Deception should be morally exercised to prevent someone from immorally gaining a value or causing harm etc. it would be like fraud if perpetrated on an innocent. You should deceive the confessed killer out to murder your wife, but not lie to your neighbor for no good reason. As for revealing or transparency... this seems to be equivalent to your obtaining possession of something which really belongs to someone else. Private information, ill-gotten secrets, something someone said... there you can take the side of justice ... or you can choose to take the side of a person. This is where integrity and courage come in... what is rational should almost always side with what is just. And information which is simply not someone's business... well they have no business asking, nor you answering.

Good to see you again HD. What happens when one looks at conversation as transactional? That in a real sense when we offer statements as true we are offering in a market of interactions something potentially of value and in a real conversation, it is in exchange with other statements. If a sort of trader principle applies… then wouldn’t offering up something worthless (a false statement) be kind of rotten? I’m not talking about trading with criminals but innocent citizens. Should not your offer and your exchange be genuine rather than fraudulent? Now, it is in your rational self interest not to be rotten for the same reason you want to be a good trader in the world… but in the moment isn’t your immediate concern with the trade going well? I’m not sure but I might disagree with both of you. Not being rotten is both rationally in your self interest AND shows your concern includes others. In fact your immediate concern for others can be self AND other interested when you are cooperatively building something. building wealth or knowledge according to the trader principle seems pretty much win win. We do not need another false dichotomy here.

What is behind the conspiracy of conspiracies? Who or what conspires to cause so many seemingly normal people to distrust power, distrust government, distrust institutions and organizations? IS there some nefarious source of the multiple allegations against so many of the trusted and established authorities of the world? Is it because some teenage archetype of the psyche wants a bad orange man to write mean tweets? Is it because of patriarchal racism or sexism? Is it Chinese disinformation or Russian mind control? Why so much push back against... what is the pushback against? on a wide integration .. some of these things are just like the others... but what is the common thread.. what is the one in the many? Its like they are resisting being herded. Why wont the herd be herded? it's almost like... they are rebelling against being herded at all? Like they are not accepting coercion? They want to decide for themselves and act independently of our great establishment Parents ... the Global arisen God... The conspiracy behind all conspiracies is a deep sense of individual freedom... and it just wont die. Rationalize that.

I would call this effect Trickle down Marxism but it’s been identified at the higher levels of education before under various guises and by different names. Rand and Peikoff touch on this thing… which is once again raised by someone who refused to be silent… food for thought, a unique and in depth perspective here:

I did, my son does…. my education was not trash… it was not rife with partisan political ideology. Indoctrination is abuse. Systematic collectivisation and neglect of the proper purpose of individual education ie knowledge and for that persons benefit, in favour of the state and statistical public welfare, is abhorrent. Kids need to learn how to think for themselves, not to be told what to think because it serves the so called public good, the good of some misfortune collective, or the fragile planet. The imposition of Obedience and RightThink are like psychological blows of a billy club that permanently cripples the soul. Ecoterrorism racism misandry dehumanizations creep into systems through indoctrination of administrative and teaching professionals at the college and career licensing levels… I know teachers too. Kids need knowledge, diversity of thought, and critical logical reasoning to lead a life of learning and to be capable of independent thought … to lead their own lives in the manner and with the values of their own choosing.

Modern public education is trash. Like "public" health, "public" education serves the State and purportedly the public, while neglecting the individual whose personal health and education for successfully living their own lives is neglected and sacrificed in favor of whatever "statistical" advantage the group can acquire from that sacrifice. Whatever you call the mess education is in, someone is to blame... even if perhaps we do not know who exactly that is.

"Mathematics is About the World" by Robert E. Knapp may be of interest to you.

But the point is less powerful in the face of the rise in global and domestic authoritarianism. A mixed economy as a passive economic background (Milton had to contend with) is one thing… the beast (of whom perhaps we’ve only glimpsed the tip of its tail) we are dealing with now, and whose fetishes include all ESG stands for, is far more powerful a consideration… and corporate players are anticipating and cow towing to those who may take over… they aren’t blind to the currents of free market consumerism, they are blinded with terror of the authoritarian tsunami. I believe the people and freedom will prevail in the end… (we will own things and will not eat bugs)…but corporations are the cowards in the fight… and it might get very ugly.

Correct no one owns children, and children do not have the capacity to consent to certain things, the consequences of which they cannot understand ... until they reach an age when generally they can, and with respect to that particular issue... they are no longer children.

You must have someone else in mind ... I an not talking about abortion. I'm raising the absurdity and evil of the left's tacit approval of actual infanticide... which is the murderous flip side of the anthropomorphising absurdity and mysticism of the right proclaiming a single celled embryo is a person. The asymmetry here is that of mechanistic murder versus religious tyranny. After having raised the issue of infanticide, I am now having a discussion whose subject is how a person or society should deal with helpless infants who will die without care. Failing to understand and accept your nature or evading such questions out of fear or pride is precisely what I would call letting emotions stand in the way of cognition. Man is rational, but man is also emotional, man is social, man is sexual, man is brutal, a man many things far greater and deeper than the single part you single out as important... and it IS incredibly important almost as important as free will. Do not confuse the definition of the concept of man, relying ONLY on what capability distinguishes us, as some kind of summation of ALL we are.. it is but a thin crinkle of tissue paper compared to the vast depths and breadths of what each of us is. What are the ramifications of having that responsibility? Is it merely an admonition to a parent that they will feel bad if they abdicate that responsibility... merely a "you'll be sorry" if you murder or neglect your child and they die. What does it mean to "have a responsibility" with respect to the ethical;, societal, political (legal) context? Does reality or anyone in society hold them in any way to that responsibility? How? On what basis? Again, I am not talking about abortion in this discussion. I'm was talking about infanticide and am discussing the care of children.

A person of greater virtue and character would simply say they oppose infanticide if they do. Denying and repudiating one’s belief in one area out of fear that it might be used in an argument to attack them in another area is cowardly and undignified. Everyone knows his belief, no matter how much I may agree with him (near conception) at least he is standing on his hill on his principles.. not dodging and evading and trying to hide what hill he is on. The behaviour of the others is sneaky (as the kids nowadays say sketchy) and it disgusts me and reminds me of the worst kind of politician… the kind who will never give a straight answer… and the answers they give are full of empty misdirecting nothings…

I think there is more to "man qua man" than people who like to philosophize are willing to dive into. There are certain rational shortcuts and superficial calculus' we like to throw at things like the trolley problem or the definition of a human (recall the story of the throwing of a plucked chicken to ridicule "featherless biped" as the definition of man). IF man WERE cannibals, by nature, by flavor, by urge, by intuition, by evolution, culture, and institution, then what makes a person thrive should probably involve some cannibalism, as well as some virtues for avoiding being supper. BUT our nature is NOT cannibalism. Letting defenceless babies of our own nature, other individuals, other persons, other ends in themselves whose natural life includes parental or adult care, simply die for the want of it... when each and every one of us was provided... had to be provided with it ourselves... offends our very nature. It is not simply emotional... nor outside the realm of rational... it is part of what makes humans what we are. No matter what kinds of rationalizations people bandy about to support dehumanization , or inhuman existence... they imagine we can be anything, but an anything is nothing in particular. We have natures, and the order of nature is in us, we are human, and at the root ARE things like our our innate ability to respond and to care for children. So to be sane, to be healthy, flourishing humans... we are our children's keepers. Parents first, family second, friends and local people, and the rest of us at large if only temporarily, until someone takes over.

Is a straw man hypothetical... like asking what a moral society for psychopaths or cannibals should look like.

I believe a live human being in the position of a child has a right to life, and a right to the positive responsibility and duty of care by the child's parent, and in lieu of that (for whatever reason, ... death, disability etc), by family, friends, local authorities etc. (including a doctor or hospital) until a person willing to take on that responsibility officially and permanently can be found. A human is born with an unchosen absolute dependency upon those who caused its existence, including the doctor and hospital. Whatever part of leaving a helpless baby to die on a hospital room floor leads to flourishing and not its opposite, is not worthy of discussion IMHO.

Why don't democratic and left leaning medical/health "experts" come out definitively against (or for) infanticide? Why all the wiggling and refusing to answer? Aside from obvious lack of conviction or pride one must have to skirt direct questions about important moral questions... which many on the left suffer from...I think a refusal to answer such an important moral question is a clear indication of some support for the idea of a right for mothers to kill live babies AND they are simply afraid or ashamed of admitting it. The republican here is very clumsy and its excruciatingly cringeworthy how he asks, but he is asking for a direct answer about the morality of infanticide, and yes he is clearly is religious and pro-life (not just outside the womb) but the evasion by the witnesses to claim their OWN moral convictions is stunning. So California is one of the states ushering in the brave new world to come: https://www.californiafamily.org/2022/05/infanticide-bill-amended-after-huge-public-outcry-but-serious-problems-remain/

Texas or Florida?

Boydstun It does occur to me that there is a class of unknowables, in a particular sense of knowing, to any experiencing or knowing individual, and that is something along the lines of a “what it is like to be” of what one is not. A third person analysis of humanity and consciousness perhaps by a machine would never know what it is like to be human, although with its word strings and sophisticated pattern recognition it might come close to imitating the words a human might say. We cannot really every know or truly understand what it is like to be a bat. We could try to imagine it, but our not being bats is precisely why we never can know what it is like to be one. Is or can a first person experience, or any experience from a first person view .. ever be anything other than something in itself? I think this is a unique sort of thing.

I know from your previous posts that you are intellectually honest. You ask me if I am making a claim that life cannot be shown to depend on chemistry for its arising. First of all I am asking about a possible or purported trait of reality, specifically I am trying to identify it conceptually, if there is anything there. I am not making any claim about “showing” anything from anything else. In your specific question you talk of life depending on chemistry. If you mean the processes in reality which involve molecular and atomic interactions which we study and use chemistry to understand and predict, then I would say life as a thing and a process includes a lot of various processes and structures that include molecules and atoms which are interacting in reality and which we would, at that level of understanding describe and analyze using the science we call chemistry. I’m not sure any living organism depends on anything, it is what it is and does what it does. Our understanding of a dog depends on our understanding of biology, chemistry, physics… but the dogs electrons photons nuclei atoms molecules enzymes cells and organs simply all are being and doing continuously as a complex integrated whole. Different kinds of molecules behave differently. Chemistry has been around for over a hundred years… it never needed a concept such as this so called emergence. You need to point at something more specific. You cannot use the term emergence to define itself. The mere fact that different combinations form different things with different properties has been around forever.