rebelconservative

I understand the problem of 'too much' choice, as I am very indecisive, wanting to maximise utility sometimes to the point of paralysis on even very insignificant choices. I resolve the problem by sticking to what I know for the most part, I am a creature of habit. My dad laughs that I am such an ardent capitalist when I have such difficulty making choices, but fails to understand that even regardless of the moral imperative, principles and individual rights, capitalism allows me to maximise my utility by providing services and goods at a low price - or that my difficulty to make decisions is in any way relevant. The idea that there is too much choice is similar to the idea that ignorance is bliss which is bad enough, but it is disgusting that someone could suggest that because they can't make their mind up, that this somehow justifies government force to limit the choices of others. There is a great TED talk by Malcolm Gladwell on Spaghetti sauce that deals with choice and maximising utility, he may have hair like Sideshow Bob but I highly recommend it. It is 17 mins long. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/malcolm_...etti_sauce.html

I'm just waiting for them to realise that bears shit in the woods...

How am I supposed to answer this question from a 3rd year economics course? I am thinking to address the false premises and inaccuracies in the question in the intro, then to try to answer the question as best I can that a free market actually achieves their goal best of all... but they just want you to parrot from their textbook so I don't know if I should bother fighting them. The textbook section actually starts so well: then just goes and spoils it all by saying something stupid like... That is it. The State said "It is not good for society" so problem solved, there is no need for any further discussion apparently. It then goes into 38 pages about "market power," "monopoly," "barriers to entry," "anti-competitive behaviour" etc

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/comic-rif...med_day_ga.html "Everybody draw Mohammed day"

I see your point and you are correct that a limp-wristed govt. response has allowed this situation to develop, but it is certainly a stretch to suggest that the government failing to fulfil their duty amounts to censorship. Censorship is govt action, use of force, to restrict action or free speech. They are not directly seeking to censor South Park, that is an unintended consequence of their attempt to placate and appease Muslims. You are right that the result of their appeasement has been a self-imposed restriction on speech, but that is not their intent. Censorship is such an important concept, I don't want to devalue it by expanding the definition and over-using it in inappropriate contexts that do not constitute a conscious government attack on free speech. Though perhaps the use of the term is necessary, to raise awareness of the harmful side-effects and unintended by-products of the government's unwillingness to upset Muslims, even to the extent of refusing to apply the law. Perhaps "indirect censorship," "unwitting censorship" or "govt-sanctioned intimidation." Either way, I think this should be clearly distinguished from direct censorship, govt. seeking to control speech.

censorship is such an important concept that we cannot afford loose definitions. by not swearing, you are simply showing restraint. censorship is the use or threat of government force to make someone change a publication or to restrict some kind of action deemed objectionable by the law or state officials. self-censorship would refer to someone restricting their own speech, based on a fear of govt. force. however, the phrases were not bleeped for fear of govt censure, but for fear of Islamic terrorists. it is not censorship, it is intimidation or perhaps we need a different term.

exactly. it is like arguing against free will because we can not fly, we are contrained by gravitational laws, that is just reality.

I'm not sure it is censorship, which refers to government officials restricting publications, and it is the right of Comedy Central to refuse to carry the episode, unedited, on their network - unless stipulated otherwise in the contract they have with South Park's creators. Of course, it is pathetic, wimping out and they have let the terrorists win a small, but significant, victory. South Park is an irreverent show that stands for free-speech and pokes fun at pretty much everything... but now Islam is off limits? The Christian Right will go crazy with this.

there are so many things wrong with what he wrote, it is barely worth carrying on a discussion. Ayn Rand put it correctly, "words without definitions are not language but inarticulate sounds." (ItOE, Ch.2, pp.11 in my copy) going back to the OP, if he doesn't know what freedom is, how can he say it will be increased by socialised medicine? All I have done so far is critique a purely negative concept of freedom by pointing out that apples grow on trees. then he does not understand freedom. as you have already pointed out to him, 'free to' does not mean 'able to'. If I have 10p in my pocket, I am free to buy an apple or an orange that cost 10p each, I am not able to buy them both as economic reality impinges on my desires, this does not make me less free - unless you want to argue against reality. he can try that, but reality will always win. people are not "brought" together, they voluntarily come together because it is in the rational self-interest of each person. secondly liberals do not seem to understand the difference between voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation and forced collectivism. does he think that we want everyone to live alone on their own smallholding? doesn't work according to what criteria? he thinks material goods just exist to be distributed? he doesn't understand the market. he also seems to hold to the lump of labour fallacy, the idea that there is a set amount of work that needs to be done.

I'm not sure that I agree that class doesn't exist, nor would Ayn Rand who identifies that middle class as the motor of capitalism (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/middle_class.html). Class is certainly a valid concept, identifying a group of people with certain distinguishing characteristics, not just their income level, but the nature of their occupation, educational level, leisure pursuits, social attitudes and other values. I am sure this is just as real in the US as it is in the UK, you would expect to find very different types of people at an opera and NASCAR race. it is also a fact that the class you are born into will have an influence on your life, the children of poorer families will, on average, do worse than middle-class families due to a variety of factors (mostly attitudes towards and parental involvement in education). however, that is not to say that class structurally determines your future - only you can decide that, subject to reality. a working class child can achieve greatness, an upper class child can squander their inheritance. class may not be rigid and determinist, but it is a valid concept.

softwarenerd and ZSorenson put it perfectly. I'll just add that he seems to understand implicitly the problems of applying his philosophy in reality (Stalinism) so refuses to argue for that outright. As an intelligent guy, he also recognises the supremacy of a free market - he simply doesn't like the results. His communist sense of life conflicts with reality, he tries to overcome the cognitive dissonance it creates by arguing for a compromise. He comforts himself by accusing you of being an extremist, positioning himself in his mind, as a reasonable balance between communism and capitalism. None of it is relevant to a discussion about freedom, get him to stick to the subject at hand. Inequality, class and the socio-economic outcomes of capitalism are irrelevant to freedom - as is the capacity to act.

here he successfully argues that capitalism leads to inequalities, good for him... it is just a shame you are discussing freedom. he wants to live in a fantasy world were people are not subject to reality. he might as well demand the freedom to fly - despite the laws of gravitation.

not if you make the rule that only a TD can win it in overtime. it is just less complicated than the new rules. of course, I worded that poorly. I am just surprised that such a system developed in the US, compared to a more laissez-faire model in the UK where teams can pretty much hire whoever they want and can pay what they want, there is no real regulation of that. I'm not sure there is much govt regulation, most of the regulation comes from FIFA and UEFA, football's governing body - voluntary like the NFL. there is not much regulation regarding ownership and no salary cap, or cap on transfer fees. they are trying to bring in new rules regarding debt, but we will have to see what happens there. there is also a relatively new rule for the Champions League, that you have to have a certain number of 'home' players in your squad. foreign (non-EU) players need a work visa from the government, but I imagine the same would be true in the US with Ichiro at Seattle and now Takahashi at NY etc. No? also, is it true that many stadiums in the US are part-financed by the local government, as an inducement for the team to locate there? in the UK, virtually all are privately built and financed. the only exception I can think of is Eastlands, which was built as Commonwealth games venue and is leased to Manchester City. (there may be others in lower leagues) would that be in the draft the following year? or are they able to sign non-contracted players at any time? if so, wouldn't the best players and the best teams operate outside of the draft? has there been any attempt to set-up a less regulated governing body, with no salary cap or draft? (similar to Kerry Packer with cricket in the 70s) I find the contrasts quite fascinating, especially the franchise system and the lack of promotion/relegation. neither of those could happen here.

Rand stated clearly that a lottery and the contract enforcement charge was simply one possible idea to deflect criticism of it not being workable, it was not the definitive solution. a combination could be used or it could work entirely on voluntary donation people have an interest in maintaining a police force, obviously there is the free-rider problem, but since it is in the interests of the rich they will donate more. however, no solution can be reached until society is at a much more advanced stage.

what he said.

those new overtime rules are bizarre, why not just say that the first team to score a TD wins? as for the salary cap, as much as I love baseball (go Mets!) and American football, I find the entire structure of US sports quite strange. I really don't understand it. it is totally different to football (soccer) in the UK, which operates in a more of a free, capitalist, competitive manner. there is no salary cap, no draft or anything. obviously, private leagues can operate whatever rules they like, but it seems antithetical to the American spirit. the draft, with the first pick going to the worst team - does the player have any say in this? can he refuse? do all sportsmen have to go to college?

Thinking about it, I guess I was also operating under the mistaken premise that Israel had declared independence from a free, civilised, rights-protecting state, when in reality, there was no real state to speak of, just the dismantling British Mandate govt and they had to declare independence to protect themselves and establish a civilised, rights-protecting country.

again, that conforms to what I have always believed. thanks for clearing that up

Thanks Jake, a very interesting response. I agree entirely, I just didn't realise that it would be an Objectivist position, given the huge importance that is attached to individual property rights. However, isn't it collectivist? treating all Palestinians as one entity, suffering collective responsibility for the terrorism of some?

I am a strong supporter of Israel, and clearly so is Objectivism - Israel is a civilised (though imperfect) state fighting an uncivilised barbarous enemy. However, from an Objectivist point of view, was the expulsion of arabs during the war of independence moral, ethical or justifiable? During the war, many individual arabs were kicked off of their land and their property seized - can this be justified? Do they have a right of return? Is there any justification for Israel retaining Judea-Samaria (West Bank)? Thanks in advance.

when it becomes physical, including people acting in a threatening manner, invading personal space, shouting aggressively in your face, you are entirely justified in taking pre-emptive action. indeed, it is not pre-emptive, it is a response to their actions against you. I would not say it could be warranted, rather that it is certainly justified (possibly even morally necessary - assuming you are physically able). I would always walk away initially, but if the person followed me, was fronting up, getting in my face, acting aggressively, I'd have no option but to attack him, viciously and decisively without any thought or regard for his well-being. I guess this shows what you are talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAx5kZ9jYDU&NR=1 this guy shows incredible restraint, walking away, followed for two minutes; no-one can say that the thug didn't have it coming - I wish the guy could have done more damage...

I do not think it is a good idea to use the $ as a kind of symbol, it makes it too easy for opponents and idiots to caricature Objectivism as a pseudo-philosophy of pure materialist greed, devoid of any moral values. You are not furthering your own interests if you want to erect walls around Objectivism, making it harder for people to understand it. Time is precious, if people are immediately put off, thinking it is just a rationalisation of greed, they won't waste their time reading Rand's books or listen to you, they will switch off. That stops Objectivism spreading, allowing statism to continue unhindered by reason. Though perhaps I am overstating things just a tad. also, I don't know about the "real" dollar, I thought the $ was in existence, prior to the formation of the US?

that is a great idea, why don't they do that? then we'd all be happy forever, because of course, prices would remain as they are and scarcity would be eliminated... sigh...

Yes, and no. I believe he is trying to make a reason based case for the existence of God, rather than relying on "spiritual revelation" or some other such hocum. I don't think he is suggesting that God is 'revealed' to a precious few in a religious, Moses/Mohammed kind of way, rather he is proposing that order in the universe is somehow empirical evidence of God. No-one is secretly a deist if they reject the logic of his argument and question the applicability of his evidence.

I don't think he suggests that God was revealed to a select group, quite the opposite. you actually quote him as saying God is not proven through divine revelation, but rather through observable facts such as the order in nature. question this premise by all means, but be careful not to misrepresent his argument. I don't think people are pretending, I just think that they misunderstand the experiences they genuinely do have - eg. the euphoria they feel from singing and worship can be explained by other things than God, but they do not understand it so they fall back to a comforting, default position.