Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content count

    4468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/89

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling
  • Location NJ

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) NewJersey
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation No Answer
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Recent Profile Visitors

20344 profile views
  1. You may stop the initiation of force, but as far as what is a just response should be proportional. Justice entails, usually, both retribution and fair compensation for damage. So killing someone for stealing a pen from you is far from proportional. Perhaps your concern in the OP is that justified intervention means being allowed to respond to any degree you wish. Most Objectivist perspectives I've seen use some principle of proportionality.
  2. I don't see this as a reason any system would fail. It's just a problem to solve. You might argue that an LFC system cannot solve the problem. After all, tragedies of the commons are caused by the free use of resources. Property rights help alleviate that, as owners can increase the entry cost to fish in an area. If property rights aren't sufficient of an argument, we can suppose that in the worst case, someone engineers the resources artificially. As resources deplete, and costs increase, that motivates people to seek alternatives. "Undervalued" to whom, by the way? I think there's a hidden premise here that a "real" price and perceived price are separate things. Or perhaps that the "real" price should include actual total supply that can be extracted. Neither works so well when technology can create new or different supplies to replace another. I don't like the word propaganda here, but yeah, promoting irrational values and mindsets are damaging to any and all systems. The LFC answer is to permit the media, while many other people will present rational ideas and persuade people. We wouldn't say that the economic power per se is an issue. Amazon or Google can be as big as they want. Sure, it's a legitimate legal issue if they made efforts to transition into state-corporate co-operation. The only way to stop that is to make sure the law is set up properly. The size of a company and internal bureaucracy is not a threat at all. In fact, massive companies help consumers in many ways. If they don't want to help create mutually beneficial trades with consumers, they won't last so long, or someone else will pop up. The problem is when the state tries to prop up failing companies. If the state is willing to do that, then there is a -legal- basis for state-corporate co-operation. This is bad. It's not LFC either. LFC = laissez faire capitalism
  3. Climate change: I don't see your reasoning why you think there will be mis-allocation of resources. All you really say is that natural resources will be less common. It doesn't follow right from there to mis-allocation. Consumerism: I sort of agree, but you'd need to say why those irrational expectations exist, or what they are. I mean, if most of society were irrational on average, it would fall apart anyway. Corporate capitalism: What do you mean by that term? Are you talking about "largeness" specifically as in big businesses, or something like corporatism? Failure of Democracy: Sure, a failure of government to protect rights due to corporatism would only harm any hope of laissez faire and any capitalist elements that exist. Media: See the consumerism point. Media can promote and amplify a culture of irrationality, though. War on terror: I agree, in the sense that religion doesn't promote rationality. People should have religious freedom, but it should be fought through persuasion in general. By capitalism here, I mean the capitalist elements that exist.
  4. I dunno, I hope he'll clarify. I'll just answer with what his post lead me to think about. No, that's a start to how to think about it. Indirect force (e.g., threats) in some manner constitutes in some manner stopping you from leading your life as you see fit. I didn't think I needed to state a ton more caveats, since we both know that only force is able to stop people from doing as they see fit. Fitting indirect force in there is hard, so we end up looking how or if something really does hinder you from leading your life as you see fit. I don't feel like explaining all my reasoning on how obscenity laws -can- be legitimate. (See the link at the bottom though) I already said I am leery of such laws. I brought it up to show how it's not as obvious as it seems. Hitting someone is not the only way to initiate force, so we should at least think about if really extreme things are merely annoying, or a real barrier to how you lead your life. You're right about the airport part and I already was thinking all of that. I don't think that's a fair statement. This is a very different example. Right, so we'd need an objective definition of obscenity, just as we do for privacy. I want the freedom to do or not do some things [for any major reason]. Whatever you put in the brackets doesn't matter. What matters is the freedom to do it, as long as one ought to be free to do that. The reason you want that freedom motivates you, while justifying that freedom is different. Emotional harm is a motivator, the justification to intervene though is that second block of text in this post. I think the if doesn't apply so that means 1 and 2 don't apply. I'm saying any person is allowed to do things like law enforcement would do until they arrive to stop what's going on, but it is vigilantism to pursue the assailant to their house like Batman might. You think the if does apply, in which case it is vigilantism to you The Majority Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Case Reno et al. v. the American Civil Liberties Union Regarding the Communications Decency Act, June 26, 1997
  5. In some sense, but it's not a useful term. The point is obscenity and how it constitutes some effect on how one chooses to lead their life. That "chooses to lead their life part" is the sort of reasoning for privacy laws. A similar issue is if an airport is built next to your house, with all the noise. Or even whether people can broadcast porn on their front lawn at full blast. You could say with regard to animals that barbarism is emotional damage, but essentially we're talking here about being in public and wanting the option to not see those things because [insert whatever major reason you want]. I think this is the point. If this is correct, then it is okay to save a kitten from some barbaric teenagers. It's not a vigilante stance, since in that case no cops would get to that kitten in time anyway. I'm leery about obscenity laws, but they can be just. With public animal abuse, probably. I don't know the proper legal standard to stop it from applying to ANY act one deems offensive, but it can be done.
  6. Hmm this is a good point that I neglected, which gave me some ideas. Public displays of anything do intervene with one's intended way of living as far as long-term planning expectations. The difficulty, I think, is precisely how to say when it's initiation of force and an impact on your ability to make decisions. It would be wrong to make inter-racial kissing illegal, so it is hard to find a principled difference - some people used to find it deeply offensive. I guess it's a matter of severity and defining barbarism precisely (as opposed to politicians who make no effort at defining offensiveness and obscenity). "Emotional damage" isn't force always. Iatan, for a thread that has a lot to do about your questions on mental disability and rights, here's an old and really good one.
  7. It's not moral to intervene in the ways I mentioned. And it is justified being illegal. When it comes to victims, what matters is if someone initiated force on someone with rights. Animals lack rights, so victimhood is not an issue here. Harming animals is wrong in the sense destruction and abuse is irrational, but doing that for food is not pointless or irrational. I assume that link before meant that mentally disabled people have rights but not like adults or kids. Not that they have no rights.
  8. # The suicide example might still be an initiation of force to do something. It's still his choice. On the other hand, the person may be in such a state that is equal to your friend drowning in the water. Depending on his psychological state, it's closer to a medical condition and the person literally does not have any ability to make decisions. As his friend, you'd probably know if he's in trouble, or just seeking to die (even if he's irrational). # The dog case, doing something to stop that is initiation of force. Animals don't have rights. There are other moral actions you can take, though. # The cutting case. The person's life isn't in danger really when they cut. # The last case, you are stopping initiation of force, so it is not itself an initiation of force. Mentally disabled people have rights, so it's not like the dog case. The capacity of reason isn't the point as far as the person is human. They are a border case in terms of rights, but being human (rights are an aspect of all humans) and still being cognitive thinkers is enough to have rights.
  9. As far as the politics, it doesn't really matter how catastrophic climate change is, forced policies would not be justified. Not that it should or needs to be ignored for the sake of rights, but that respecting rights enables the best possibilities to combat any issue. I am not on the "catastrophic" global climate change side, but I do think it's an issue worth addressing. It's good to be able to manipulate the climate in a controlled way, so I say the answer is more of that. There is no moral duty to "our future kids" or an obligation to the Earth, though. The reason I support climate engineering is the same reason I support GMOs or autonomous cars. Whatever issues there are in the world at all, new technology and creative thought does wonders - and improves life in the now.
  10. I didn't say it was an outlier even. You also know as well as I do that juries are not always rational, or that what usually happens means that the usual is okay. " juries refuse to hold cops to the silly "standard" you want to hold them to. " What is my standard (I want to know if you got it right) and why is it silly? You can't know their reasoning unless you were a juror or you talked to them after. Besides why do you say then that the standard of cop is actually good enough? I asked about your reasoning as to why Yanez had acted properly. I already granted he was perhaps was acting lawfully. That's what led to me to say that the standards are no good. If the standards are good, make a case for it. But: This is not how to have a discussion, Nicky. Really, this sentence is unnecessary. If you think it's that stupid what I write, don't respond. I wrote this out so DW would respond perhaps, but also that you might respond with something useful rather than a put down. I did mean the word "introspect". As in, thinking and reflecting on one's internal states (knowledge being a state). The verb "question" would have been better.
  11. Do you mean to say that for a Communist view, there is no form of natural rights? Anyway, at least around here, we wouldn't treat capitalism itself as a fact, or even a "natural" thing (natural as in a drive to trade that's an inborn thing we all naturally strive for). Capitalism is more like a desirable system that depends on protecting individual rights, while allowing individuals to lead their lives as they see fit. Forcing right actions, or forced rational actions, don't in fact result in better society, partly because no one is all-knowing. True, there are impossible situations that arise, like absurd pharma prices, but this can often be attributed to many factors. Mainly, we'd look at non-capitalistic features like the FDA or lobbyists having undue and improper influence on private companies. Private individuals also may use force, which wouldn't be a consequence of capitalism, as the system would be failing to protect rights. This is an issue of mixed economies. We can say the US is more capitalist than not, but this does not mean we excuse all private actions. Capitalism without effective rights protection and/or without an established government might be descriptively capitalist, but normatively, it isn't. Respecting individuals rights is the very thing that makes trade and free exchange of goods possible. I say "we" as in fellow Rand fans who agree with her fundamentally.
  12. I don't think there is a rational reason. I suspect they were trying to follow the "letter of the law" without regard for intent of the law, or without regard for how a jury can say "not guilty" even in spite of the law. This is besides wondering about possible irrational biases of jurors... Nicky was saying Yanez was an idiot but said that 10+ years in jail is ridiculous as punishment here. I suspect jurors with Nicky's mentality were sought after, as there are no rational reasons underlying this statement, when no justification is there besides intuition. I don't mean that as a sleight at Nicky - rather, I'm saying that to illustrate how jurors in this manner may be unwilling to present their basis. So then a decision is made with minimal deliberation, or checking for biases. From the video, it is sufficient to say Yanez made a grave error and he is at fault to go as far as he did. The issue I think is too few people introspect on what they think cops are supposed to do, and instead defer to the law as it is. Or perhaps an error like this is seen on the level of an engineer getting numbers wrong and a piece of expensive machinery blows up as a result - stupid, maybe worthy of a lawsuit, but not criminal. But that wouldn't make sense, as the damage here is to human life. I don't think people take seriously that the system of law enforcement we have is prone to life-threatening errors and fails to recognize the psychological fortitude required to use force properly. Perhaps this wasn't known 50 years ago. But now it is known. By the way, Don, I mean pro-law enforcement in principle as in I think it is a system required for any society to function at a high level. My normative standard is there still, so illegitmate use of force is still possible, and some are more illegitmate than others. But yeah, I'm wary as you. My default is "don't trust law enforcement", as even a small risk (say, 5-10%) is too much for me. In another era, it might be different.
  13. Everyone is affected by their experiences, as far as one makes sense of the world which includes their experience. Her family was affected by all the stuff going on (she wasn't rich, more that she saw a lot). But she was still educated by the Soviets, and she took from that education what she could, even if she didn't say so. I don't know how much, though. "Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical" would give details, but I'd say don't read it until you read more by Rand herself: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GNDX6LS/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I2DQS0RI53V32T&colid=8LQT80FO5G1M No, it would not be logical. One, we'd say free markets are necessary for a free society. Free society itself isn't the end goal really, but it's part of the good life. This doesn't promise that the free society will be utopia or even as good as you expect, as it takes people thinking rationally and all that. Of course, there is a lot of reason to say free market societies enable freedom of thought and action so that rational action is easier. Freedom is good, yes, but it isn't the absolute top thing we care about. Two, the government is not a necessary evil. It is a necessary -good- to deal with rights violators and to protect one's rights. There is a monopoly on force for this reason. Force is not legitimate as a market, force is not something you can wield in any manner you want. Specifically, initiating force is not something one should be free to do. There is no market of force then, "defense agencies" as ancaps talk about would be illegitimate (if the agency really isn't a danger, and not a violent nowhereland, it would be ignored). The monopoly on force is legitimate because it is a way to put force under strict control. Taking away your freedom to steal isn't any violation. Communism appealed to me in high school, until my senior year. The sentiment appealed to me, I always had a strong sense of justice so I liked the sound of a worldwide worker's revolution. It sounded more meritocratic than a capitalist world to me because money distorted value and worth of individuals. Part of this outlook was from "Motorcycle Diaries" about Che Guevara. I didn't read Communist literature, but as far as I remember, I had beliefs consistent with it. Nothing made me shift, nothing specific. I heard of Rand in my senior year. I got Atlas Shrugged, mostly curious because Rand was an atheist, and I wanted to read more by atheists besides Hitchens. Also, it sounded individualistic, and I thought I might like the book anyway. I ended up seeing a lot of similarity with Dagny, so I saw something in it. More or less, I wasn't able to see any logical reason to see Communism as compatible with individualistic sentiments. I learned what individualism was, not just how it felt. I saw it the year after I read Atlas Shrugged. I found Gorden Gekko to be vapid. I bet you'd find tons of House M.D. fans, though, like me.
  14. I agree with you Don. I only said "I guess" to replace the snarky response I had typed out. I do in fact rationally expect a cop to be procedural and just about the procedure. But it doesn't seem like the system in place is any good for what we want. I'd rather there be an imaginative restructuring of law enforcement. I'm not really pro-cop per se (i.e. the system as it exists makes me wary of all cops), but I am pro-law enforcement in principle. DW, can you rephrase your question? I am just thinking about any positive change (I suggested a few things)
  15. Why shouldn't he? If people want to shoot a cop, they don't say sir, they don't speak nice, or they say nothing. Both people made a mistake, I guess, but the cop made a bigger mistake that deserves harsh punishment of -some- sort. I don't know arguments as to how it is justice here if he only loses his job. I'm open to arguments as to severity of punishment, but it seems clear to me that standards are way too low here and fail to consider just how easy it is to make mistakes with lethal force. Ideally, what standards should exist?