123Me

Hi, I am looking for information by those who consider themselves to have a basic grasp of Objectivist philosophy, mainly aesthetics. My question involves all art, but without that option in the forum I figure that I should put it in the visual art spot. So, my base assumption is that with Objectivism, there is a particular standard for art, namely, idealism if I remember reading right. Can someone please explain to me the concept of idealism in art, looking kind of for a "idealism in a nutshell" sort of deal? Also if you feel like sharing further I have one more question: What would be the official stance on art that is more abstract, like a blob of colors that isn't supposed to necessarily be anything in particular, but is supposed to portray a feeling (for example) that the artist is trying to get across. Thank you 123Me

Hi all. Been awhile since I posted.. here goes: I have been recently been toying with an idea. Seems unlikely to happen but still might yeild knowledge if answered, so... In a hypothetical future, imagine a machine that essentially produces any sort of material value you can imagine from nothing. Food, clothes, oxygen, houses, cars, roads, planes... So the question - assuming that this could could be mass produced and given to everyone, it seems like it would make most jobs and industries obsolete. If that is true, should it still be given, or would it for some reason be better to not give it and keep industry alive? Thank you for your time.. Thoughts?

Well, I can't say if it's right or wrong, but I can't say that it's evil

I see. Alright. Well then I see my argument wasn't right so I withdraw my statement.

The Argument: If you don't have solid evidence proving God, then it is not possible God exists. Principle: that which does not have solid evidence = not possible Other arguments using the principle: -I don't have solid evidence that I will have kids in my future, so it is not possible that I will. -I don't have solid evidence that I will live for the next ten years, so it is not possible that I will live for the next ten years. -I don't have solid evidence that I will have the use of my eyes tomorrow, so it is not possible that I will have the use of my eyes tomorrow.

OP, In other words.. you haven't seen it or had God proven to you, therefore it is impossible God exists?

Thx for the thoughts guys. Ultimately what I realized earlier today I think trumps everything... no one cares if I use the gov. money. No one holds it against me. At least 99 percent of people out there, or more. So I can use either mine or theirs which they put in at the moment b/c they aren't going to be holding it against me, they would agree that it would be fine for me to use it. I am not saying to take advantage of them though, just that everyone basically would say it's okay, and those people are the people who's money is being used (and mine). So, yeah.

So, an update. I started going to college, but I still have questions floating around my head. Some arguments and counter-arguments are as follows. I wanted to get your thoughts on them if you have thoughts. ( :-P ) The people won't get their money back anyway. If you refuse to use what is offered, nobody benefits. What if ppl benefit by having $ in the system though? If I say no there is more to go around. If I don't even know if I or my family is not taking more out then I am putting in anyway. Besides, if I am, then I am guilty of receiving stolen goods. Plus, what if they DO get it back if I don't use it? Like, there is a limit and I am using the share they put in, but if I don't use it then they get it back? Most people support the system anyway, so you aren't robbing them. Taking money from a blind person who if he knew better wouldn't have agreed to it is taking advantage of people. Whether you use it or not, the robbery is a fact. It already happened, and it will either benefit someone or it will just sit there and nobody benefits. Well, there is still the option of taking it out and giving it to people. Still, you don't know who is putting more in then taking it out. If you get the wrong guy you are getting someone who is 'overdrawn' Well, you could ask for people to prove it, for example, if you posted something on the internet then people might want to prove it for some free money. Law of Supply and Demand. The government is driving up prices because they are giving loans to people. Unless it equals out: the people who lost the money gain it back in the loan so it is kept even, and not driven up. You have payed and will pay taxes, plus your whole family was taxed. So why only get 'robbed' and not get anything in return? Well, I don't know if the services in use out of the family total are more or less then was put in. If I am taking more out then that is receiving stolen goods, if I am taking less out then that is fine, but you don't know. You don't want to make moral decisions on what you don't know. So, what do you think?

Good point Nicky.

Nicky, it was not a statement. This is offtopic, and this conversation about it is over.

Nicky, Miscommunication. I didn't say that there were socialist societies that have worked well... I was asking. This is what I said (asked) specifically: "Hasn't there been planned societies that have worked out (at least semi-planned)?" I am not sure how much more I can really get out of this forum anyway... I think it seems like what has been said so far is all that is going to be said. Unless anyone has anything new to add? As far as I am concerned unless someone provides me with answers, I think to come to something solid in regards to my original question(s) I need to do more research.

Nicky, I don't know at the moment, but I have heard that there are semi-socialist countries doing well, in fact very well, in modern day society. I am not sure if this was one which I found or not but isn't Sweden semi-socialist and doing very well?

SpiralArchitect, you are still staying in America, voluntarily. You have the option to leave if you want. While you are here and are partaking of the services, I don't see how it is the proper thing to say that America is not "supposed" to tax you. They are not saying you can't leave, but you will be using the services which are already in place, and I don't see how it is proper to NOT contribute. Anyway, alright, done.

Spiral Architect, I can see what you are saying. BUT, the thing is that I have not put in lot by the way of taxes to the government so far. It is likely that I will be moving countries so I won't be contributing like that. If I use the services, it will most likely equate to me just taking money out of the tax pool and not contributing. On the basis of my family could have had more money, I think of this: Basically, it is not a definite thing that my family has put in the tax money and has not gotten it out, or gotten more of it out thus it is not in balance, having taken more out then they have put in. I could take it out not knowing if they are 'overdrawn' or not. Whatever the case is, it might be best to not 'punish' someone unless you are sure that they are responsible. Public roads, public schools, police... yeah I have used them. But I was forced to go to public schools, I have no other options but to use the roads, and the police I have no alternative if I am in danger to call (like a private militia). Honestly, not using taxpayer money is not something I am trying to die for (in terms of police) or to seriously cripple myself... i don't think there is any sort of police work that is legal even apart from the government. However in terms of taking government money for college or a trade school there is other options for education then taking the money. As for the subsidy comment from Matt: I am not sure how this is the truth that subsidies mean higher education prices. Could you elaborate?

Dragonlady, are you related to Ayn Rand? You look ... like her. Dragonlady, while it may be in people's best interests to pay for these services, things won't necessarily go that way. Do you know of any times in history where there was an absolutely free society and it went well? Hasn't there been planned societies that have worked out (at least semi-planned)?

I don't see why a country which has for years been the rulesetter of the land now does not have a right to do so simply because you can't "buy the land". I don't see how that makes sense.

Quick note: I haven't gotten to the most recent responses yet and I am going to be away from this forum for possibly a few days just so you are all aware, and thank you for answering my questions so far.

SoftwareNerd, I get what you are saying: The idea of taxation is wrong on principle, so the government shouldn't have the right to order you to engage in it. 2 Things: 1. I am personally not sure about the idea that the country would not fall to bits if we weren't taxed. Taxation is likely the lesser of two circumstances which are not favorable, taxation being the more favorable one. Could you (or anyone) provide more details on this idea?(specifics) 2. And I still don't see how it is a definite thing that America is not just a larger version of a planned society. Born in my house: You don't make the rules. Born in a planned city: you don't make the rules. But then when it is a COUNTRY using the same policies (taxes, or manditory contribution), now they aren't allowed. This idea I don't see adequately refuted.

Nicky, The idea which I was thinking about is the idea of going through state-funded programs meaning there is money being taken from others and being given to you. So basically, I would have thought Objectivism would hold that it is the same as receiving stolen property. SoftwareNerd, Thank you for your response. Although in my case it would be iffy to say that it is an exact balance of me getting taxed and now I am getting government money of an equal amount to go to school. I haven't paid much in taxes. My family has, however they may be getting it back in other ways. So I am not sure if my use of the government program would have me overdrawing using taxpayer money. That being said, would the objectivist standpoint be that I shouldn't use the programs? ( the money for college and trade school?)

Question 1: Interesting points. Thank you for sharing. Question 2: Well, you are free to leave here. They are not forcing you to stay, right? I still don't see a reason why America shouldn't be viewed as a larger planned community where you happened to be born. I see a potential reason why it is not this way: what if every place was owned by someone else? Where do their right to choose how they run their land end though and you being able to live without someone telling you what to do begin? Question 3: Can you give examples of ways to fund a fire department? BTW, I wasn't saying at all that we SHOULD let our neighbor's house burn down, nor did I ever say that people were zombies. But it can come down to this: you have so many calls for the fire department, your neighbors house is burning down, it will jepordize your house if the fire builds to a certain extent, so the fire department takes care of your neighbors house, and you use up one of your calls, and since you are poor, that can screw you because the following week your house is burning down and you are out of calls. Question 4: Don't we see that though in 3rd world countries? We see children who are forced to work to survive for horrible pay in harsh conditions and end up not even having enough for shoes. This my not happen every time capitalism is tried, but it does happen. Would you want to subject many people perhaps of this country to that, including possibly your children or your children's children if they don't do that great? So basically, would choosing to tax (and I mean really, taxation is generally not going to be a huge amount) be the lesser of two horrible situations? Final Point: Among a country who is trying to survive, I believe that there is roughly a common good. I mean, for example, if the country is defended then it has served everyone (on a personal level, if you are trying to survive, it has served you). If you have police in every city, as long as they are good, then everyone is served apart from those who are ending up in jail. (Like I said, roughly the common good, but maybe at those times it is for those people's goods anyway...) You know what I am trying to say, anyway. SoftwareNerd, No need to deal with example, but I basically used it to try to illustrate the idea of this: since the government and America has been founded on using the tax system SINCE ITS BIRTH, AND you are free to go, then what principle defines your right to stay here and still feel wronged according to the government asking you to make a contribution? That was basically the idea that I was getting at. Even if every country in the world was doing taxes and you had no where to go, while that may be unpleasant, if the United States DOES do taxes and that is their way and they own this land, then do they not have a right to continue doing it? If you had a right against that, then does that negate their right to their property (this land and how it is run?).

Nicky, thank you for your response. Can you elaborate on how taking the government money is not seen as unjustified according to objectivism in this case? Would you be able to get into the specifics?

SoftwareNerd, Lets say hypothetically that all the land that existed on this earth is very small: 30 acres. It is an island amidst the rest of the planet is an ocean and only the island is inhabitable. At this point, there are 30 people who live on the island, and each person, it is decided, gets an acre and is free to do with it what they want as long as they do not effect the other islanders. So far so good, things are peaceful. But as the years pass, the islanders reproduce and have children, then the islanders children have children, and so on. In the end, if you are still alive, do you still have a right to your land or not?The population will have drastically increased. The island will have to be further divided to create room for the new islanders, and your land or someone else's would be compromised. But don't YOU have the rights to your acre? If you deny the original 30 their land, then don't you deny property rights according to objectivist theory, and if no one recants on their property, then the new islanders recant on their right to life. So who wins out here? This is near the principle: Do the natives have a right to their land? As far as I can see there is not an easy, black and white, obvious answer. It seems that the objectivist standpoint of having an intact right to life and life to property be able to coexist, isn't consistent in this example, and this example is based on the same idea of one of the ideas of what we are talking about (a native having a right to their land) The borders of the US are set and belong to us (not going into the idea if it does based on taking it from the Native Americans), but the land of the US is governed by the US people right now, and is it REALLY your right to say that they cannot tax? It has been the land of the Americans for centuries and has always been based off of taxes. Are you saying that the US government doesn't have a right to govern the land, and tax is people like it has been doing for the previous centuries? How is America NOT a a planned society (or house that you were born into which you now live in) on a bigger scale? You ARE free to leave here if you want to.

SoftwareNerd, We have ALWAYS been a tax run society since the beginning, so I don't see how your model would still apply of the 100 people starting out, THEN they decide to do a tax system. What if a baby was born in a planned community, in this case a town? Regardless of if he is born there, is it his right to remain there without following the guidelines of the community? That doesn't sound like truth to me... and it looks like America is just a larger version of this. Nicky, Could you explain how my questions get 'no' answers (apart from the taxation system at th begininning of the country question), or point me to a source which explains it? (Preferably answering on here) Tito, Good point.

CrowEpistemologist, Thank you for your answer. You mentioned the idea of a planned community. Why is America not a planned community? You are free to leave if you want, you are aware of the policy of contribution (taxation), and you are here by choice.

Taxation is wrong according to the objectivist standpoint. This is because objectivists do not recognize the right to take money from another, government allowance or not, because they recognize it as the same thing as stealing. Okay. But how do you know if the government won't fall apart if there is no taxes? I mean, wasn't a no-taxation system tried near the start of this country and no one was paying for the government and since the government needed funds we implemented taxes? No government can lead to things which are not pleasnant, one including being overrun by an invading country. Furthermore, the government takes money from citizens who are already here, and who are here by choice. I mean, they can leave if they want to, but while they are here and are getting the benefit of not having an invader come and destroy them (which takes a lot of money) is it completely well that these people do not pay a part in something like that, even if it is by force (which they have the option to walk out on if they want). So, if there is a fire on the city block, all of whose houses do not pay taxes, and then I pay taxes, and basically the only way for the fire department to stop the fire would be to put out the fire on the neighboring houses, that really isn't all that great for me because I am the one paying for the fire department and they aren't. Would I truly have the right to later take them to court and be reinbursed? Maybe, but what if the fire was not caused by them at all, but by lightening and they had nothing to do with it? Wouldn't the price of healthcare literally be through the roof? You would have poor people or people who are doing alright financially not be able to get treatment because of pricing. Would it really be right to let people go without this so someone can keep a small percentage of what they make, or so that a rich person can buy a toilet encrusted with diamonds? Even if it is wrong to tax, perhaps it would not be so wrong as letting many, many people be diseased and die horrible deaths because of outrageous hospital bills. In any case, if the service REALLY IS FOR THE COMMON GOOD, and everyone REALLY WOULD be benefitting from it, then why not tax since you are going to be benefitting anyway? (For example, military)