Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Kate87

Regulars
  • Posts

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Kate87 got a reaction from Ben Archer in Immigration Ruins Capitalism?   
    Thanks everyone for your replies, they are very helpful.
  2. Like
    Kate87 reacted to Leonid in Syria Intervention   
    The difference between chemical and conventional weapons is that chemical weapons are WMD, they are not created in order to destroy a certain target like a bullet, missile or bomb, but everything living in the vicinity of its action. One cannot specifically aim chemical weapon, it completely eliminate difference between combatants and civil population. All damage it creates is collateral. I know that cynics would say that Tomahawk missile is not much different, but this is a question of degree. A missile aimed to the military target, collateral damage is not its main goal, it's accidental and regrettable and could be minimized. Chemical weapon is aimed to kill en mass, and therefore deeply immoral.
  3. Like
    Kate87 got a reaction from juanaram in Basic Economics Questions   
    A lot of the people on this forum and the economists listed above have decided their political conclusions first. They then use this to inform their economic theories. This is the wrong way to go about economics. Unfortunately this is how Austrian economics works and Objectivists hold Austrian economists like those above in high regard.
     
    The best way to do economics is to build a model of how the world works and test it against reality to see if it's accurate, and then to modify from there. Greg Mankiw fits this bill. However, some of the above are outright laughable. For example Schiff is still predicting hyperinflation - there seems to be nothing in reality that can convince him otherwise. Along with Mankiw, I would recommend Krugman (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Paul-Krugman/dp/1429251638/) - even if your politics is in disagreement with his, his is the best book to learn about IS-LM analysis (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/is-lmentary/)which is a Keynesian theory. Any textbook which does not cover Keynesianism does not deserve to be called a textbook.
     
    Even if you dislike the political/moral implications of Keynesian theory (which is absolutely fine), it still enables you to predict what will happen in this reality where Keynesian policies are followed. This will allow you not to fall into errors such as predicting a stimulus package enacted during depressed demand and low interest rates will cause the collapse of America. Similarly, Monetarist economic theories will be covered in a good textbook. Again you may dislike the political and moral implications of interest rate cuts, but a good understanding of monetarism will allow you not to fall into the trap of predicting hyperinflation when the government cuts interest rates during a slump.
  4. Like
    Kate87 reacted to AbA in Christianity and Objectivism. Are these compatible in America?   
    I don't see how a Christian can reasonably be considered to be "totaly harmonious" with the end results of Rand's ideas (Capitalism) when that ideology is so diametrically opposed to the basic metaphysical precursor ideas (such things as the mind body dichotomy and the primacy of consciousness vs. the primacy of existence) that are the foundation (roots) on which her end product (Capitalism) depends. I'd have to say that it's a prime example of some one wanting to enjoy the "fruits" of some thing while at the same time not just denying the roots but holding ideas that actively work to poison them.

    To put it in terms of the "parable of the talents" I'd have to say it's worse than "reaping where one has not sown" in that it's a case of "expecting to reap where one has sown nothing but salt".
  5. Like
    Kate87 reacted to Dennis Hardin in Christianity and Objectivism. Are these compatible in America?   
    As others have suggested, the key thing to note about this quote from Ayn Rand is that she clearly distinguishes between religion and 'religious people.' She often said that many people are better than their premises, but she never wavered from her conviction that religion itself is absolutely antithetical to Objectivism. All religions--and especially Christianity--represent the philosophical enshrinement of the mind-body dichotomy, and Objectivism is diametrically opposed to that doctrine and all of its disastrous ramifications for human life and human happiness.
  6. Like
    Kate87 reacted to Eiuol in Capitalization Protocol   
    You overlooked this. Objectivism is distinguished from objectivism, including moral objectivism. So, it still conforms with the Chicago manual of style even. There is a lot to distinguish from objectivism as a belief in objectivity, and Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I see no issue with just using capitalization all the time, for the sake of clarity. That's the purpose of style manuals, specifically so that there is consistency of usage. In this case, it is justified.
  7. Like
    Kate87 reacted to CrowEpistemologist in the trillion dollar coin...   
    Here's the analysis I've given on this subject before:

    1. Republicans do not know/care about a principled defense of free markets. They don't even try. Insofar as they do try, the go up against the fact that our culture is light years from where it needs to be in make any headway.

    2. Instead, they resort to making the economic case on immediate practical grounds, e.g. we will all be richer tomorrow (or the day after tomorrow) if we would just accept [the Republican slate of changes]. This is what I call the "Big Republican Lie" of our age.

    3. The facts get in the way of #2. Austerity would shrink our economy in the short run, and would cause an economic downturn for... a long time before we turned the corner and fully "detoxed" off of 60 years of government stimulus. In plain terms, this would suck for another decade or more.

    Paul Krugman is right over and over again about his analysis. Sure, he's a Socialist and a liberal and yadda yadda yadda. But he's right about the short-term (~20 year window) analysis of the economy.

    Paul K bet against the most successful bond trader on Earth and won. The doomsday inflation and the skyrocketing t-bill rates keep failing to materialize year after year after year.

    It's important we keep our feet on the ground, people. If Paul K is right then he's right--there's no sense in disconnecting yourself from reality in the name of some fleeting political gains...
  8. Like
    Kate87 reacted to CrowEpistemologist in Harry Binswanger on Gun Control   
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/01/01/with-gun-control-cost-benefit-analysis-is-amoral/

    (Thought this should get its own thread).

    Here's my criticism of this article and his stance.

    In the article, Harry states:

    "The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. The remaining issue is: what constitutes an objective threat?

    An objective threat is constituted by specific evidence of a clear and present danger to someone’s person or property. For instance, waving a gun around (“brandishing”) is an objective threat to the individuals in the vicinity. Having a rifle at home in the attic is not. Carrying a concealed pistol is not (until and unless it is drawn). Yes, there are always borderline cases, but rational standards, such as “clear and present danger,” can be set."

    The key phrase being borderline cases. Any government is full of borderline cases and we need elected representatives to make a judgement call on those borderline cases. That judgement call--like all judgement calls--should be based on the entire context our knowledge.

    By essentially calling for the elimination of all aggregated data from decision making, Harry confuses individual justice with epistemology.

    We know from aggregated statistics, for instance, that far more accidents happen when people are allowed to drive at higher speeds even though many individuals are perfectly safe at these speeds. We place rules on our roads (public and private, doesn't matter) accordingly. The answer to the question, "how fast should we let people go on this particular road" is a judgement call. Since we are not omnipotent, and we cannot predict the future, then we need to guess what will work the best--what will produce the best overall product (which in turn would entail of balance of safety versus convenience).

    There are thousands of these sorts of decisions that need to be made by any proper government.

    When we guess we may be wrong in a lot of individual cases. No form of government is perfect (and this continues to be something Objectivists have a hard time dealing with). Personally I think capitalism is the best form of government, not a "perfect" government.

    Harry is right in saying that, "the government has no right to initiate force against the innocent" in relation to taking weapons away from citizens. Yes, that is wrong, but we will never ever completely eliminate judgement calls--and therefore, errors--from any human-formed government.

    Harry's conclusion is not only false, it's lazy and self-contradictory. He says that "Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished". He says that already having said that there are edge cases where guns should be regulated ("brandishing" and so forth). The conclusion is lazy in the sense that the word "gun" is an extremely broad term that opens the door to all kinds of objections and "edge cases" which is core premise attempts to gloss over.

    The gun debate is a "judgement call" and there is no exactly right answer. I don't think any Objectivist--and probably very few Americans--would want an across-the-board ban on hunting shotguns or deer rifles, for instance. Most would agree that we can't have fully armed fighter jets flown around by civilians (the mere act of flying the plane would be "brandishing" and threatening). The proper government should regulate weapons and make a judgement call based on the full context of our knowledge at the time (and then change those regulations as our knowledge is increased).

    Harry has fallen victim to imagining humans as omnipotent. However some things are "black and white" and we can say with absolute certainty. Chief among those is that human beings are not omnipotent.
  9. Like
    Kate87 reacted to CrowEpistemologist in Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)   
    A new Colt .45 probably costs about 1/10th as much as it used to based on improved manufacturing. Sounds like Gold is drastically over valued right now then.

    Also, about 12 years ago if you brought gold coins to a Toyota dealer to buy a fairly standard Camry family car, you'd have to bring about 60 ounces of gold.

    Today you only need to bring about 18 ounces of the very same yellow metal to get basically the same new car.

    Did the cost of building a car (complete with its thousands of subcontractors, raw materials, etc.) suddenly become 5 times cheaper?

    Makes you think. No need though: every other commercial on Fox News tells you to buy gold--which are concurrent with the "news" stories about how the world is going to end Real Soon Now because we have a Communist in the White House and how run-away inflation is just around the corner just like they said it was just around the corner four years ago.
  10. Like
    Kate87 reacted to Eiuol in Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)   
    To be clear, I'm not blaming guns per se, I'm saying regulation of guns may be justified on the premise that guns are intended to kill another person. The beneficial purpose of killing is only in self-defense, but another reasonably possible way to use a gun is to initiate force. The bottom line is that guns are tools of force, and force is actually the only type of thing that may be regulated in an Objectivist society. Government would essentially be in charge of how force may be used, and self-defense is a proper way to use force. Regulation to the extent of certification after a psychological evaluation may be proper, or whatever system is decided upon. Other weapons would be outright banned, like nuclear weapons.
  11. Like
    Kate87 reacted to Eiuol in Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)   
    One other comment...

    This comparison is bad. Spoons are made in order to eat, which by nature isn't an initiation of force. Guns are made in order to kill, which is either self-defense or initiation of force. Someone buying a gun in order to initiate force is a realistic possibility, as is the possibility of buying a gun for self-defense. Buying a spoon in order to initiate force is totally implausible. Guns make violence possible, and without a gun, a person is severely constrained. My idea here is that guns should be regulated, and semi-automatics probably should be banned except for rare circumstances. By regulation, I mean oversight of who can and cannot purchase guns to assure that person's purpose for the gun is explicitly self-defense. Guns are tools for *killing* people.
  12. Like
    Kate87 reacted to volco in Romantic Realism vs Socialist Realism   
    @Kate87 Bless you for pointing out the obvious and being insistent about it. It's remarkable that this is the first time (recorded) that this issue has been discussed in this forum. I am certain it's not the first time it has been discussed among Objectivists and Ayn Rand fans in the last 60 years.

    @Grames. Thanks for the first correct and honest answer.

    The resistance to this obviously legitimate question is probably explained because Objectivism does have some aspects or veins that can be rightly compared to Socialism and Fascism, and until Grames replied everyone was too unsecure of Objectivism to be able to defend it.

    In the Oath of the Horatii we see each Horace saluting standing up with their palm down, and their arm bend up high and straight.
    This is the Roman Salute or Ave (hail) which contrasts to the Asian and Christian bow, the lowering of the head and facing up of the palms, as in asking for pity or pardon (demonstrating submission and humility). Because of some random historical and cultural factors these last generations conjure up German Nazi imagery when witnessing this salute, but the salute itself is not more German than American, with its origin being Rome and its ultimate expansion the whole World. It is, again, simply the opposite of the bow or kowtow.
    And wasn't standing up instead of kneeling or bowing, the essence of what Ayn Rand built in her Heroes?

    I'd say this posture is what Fascism, Objectivism and Utopian Socialism have in common. Being irrationally defensive on the question of being influenced by Nietzsche is another thing the three philosophies have in common.

    But why is this style of art conjures up images of Socialist or Fascist art as much as the Hail?
    Probably because it's evolution was stunted (or spared) by the prohibition of experimentation with surrealism and abstract art , and other 'returns to the primitive' that Einstein and the Theory of Relativity allowed for.
  13. Like
    Kate87 got a reaction from softwareNerd in Hate Speech: a crime in Europe   
    If someone goes around threatening to drown and strangle someone then that is harassment. It is right that they should have to answer to the police. The police issued the kid with a warning. This is entirely proportionate. What is the big deal?
  14. Like
    Kate87 got a reaction from Tensorman in The Aurora Massacre   
    Why when you cross your northern border does crime drop dramatically? Canada has the same drugs problems as does every Western nation. Stop dancing around the issue and recognise what to everyone else in the world is crystal clear.

    I could quote lots of unbiased studies on this issue whereas I know all that you can quote is biased politically motivated right wing "studies". You'll even have a conspiracy theory ready to espouse why its not the right wing think tank that is biased, its the liberal universities! So that's why I'm not going to quote any studies because I think you'll be impervious to them.

    Also, those of you who think it is somehow immoral to have strict gun control should reread Rand's words I quoted above.
×
×
  • Create New...