merjet

A Metaphysics for Freedom #3

A Metaphysics for Freedom #2

Science of Nerdiness; Statistics A Metaphysics for Freedom #1

Why is the initiation of force the only permissible criteria? Suppose X does intend to join a criminal gang but lies about it, i.e. he commits fraud. I said nothing even remotely similar. Rand did not limit wrongs to the initiation of physical force. She also included “indirect physical force” such as fraud and extortion.

So what? It was the only example he gave. I didn’t label any examples as paradigmatic or non-paradigmatic. You dishonestly alleged dishonesty.

I wasn't involved in the past debates about immigration on OO, nor have I thought about the topic a lot. Regardless, using Juan seeking a job at Starbucks as the only example oversimplifies. Some immigrants may not have such laudable motives. What if X plans to join a criminal gang? What if X is a dependent and the motive is to exploit the USA's welfare system?

I'm sorry to hear about your condition. Is it genetic? Regarding disclosing your condition to a potential insurer, my advice is to honestly answer the questions when applying. The questions on the application I linked appear open-ended and the insurer could follow up on any answers you provide. Note that said application does not want genetic test results. I wouldn't take that as universal and it might be required legalese (link). I suggest looking into the life-LTC combination. It will likely cost more than either coverage alone. On the other hand, an insurer might be more willing to insure you given the lesser riskiness of that kind of policy to an insurer.

You say "long-term disability", but long term care is quite similar. Your hypothetical is extremely unrealistic. I replace "you" with "X" in what follows. X expertly diagnoses his own condition and knows he is a big LTC risk. However, no other doctors can understand it. X also assumes the insurer's underwriting will be totally incapable of detecting X's condition and its LTC risk. What sort of symptoms is X basing his diagnosis on? And no other doctors can detect or understand those symptoms? Here is an alternative question for you. Is it immoral for X to buy whole life insurance knowing with certainty that X is going to die some day? I am not an expert on LTC insurance. However, 84 percent of new policy sales combine life insurance with a LTC benefit (link). Any LTC claims will reduce the amount payable on death. This surely mitigates the risk to the insurance company. FYI, this application https://www.sunnet.sunlife.com/files/advisor/english/PDF/810-3523.pdf is for one company's LTC insurance. Note especially questions 3 and 9b.

Getting rid of Obamacare's mandate to purchase health insurance or be penalized ("taxed') is not evidence? -------- President Trump is no deficit/debt hawk. For fiscal years 2017-19 federal deficits and spending were higher than any of 2014-16 with Obama as President. Fiscal responsibility would have advised surpluses during 2017-19, when the economy was growing and after the 2010-16 recovery from the bad years 2008-09. On the other hand, indications are that Biden is even less fiscally responsible than Trump. This article projects the deficit impact of Trump's and Biden’s COVID response plans for 2021-30. The deficits for Biden’s plan dwarf those for Trump’s plan. A breakdown of their spending plans is included. The Biden plan is larded with spending that is little related to Covid – forgiving student loan debt, child tax credits, nutrition assistance, education funding, paid emergency leave, greater unemployment benefits, and funding to state and local governments. Trump’s plan has none of these. The last two call for the most spending. Which state and local governments will get the bulk of the money is very predictable -- the most fiscally irresponsible ones.

Give us a break. He fairly often praises producers, although he often does include himself by saying "we" rather than "they." Another reason to not vote for Biden is this. Democrats have a majority in the House. If Biden wins, Democrats will likely have a majority in the Senate. Progressives and authoritarians will take that to justify pushing their agenda.

I don’t agree with this. Explaining why requires two distinctions. - Dictatorial about government policy versus dictatorial to the USA’s people in general. - A dictator personally versus a dictator institutionally. Trump shows a strong desire to control government policy. However, his desire to control people in general doesn’t seem strong to me. Indeed, a prime counter-instance is the health insurance mandate. Obamacare made the mandate – that people in general (with a high enough income) must purchase health insurance, and they will be penalized (“taxed”) if they don’t. Trump got rid of the mandate, calling it the worst part of Obamacare. Joe Biden shows little desire to be a dictator personally. However, it seems he has little reservation about having in his orbit others who are very dictatorial, e.g. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Kamala Harris. If elected, his cabinet appointments will be very revealing. Another reason I say this is his persistent desire for higher taxes, even more spending, and more regulations. Implicitly or explicitly, he views a better world coming from government activism. Trump does not. On the campaign trail, he has touted the “public option” regarding health insurance. If elected, I would not be a bit surprised to see him flip-flop to backing some form of Medicare for All (advocated by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris when they pursued the presidential nomination). Biden explicitly proposes to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Of course, the transition will be forced via government intervention – regulations and subsidies. How often have you heard Biden praise private industry or advocate individual liberty?

Joe Biden’s public option

Wokeness - Andrew Sullvan Hyperbole, truthfulness, half-truths, lying, Donald Trump, Joe Biden

2046 failed to acknowledge that my previous posts met 1-7, likely because he's not that good or smart or honest. “He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see.” - Ayn Rand Link.

The answer could be ‘yes’ or ‘n/a.' If A going N and B going S are part of a cooperative plan to reach a common goal, then ‘yes.’ If A going N and B going S are totally independent, then ‘n/a’ and the Venn diagram is not relevant.

[1] Then show me a better depiction. [2] Can you draw one? You could try drawing one to cover both: 1. The rational interests of 2 individuals overlap and conflict. 2. The rational interests of 2 individuals don’t overlap because they are entirely independent. They live 1,000s of miles apart and have no dealings whatever with one another. [3] Speak for yourself. It is not an "algorithm."

That doesn’t bother me. I don’t live in a hypothetical, fully free society where everybody is rational. I live in the real world. Your focus on a hypothetical, fully free society, where everybody is rational is irrelevant to me.

You might be interested in this article, The Sim-Dif Model and Comparison. "Sim-Dif" is short for similarities and differences. I believe anyone can create a free account on JSTOR and read the entire article for free online.

All your questions are answered in the post to which you replied and/or this one. I suggest reading more than once, especially the later one, sort as if you were reading an advanced math textbook. When I took advanced math courses, I had to read the same section a few times for a good grasp of the content. Such content doesn’t “leap off the page” or seem intuitively obvious immediately. It takes effort. I believe you can do it. The first set of circles – Rand's perspective but ignoring the straight line and “no COI” – in essence does that, except the separation is by circles instead of two parallel vertical lines.

Advocates of renewables may also ignore subsidies. This article says: “Renewables are muscling in on natural gas as the preferred choice for new electricity generation. In fact, according to RMI, what happened to coal is now happening to gas. What is needed, the organization argues, is a move away from the monopoly markets that have been the norm in the utility industry for more than 100 years and toward more open competition. Because when renewables compete head to head with thermal generation, they win hands down 95% of the time.” However, there isn’t one word about subsidies. “Subsidies for renewable energy totaled $6.682 billion, while those for fossil energy totaled a mere $489 million” (link). I don’t know enough to say how big the effect of the subsidies is. Anyway, I smell bias.

Maybe the following Venn diagrams will help. Venn diagrams offer a means of categorizing things as compatible or incompatible, i.e. mutually exclusive. “No conflicts of interest” translates to only mutually beneficial relations (trade, cooperation). The top set of two circles depicts what I construe as Rand’s perspective on conflicts of interest, and in effect, mutually beneficial relations. I was quite charitable to Rand to include ‘no COI’ in the right circle, since she nowhere endorsed it in her essay The “Conflicts” of Men’s Interests. She wrote, “Only an irrationalist … exists in a perpetual conflict of ‘interests’ (VoS, 59). The lower set of three circles depicts my perspective on conflicts of interest, and in effect, mutually beneficial relations. In this perspective all space outside the conflicts of interest circle is for mutually beneficial trades or relations. The middle circle of the set of 3 circles can be regarded as mild on the left and become more severe moving to the right. Comments The meanings of “conflict of interest” are not identical in the two sets of circles. That partly explains why the circles are drawn differently in the two sets. Don’t attach too much to the size of the intersecting areas. They are partly affected by fitting the text. In Rand’s perspective a person who is mostly rational must be regarded as leaping from the left circle to the right circle (above the horizontal) every time he/she has an episode of irrationality. Also, a mostly irrational person must be regarded as leaping from the right circle to the left circle every time he/she has an episode of rationality. In my perspective there is no need for any leaping. Long-term contracts cannot anticipate every contingency, and unanticipated contingencies can lead to conflicts of interest. I believe examples I gave earlier in this thread support that. If the parties to the contract are rational and such a conflict of interest does arise, then how does one view the matter? Was somebody “really” irrational because he/she failed to anticipate? If yes, in effect rationality assumes perfect foresight, in effect omniscience. Or did somebody rational experience a (rare) conflict of interest? If the latter, it is inconsistent with Rand’s perspective and stated position. Ayn Rand was a polemical writer and often polarized, beyond doubt in my opinion. She wrote about heroes and villains, the very rational and the very irrational, independent people and dependent people, pure capitalism and Marxism, and to a great extend ignored the wide range in between. This describes her non-fiction as well as her fiction. I believe it even affected the way she “carved up reality,” e.g. her perspective versus my perspective as depicted by the Venn diagrams.

Black Rednecks and White Liberals #1 Black Rednecks and White Liberals #2

I consider the first as a “conflict of interest” broadly construed, but not in the narrower sense of “conflict of interest” per the Wikipedia article. The interests of the 'very rational police officer' and his superior officer do conflict. However, the 'very rational police officer’s' oath of loyalty is to his employer (e.g., city, county, or state; oath for city of Phoenix) rather than his superior officer. The attorney is entrusted to serve the best interest of his client. That may not go so far as trying to get the client known to be guilty off scot-free based on a technicality. It may mean getting the client charged with a lesser crime or less jail time.

The dictionary definition you cited is the kind of conflict of interest I referred to in my first post on this thread (post, Wikipedia). Since some very rational people could be insurance claims adjusters, purchasing agents, financial advisors, lawyers, etc. as described in the Wikipedia article, it is clear that there could be conflicts of interest of that kind among those very rational people. The definition of ‘conflict of interest’ I solicited from whYNOT and Eiuol was their stipulative definition of ‘conflict of interest’ which allegedly, according to Ayn Rand’s essay, does not and cannot exist among rational people.

Me: "Still no definition of “conflict of interest.” None from Eiuol or Rand either." Huh? David Kelley’s six rules for definitions are here.