Vox Rationis

Am I alone in thinking that the Stock Market is immoral and irrational? The reason I believe it is, is because a company should grow as far as it can by the individual instead of a group that makes money for doing nothing and allowing a company to grow only if they feel like it. The group can also make the creator of the company leave if he doesn't bow down to their will.

The reason your first statement is a denial of consciousness and free will is that if you say, "This person with this particular nature will make this particular choice at this particular time in this particular context," there's no choice about it: it's only a choice if he can do both, i.e. his nature is such that he can do both, but he chooses to do one. The man-made is not metaphysical. For example, if I (to use a racist argument) say, "Blacks steal. It's just in their nature," I am implying that blacks do not possess consciousness or free will, that they are a lesser form of life than myself (which, needless to say, is false). For a man to have a choice whether or not to steal, his nature must be such that he can either steal or not, depending on the choice of his consciousness. Now, you can speak of a tendency to choose one type of thing over another, but this is simply an empirical observation based on prior actions. For example, it is true that blacks commit more crime in the U.S. on average than other races/ethnicities, and there are many non-racist reasons to explain why they would choose to do so. However, it is invalid to speak of such "tendencies" having on active role over human choice. If man has free will, he has free will (see here).

The choice that occurs is not determined by nothing; it is determined by man's conscious faculty. The trap I believe you are falling into is the idea (in fact, supported by Aristotle) that consciousness, if it is to be objective and to perceive "reality as it really is", it must have no nature in itself. So if you believe man is conscious and has free will, according to this theory (widely accepted on all sides), you must deny that consciousness is anything in particular, that it works in any particular way, that it is dependent on any enabling factors (and such people usually hold that it is a divine miracle; in fact, this is a key component of the Catholic acceptance of evolution: lower animals can evolve, but consciousness is a "divine spark"). Thus, when scientists attempt to explain consciousness, it is viewed as a threat to free will because to explain something is to show that it has a nature and to define that nature. The assumed premise of this argument is false, as demonstrated by Objectivism, which is one of its greatest contributions to epistemology.

Man's mind, his conscious faculty, is a real thing which, according to its nature, has the ability to choose among alternatives. Its nature does not determine what choice it will make. The act of choosing determines which choice it will make, not its nature, not "nothing". What sub-processes and rules does a man use to decide? That is precisely what psychology is supposed to discover.

It is quite refreshing to hear from a non-Western Objectivist. I really wish more Objectivists (and any Westerner) would actually travel to a poor country and see how people live. I am thoroughly impressed by people such as the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto who has not been sitting in his ivory tower thinking Great Thoughts, but has actually gone out in the real world and talked to real people in the poor world. This gives him a totally refreshing perspective on economics. The fact that he is a classical liberal makes it even better, because he presents free market ideas to poor people, and he has done so extremely successfully. Unlike the average grumpy face Objectivist, Hernando de Soto is now considered one of the most influential people on the planet, and for extremely good reasons. Hernando de Soto has been able to use actual data from poor countries all over the world to help governments reform their property right laws, and to reduce the bureaucratic burden of government. Because of this his own home country Peru today has one of the highest rates of economic growth in South America, and very encouragingly, that growth is coming from below, from poor people generating wealth. Hernando de Soto has actually managed the incredible feat of singlehandedly changing the views of millions of people to become truly enthusiastic about capitalism. de Soto is truly someone who moves the world. He hasn't been sitting and moaning about the culture not being ready for a free market, he has gone out and changed it by talking to the people who gain the most from a free market: the poor.

Quite inspired by de Soto I have done something similar, only in the Philippines. I've gone out and studied how people there live, what they earn, how much things cost, what business opportunities there are, what hindrances there are etc. It became abundantly clear to me that corruption and bad laws were holding the Philippines back, but that there at the same time was surprisingly many opportunities for growth there. Let me tell you one thing that I learnt that truly changed my perspective on business. I learned how incredibly Western-centric we are in the West with regards to what we consider business opportunities and solutions. Let me give one example: in the West we think of oil as cheap and biomass as expensive, but when I came to the Philippines I realized that it just wasnt' true there. Biomass was much cheaper per energy unit than oil. Why is this? Because biomass is a product that is labor intensive, and since labor is cheap there, biomass ended up being cheap too.

So I started seeing if this was true in other areas. In the Philippines it is actually cheaper to hire lots of people to dig ditches manually than to use a caterpillar. Why? This makes no sense from a Western perspective. Ok, so labor is cheaper, but how on earth can it make sense to do things unproductively when there are technologies to greatly improve efficiency? Then I realized that the reason is that oil and caterpillars are produced in high wage countries for rich markets. If really low-tech and low quality caterpillars were made in poor countries by poor people they could be sold in low wage countries with poor markets at a major profit. The key is to reduce the quality to make it possible for poor people to make them, and thereby match the market.

This type of thinking is completely alien to Westerners. No-one thinks about third world countries and poor people as massive markets, but they are. They are gigantic business opportunities for those who dare view them as more than socialist hill-billies living in corrupt semi-dictatorial countries. The fact of the matter is that most third world countries are in fact more advanced today than most European countries were 200 years ago during the dawn of the industrial revolution. No-one back then waited for the culture to change before they took action. They simply went ahead and changed the world.

This is also one of the reasons why I am optimistic with regards to the possibility of a Free State. Truly important things are happening in the world right now if one just cares to open one's eyes and see them. I mentioned two of these, and no-one on this forum cared to even take notice or comment on them, namely the Honduras Charter City and the Lekki Free Trade Zone. This to me is completely amazing. How is it possible to close one's eyes to these radical transformations and say that one should wait for the culture to change when the change is taking place right now? Change IS coming, and the only question is whether it will be the Chinese who are the movers of the world or if it will be someone with a better philosophical foundation. At the moment it seems that a lot of Objectivists are saying that they don't want to be a mover. They'll leave that part to the Chinese. Go figure.

Another reason to suspect it's a scam is he claims to be looking at 3rd world countries, and yet 5 of the points on his map are in Australia, a 1st world country and US ally. He hasn't even done his research, he just printed off a world map and put dots on areas that looked like desert, assuming they would be poor.

Whatever. I come to this board to discuss philosophy, not political schemes.

What's up with the extreme malevolence and paranoia? If you're wondering whether this is a scam then google my name and see what you find. I am actually quite well-known in Norwegian Objectivist circles. I have written several books, and I blog regularly to a quite large audience. Why on earth would I jeopardize my reputation by orchestrating a scam using my own real name? And why would you even accuse me of something like this with no evidence?

As to your claim that I haven't done my research, do you really think I don't know that Australia is a first world country? I mean, seriously!? The reason I have included some sites in the first world country of Australia is that apart from being a first world country it otherwise perfectly fits the criteria that we are looking for. In addition Australia is divided into separate states/regions that compete for people and business like everyone else. All the regions in the north are fairly poor and undeveloped and they all are looking quite desperately for ways of attracting investors. Because of this we don't exclude Australia. I consider it a lower probability of success than most of our other potential sites, but IF we were to succeed in creating a Free State in Australia then many of the worries that have been raised in this forum disappear. Australia is not a dictatorship or an unstable democracy, and a Free State would therefore be as safe as one could expect. This is the only place on earth we would be willing to concede the requirement for security forces to protect the borders.

Now, why you are so malevolent I don't understand. I have done nothing to hurt you, nor have I offended you in any way. I expect a basic form of benevolence as a common courtesy. If you have questions, ask them. Make your accusations after you have received answers you find wanting.




I find it extremely disturbing that you prefer philosophical mind games to actual realization of those philosophical ideas in the real world. You know, moving the world, and all that. Also, if you want to discuss philosophical ideas then maybe you shouldn't have ventured into this sub-forum called "intellectual activism-->Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality." I can think of few projects which better fit the description of activism for reason, rights and reality than the Free State Initiative.

The reason your first statement is a denial of consciousness and free will is that if you say, "This person with this particular nature will make this particular choice at this particular time in this particular context," there's no choice about it: it's only a choice if he can do both, i.e. his nature is such that he can do both, but he chooses to do one. The man-made is not metaphysical. For example, if I (to use a racist argument) say, "Blacks steal. It's just in their nature," I am implying that blacks do not possess consciousness or free will, that they are a lesser form of life than myself (which, needless to say, is false). For a man to have a choice whether or not to steal, his nature must be such that he can either steal or not, depending on the choice of his consciousness. Now, you can speak of a tendency to choose one type of thing over another, but this is simply an empirical observation based on prior actions. For example, it is true that blacks commit more crime in the U.S. on average than other races/ethnicities, and there are many non-racist reasons to explain why they would choose to do so. However, it is invalid to speak of such "tendencies" having on active role over human choice. If man has free will, he has free will (see here).

The choice that occurs is not determined by nothing; it is determined by man's conscious faculty. The trap I believe you are falling into is the idea (in fact, supported by Aristotle) that consciousness, if it is to be objective and to perceive "reality as it really is", it must have no nature in itself. So if you believe man is conscious and has free will, according to this theory (widely accepted on all sides), you must deny that consciousness is anything in particular, that it works in any particular way, that it is dependent on any enabling factors (and such people usually hold that it is a divine miracle; in fact, this is a key component of the Catholic acceptance of evolution: lower animals can evolve, but consciousness is a "divine spark"). Thus, when scientists attempt to explain consciousness, it is viewed as a threat to free will because to explain something is to show that it has a nature and to define that nature. The assumed premise of this argument is false, as demonstrated by Objectivism, which is one of its greatest contributions to epistemology.

Man's mind, his conscious faculty, is a real thing which, according to its nature, has the ability to choose among alternatives. Its nature does not determine what choice it will make. The act of choosing determines which choice it will make, not its nature, not "nothing". What sub-processes and rules does a man use to decide? That is precisely what psychology is supposed to discover.

Speaking to Dairdo in particular:

The idea that the military should only ever protect the rights of the citizens of that same country is ridiculous. It's no different from my saying, "Well, why should I pay to protect your rights? You live in the next city over, and you don't even pay taxes." It's a question of long-term self interest: it's better for me in the long run to have free people in Iran than to have enslaved ones. Furthermore, what about the right of Americans to move to Iran and open businesses free of restrictions while enjoying personal liberty? Now, there is a complex balance: clearly, one country cannot afford to free everyone else in the world, nor should it be asked to do so. It requires a case-by-case analysis of the degree of oppression, the cost to the liberators in money and in soldiers' lives, the likelihood of success, the wealth and level of civilization of the country, and, yes, the lives of that country's people.

And when a country does decide to liberate another country, it should do the job right or not do it at all. It should annex that country or at least impose on it a rights-respecting constitution and strict oversight over its government (as we did after World War II). It should certainly not let them elect whoever they want and do whatever they want, as long as there is "democracy".

Speaking to Dairdo in particular:

The idea that the military should only ever protect the rights of the citizens of that same country is ridiculous. It's no different from my saying, "Well, why should I pay to protect your rights? You live in the next city over, and you don't even pay taxes." It's a question of long-term self interest: it's better for me in the long run to have free people in Iran than to have enslaved ones. Furthermore, what about the right of Americans to move to Iran and open businesses free of restrictions while enjoying personal liberty? Now, there is a complex balance: clearly, one country cannot afford to free everyone else in the world, nor should it be asked to do so. It requires a case-by-case analysis of the degree of oppression, the cost to the liberators in money and in soldiers' lives, the likelihood of success, the wealth and level of civilization of the country, and, yes, the lives of that country's people.

And when a country does decide to liberate another country, it should do the job right or not do it at all. It should annex that country or at least impose on it a rights-respecting constitution and strict oversight over its government (as we did after World War II). It should certainly not let them elect whoever they want and do whatever they want, as long as there is "democracy".

I have read all of Ayn Rand's novels..

She stops short in most of them, She doesn't reach her own point.

Ayn Rand proclaims herself to be an Atheist. That is what Saves Rand from True Godlessness.

IF YOU CAN FIND THE ABSOLUTE UTTER LACK OF GOD IN RAND'S WORKS.

A PERSONS WHO HAS TRULY COME TO A CONCEPT OF "UTTER LACK OF GOD."

WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION , "Are you an Athiest?", By replying , "NO!"

Because you see, If you come to an Utter Lack of God, then there is no such thing as Athiesm, it ceases to exist as a concept.

Many Objectivists have turned to trying to find GOD in Rand's Work, why?? Because of the flaw that Ayn Rand introduced by proclaiming herself to be an Athiest.

If Rand had gotten to TRUE GODLESSNESS, She would have also proclaimed that she wasn't an Athiest also.

Ayn Rand was an Athiest. She had God in that tiniest sense.

Both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have God in them, in the barest essence in their Atheism. Which is why there for a time Objectivists started trying to Integrate a Notion of God into Objectivism. Well it is there in Rand's Athiesm itself.

Rand's Mere Athiesm is one step short of TRUE GODLESSNESS.

The opposite attempt is to Rid Objectivism of God altogether by comming to an "UTTER LACK OF GOD" which will destroy Atheism itself.

Objectivism has God in it, in the narrowest sense, in the smallest amount.

And that is as far as Rand could go philosophically.

If she had gone further she would have found herself stairing at the Ultimate Question.

Ayn Rand in her Athiesm doesn't deny God's existence at all. Which is what has objectivists seeking an integrated notion of Objectivism and God.

Which is what will ultimately save Objectivism itself.

Objectivism cannot survive without God....

It is interesting that it takes a flaw in Objectivism to keep it viable to people as a system of thinking.

Christ puts no stipulation on the socio-economic model that man lives in.

Which is why also that man can live with Communism for 80+ years also.

Christ will allow man to exist in a purely Capitalistic Society as much as he will allow man to exist in a Purely Communist
Society.

To abandon God because you want Capitalism is erroneous thinking also.

To abandon God because some men will not let you have a purely Capitalistic Society, is flawed thinking as well.

You think that people would abandon those people and not Abandon God, but nope.. That guy over their voted me into
Socialism, I think I will abandon God in retaliation, Just doesn't make any sense.

So Rand's fit started about Communists and rightfully so, she was powerless about that and chose atheism instead.

But Christ is left Scratching his head because Jesus Christ never told Ayn Rand that she wasn't allowed to make any money
or to Own Property, ie, That Trading powerhouse, The House of Hurr.

So perhaps it is possible to live in a Capitalist world and not abandon God also, seems possible to myself.

Just as it is possible, to feed the homeless around here without a Communist's Makorov Pistol to your head also.

One cannot engage in a rational argument with someone who will not agree to go by reason (and asserting non-rational methods of knowledge is certainly not going by reason). All one can do is state the three inescapable axioms of reality (existence, consciousness, and identity), point out that reasoning from the basis of sense perception is the only actual way that man can gain knowledge, demonstrate that all supposed non-sensory methods of consciousness are by nature impossible (for they imply perception by no specific means), show that all supposed "sixth sense" claims are arbitrary assertions unsupported by evidence, and hope that the man will see that reason really is the way to operate.

If, at that point, the man says, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" (or any secular equivalent, such as "I have a right to my opinion,") you're done. You cannot attempt to persuade him rationally. The only thing left is for him to observe the harmful effects of his irrationality, at which point you may point these out and possibly get him to reconsider.

Also, on a related point, Leonard Peikoff gives a good analogy about so-called "sixth sense" claims in his Founders of Western Philosophy course, which I will paraphrase. The proponents of such claims always defend their viewpoint by stating that you can't judge them because you only have five senses. However, observe that there is no controversy among the blind that men with a "fifth sense" exist. Why? The reason there is no controversy is because the claims of sighted men support the sensory evidence that the blind receive through their four senses; there is never a contradiction between what the blind man perceives and what the sighted man perceives. Furthermore, the sighted man can make predictions which the blind man cannot, proving that he has special knowledge. For example, he can warn the blind man of a car approaching at 100 yards away, and the blind man will be able to feel and hear this car passing by at a certain time afterwards. Such predictions work every time.

Contrast this with the claims of "sixth sense" advocates who claim to have received mystic revelations from God. Their claims do not support the evidence we receive from our five senses: they radically contradict them by saying that this world is only an illusion or shadow and that true reality is something else. Furthermore, these people cannot make any predictions that a normal person cannot. Therefore, we conclude that they are mentally disturbed or lying.

One cannot engage in a rational argument with someone who will not agree to go by reason (and asserting non-rational methods of knowledge is certainly not going by reason). All one can do is state the three inescapable axioms of reality (existence, consciousness, and identity), point out that reasoning from the basis of sense perception is the only actual way that man can gain knowledge, demonstrate that all supposed non-sensory methods of consciousness are by nature impossible (for they imply perception by no specific means), show that all supposed "sixth sense" claims are arbitrary assertions unsupported by evidence, and hope that the man will see that reason really is the way to operate.

If, at that point, the man says, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" (or any secular equivalent, such as "I have a right to my opinion,") you're done. You cannot attempt to persuade him rationally. The only thing left is for him to observe the harmful effects of his irrationality, at which point you may point these out and possibly get him to reconsider.

Also, on a related point, Leonard Peikoff gives a good analogy about so-called "sixth sense" claims in his Founders of Western Philosophy course, which I will paraphrase. The proponents of such claims always defend their viewpoint by stating that you can't judge them because you only have five senses. However, observe that there is no controversy among the blind that men with a "fifth sense" exist. Why? The reason there is no controversy is because the claims of sighted men support the sensory evidence that the blind receive through their four senses; there is never a contradiction between what the blind man perceives and what the sighted man perceives. Furthermore, the sighted man can make predictions which the blind man cannot, proving that he has special knowledge. For example, he can warn the blind man of a car approaching at 100 yards away, and the blind man will be able to feel and hear this car passing by at a certain time afterwards. Such predictions work every time.

Contrast this with the claims of "sixth sense" advocates who claim to have received mystic revelations from God. Their claims do not support the evidence we receive from our five senses: they radically contradict them by saying that this world is only an illusion or shadow and that true reality is something else. Furthermore, these people cannot make any predictions that a normal person cannot. Therefore, we conclude that they are mentally disturbed or lying.