Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jon Southall

Regulars
  • Posts

    488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Jon Southall

  1. 1. There was and could not ever be any control over immigration from EU members. The main problem domestically - especially since the late 90s - has been a massive increase in real house prices and a increased rate of decline in real wages. I think you only need to understand basic supply and demand to understand why. But it has upset the local population, even historic immigrants who have citizenship now. 2. Evidence is that our net contribution significantly exceeds re-investment. A lot of tax is levied, and a big chunk of that is redistributed to help poorer economies. Additionally, spending is inefficient and unaudited - there is significant waste. MEPs have complained openly & objectively about this, it is on the record. 3. It depends on what values that political union depends. Would you want a political union with Iran? I'm not saying the EU is Iran, but it acts in ways which are contrary to justice and freedom. Commissioners have never won an election but the EU lectures Iran on democracy - there is no credibility. Farmers that have been unfairly fined by the EU have no real recourse - the UK has to pay the compensation where an injustice has occurred. 4. Doesn't sound bad? So domestically you want to get rid of a nuisance, poorly performing politician, and you do this by placing them out of the way in the commission. The commission which is responsible for setting up new directives and legislation. Sounds bad to me. 5. See http://leave.eu/en/news/2016-05-06/the-three-eu-directives-crippling-british-energy-and-manufacturing I have known of issues with this since 2008 when I met Professor Tovey. He explained there could easily be shortages in the UK from 2020 due to EU directives. The last thing we want is more energy dependency on Russia etc. There are a lot of cases - feel free to check the record. 6. That is very true. However say we focus on the over 60s. In significant numbers they voted to leave. 40 years ago, they voted 70% in favour of staying. So something has happened to change their thinking. We need to understand this. I've been listening to LBC often popular with older listeners and they often cite loss of sovereignty and dissatisfaction with the performance of the EU. Appreciate this is just a small sample but its interesting its not just fear of immigrants etc. Democratic freedom means the freedom for legislation to be controlled by UK citizens. Rule of the people, for the people, by the people. E.g. Id like to see a new British constitution drawn up.
  2. It is highly unlikey the labour party will be in power any time soon. Also whoever leads the Tory party, it is more likely to be someone who was in favour of Leave. Torys tend to be less statist than other parties. They are more in favour of privatisation. The Tory party is likely to want to keep trade with the EU, and even if no deal is done within two years we will default to WTO rules, which would mean no contribution would be necessary, and no freedom of movement clause enforced. Any tarriffs would benefit the UK as we are a net importer of EU goods. There is a great opportunity to negotiate favourable trading deals with countries outside of the EU. By leaving the EU the UK benefits from greater democratic freedom. Whether it is used wisely depends very much on the electorate and who they elect. They are starting to make better choices. The banking sector is being supported at the moment, because of fears that not doing so would lead to economic collapse. Will this stop in the short term? No. Does this kind of policy resonate with good economics based on real fundamental value - no. You can avoid reality, but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. It will catch up with us at some point, and when it does, a reasonable citizenry will want change & reform. Most leavers voted for the following reasons: 1. Concerns over immigration (though this was not a real issue for me). Impacts on job opportunities, housing, culture. 2. The perception that the EU was overfunded by the UK and not delivering value. The desire to get this money back. 3. The creeping political union when what people wanted is an economic union. Less democratic freedom in the UK as a result. 4. Sub par, unelected, unaccountable technocrats. Many of whom are appointed for reasons of domestic politics. 5. The passing of ever more unwelcomed directives, regulations and laws. Many of which have harmed industries such as fishing and energy. 6. The perception across almost all of England & Wales (apart from London) that over the past 40+ years life has got worse as a member of the EU. This is despite supposed workers protection and such like. They can see it isn't working and want more control over their lives. What will happen next is up for grabs. That is the great opportunity. Leave voters didn't like what they were seeing happen around them, and they've voted for the freedom to change it.
  3. I was a leave voter. I don't regret my vote, my decision wasn't based on misinformation (of which there was certainly a lot of during the campaign). The economic impact of the outcome was not a surprise to me - I wrote to friends and colleagues about it on 6th June. Longer term, being free of the EU is the best decision the UK could have made economically. The City will be the hardest hit, as well as some big businesses. As an Objectivist I am pro capitalism, pro free trade. However, the "too big to fail" banks and other businesses are what Rand called the worst of all economic phenomena - private businesses with government help. If Brexit means these entities struggle or if it bursts the global pyramid scheme then I will watch and have the courage to shrug. We've had enough of working 7 days a week to support failing economies, failing businesses and corrupt, unaccountable politicians. We need to diversify as a nation and allow genuine entrepreneurs - who don't need bailouts and subsidies - to prosper in hopefully what will be a better trading and regulatory environment.. We need to go back to the UK that wanted to do business, and real business. We will still welcome people of value from anywhere in the world to join us. It also means having real leaders is of huge value now - we will need an early General Election. I would like to see the new British constitution take shape. There is a lot of work to be done now, but for those in the UK who love their life, for those who love freedom and being productive with their time, this is a great opportunity and something to be hugely excited about.
  4. Or you could be even more sadistic Nicky and watch the reactions of millions of American voters as they realise they have been missold. If I had to vote for one of them, literally if I was forced to vote - I would choose Trump over Hilary; if only out of morbid curiosity. What interests me about Trump is that for the election he sees it for what it is. A grotesque popularity vote he has to win to get his shot as president. He is not trading with men of virtue but with largely ignorant masses, and the fact his campaign has been so successful shows he knows precisely what they are like. What will he actually be like as president? Well we will see.
  5. A point well made SL. We only have the daily news as proof of the contagion of selectivity in our daily lives. If I were an American, I honestly wouldn't be able to vote for Trump or Clinton. Out of the two, Trump is more genuine, which is bad enough.
  6. Does the following video calling for you to vote for Trump: A) make you feel sick - its pure cheese make you think twice - Trump might be controversial but he wants America to be successful C) other, explain below.
  7. I'm just a layperson when it comes to physics, but gravity has interested me. It is not a phoney concept because we observe "gravity" around us - it is a concept based on our experience of reality. A greater mass is said to exert a greater gravitational effect than a lesser mass. According to Objectivist philosophy, it is entities which act. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. So when we associate the gravitational effect with mass, we must say (in order to avoid contradicting ourselves) that gravity is an inherent action-characteristic of all masses, and it is a consequence of two or more masses interacting. All masses of equal measure exert an equal gravitational pull. This seems to suggest gravity is a universal property of mass regardless of the attributes of the particular masses? If so it makes gravity different from other attributes such as thermal properties or conductivity which seems very specific to the type of mass in question. The effect of gravity can be disturbed outside of a vacuum too. For instance, dropping two equal masses onto the Earth where one is a lead ball and the other feathers, then the feathers will interact with air etc. and take much longer to reach the surface. So gravity does function in different ways depending on the nature of the entity and the nature of its interaction - e.g. in the presence of air masses or not. Two equal masses do not behave the same gravitationally in all situations, which suggests the attributes of the mass - e.g. how well the mass is bound together, its aerodynamic qualities, it's energetic content - does have a bearing on say its rate of descent despite equal gravitational forces acting upon it. I'm not well educated in physics so I am probably making an idiot of myself, but I do find something so obvious as gravity a little bit mysterious - it is supposedly a universal property of all masses but can't be observed directly (e.g. gravitons). It seems like there is evidence to contradict our understanding of how gravity works at a universal level - but again excuse my ignorance. For example I have read that galaxies spin in a way which defies the mass effect - the velocity effect measured by Rubin which suggests there must be a lot of unidentified mass, or our calculations and understanding of gravity is wrong. I know the idea of dark matter was developed to save the hypothesis, but it all feels like a bit of a fudge, albeit very cleverly done.
  8. I think Cheryl wasn't anticipating what effect returning would have on her: "The sense of Dagny's presence- of Dagny's world - had supported her on her way back, but when she entered her own apartment the walls seemed to swallow her again into the suffocation of a trap" She then discovers Jim with Lillian. "She stood in the middle of her room, unable to grasp what action was now possible to her. Then her knees gave way, folding gently, she found herself sitting on the floor and she stayed there, staring at the carpet, shaking. It was neither anger nor jealousy nor indignation, but the blank horror of dealing with the grotesquely senseless." Her act of suicide was a rejection of a kind of world she didn't want to live in. I believe, within the context of the novel we ought to feel pity for her rather than empathy, because her death would have been avoided had she lived to discover and join "the strike." The senselessness she recoiled from and wanted to reject by an act of suicide was itself a senseless act unbeknownst to her, which is a kind a tragedy. I felt sad when she died!
  9. Can you define your terms - e.g. what is the Objectivist definitions of mind, consciousness, body, thought processes etc. From a metaphysical perspective I thought Objectivism begins by taking an axiomatic approach - so what is unavoidable in our discussion of the mind? That there are existents with identities, identified by a consciousness. All metaphysics tells someone with a mind is that its existence, its identification of objective reality, and the reality of their thought processes are all inescapable. The rest is down to epistemology.
  10. Nicky, I won't reply to your entire response above to Alex. I haven't time. However I don't think you are applying the concept of rights correctly. To say I have a right to freely trade with others does not by implication mean I'm violating any one else's rights. By definition, free trade means trade by mutual voluntary consent. So I think your criticism here fails. Wouldn't it be worse if someone argued they didn't have a right to free trade? Surely if that was the case they must seek someone's permission before they can try to trade with someone and that's not at all consistent with Objectivism. Anyway I thought Alex made a sound point above. Just one error - the Welfare State in the UK started to emerge in the 50s following the Beveridge report. It certainly didn't take off in the Thatcher era (80s) - in fact you could argue it was quite heavily curtailed compared to other periods whilst she was in power.
  11. I will be voting to leave the EU. I haven't time to write my full analysis. A list of my reasons are: 1. Pressures on infrastructure & services (incl. police, NHS) from EU migration 2.Pressures on the housing sector from EU migration - in London you now have to earn £80k to afford an average home. 3. Failed economics - look at high taxation, high unemployment, excessive regulatory regimes, Greece et al. The credit crunch revealed inherent weaknesses in the ability of nations in the Euro to stabilise their economies. 4. Floods of new legislation, regulatory orders, including one to force the closure of coal power stations, which according to some analyst (e.g. Professor Tovey) is leading the UK towards power shortages from 2020 onwards, increasing energy prices & dependence. 5. Threats of taxation on British banking - veiled as universal but falling heavier on the UK 6. A massive share of EU contributions is spent on subsidising farming 7. A massive share of EU contributions goes on bureacracy and excessive MEP pay and expenses. 8. Powerful positions taken up by people who are unelected & unaccountable 9. EU finances unaudited 10. Desires to create an EU superstate, also military force is not all about peace in Europe 11. In the UK access to the justice system has got much worse over time 12. The UK is a net contributor to the EU, leaving would mean we would be better able to reduce the deficit and fund essential services, improving the lives of our citizens 13. The UK through leaving would still be able to trade with the EU and any short term impacts would more than be compensated for longer term. Some think the EU would act to penalise the UKs trade with it - I don't think that would be consistent with capitalist ideals but it would be with collectivism. 14. The US (vested interests) makes a big fuss of us being its main access point of influence in the EU and if we leave this might have an impact on our "special relationship" with the US. The US would have to respect a decision to leave and again threatening punishment for not cooperating politically is not consistent with capitalist principles of voluntary mutual consent. 15. Substandard policymaking. E.g. human rights, fisheries, environment, energy... 16. The list goes on.
  12. Dream_Weaver - what is your interpretation of Dagny saying "I feel terribly sorry for you...because you haven't deserved to suffer." I think Dagny is saying she feels terrible regret and sadness for Cheryl's undeserved situation. Is it a pity that Cheryl suffered injustice at James Taggert's hands? Is it sorrowful that it caused her to kill herself? Or should we be unmoved by her decision to kill, and only react to the injustice? I find myself moved by both the injustice and the consequence.
  13. I think you're being incredibly presumptuous and unreasonable. Is that what we should have felt for James Taggart's wife in AS? Or should we have felt a sense of pity, a sense of sorrow. When life is your standard of value, choosing death is the most serious choice you can make in your whole life. It's not something you choose lightly. Watching someone evaluate whether there is still any value in their life and trying to influence them that there isn't, at a time where their emotions are running high and they are vulnerable, says something about the person doing that. Why would that behaviour be a value to them? Because they take pleasure from the suffering of others. Are you saying you would have joined in the filming and taunting? You ask about shared values, well you must be able to contemplate a life not worth living. Everyone has a point where the scales would tip one way more than the other under some set of circumstances, even if that point is remote. And if you encountered someone in that situation, you would have empathy because you would understand their pain. It is your lack of understanding of what the suicidal person's situation means to them which explains your lack of feeling, it comes from a place of ignorance. I think you are misrepresenting Objectivism. It is one thing the altruist telling us to sacrifice ourselves to others, which we must rightly oppose, but quite another to say, this means I must be unmoved by suicide where someone could arguably be said to be sacrificing themselves. We don't know whether it is in fact a sacrifice. They are freeing themselves from a world of pain. How do you know if they deserve it or not? My default position is that they don't, until I have reason to think otherwise. To hold your position, you must think of man as primarily evil. This is not the Objectivist position - certainly not Rand's as she is on the record of rebuking religions for exactly that presumption.
  14. Epistemologue, I have to agree insofar as we must be more assertive. The only place for aggression is in the use of retaliatory force. Peikoff's interview was shockingly poor. He comes across like a maniac.
  15. You have a good sense of humour "Piekoff's Mullet"
  16. What an entertaining thread. Thank you. Harrison, you wrote: "Most people would agree with [sociopaths] definition as an "inability to feel other people's pain". Now, for what reason would any self-respecting (notice the emotional implications) man subject himself to pain that isn't even his own?" See this is precisely the sort of comment that puts people off Objectivism, that is if they consider you an Objectivist. A couple in love get married. You don't know them, but they are evidently overjoyed and celebrating when one them collapses and later dies. If you were watching, would it not make you feel for their loss? It is not your own pain, in the sense it's not a loved one of yours. If you watched, indifferent to this, there would be something wrong with your moral compass. You ought to react to it and feel something. I saw on the news how a crowd gathered to watch a suicidal person on top of a car park. Some in the crowd were taunting, filming with their phones, as if it were entertainment. That is the sort of depravity that results when people lose their sense of the pain that others are going through, and indeed take pleasure from it. Empathy is a consequence of shared values. The absence of empathy is a measure of the absence of a shared morality, it signals that rights violations are not far behind. Any self respecting man will want to live with other self respecting men, because self respecting men will share the same moral values. They will appreciate each others achievements, and suffer together when there are losses; this will happen naturally. Why did the Objectivists in Atlas Shrugged seek out would-be strikers? It was out of empathy. It was in recognition of their worth and a desire to welcome them into a better way of life in Galts Gulch. Why did Rand go to the trouble to bring her ideas to us? Empathy is not self-sacrifice.
  17. The term 'Randroid' stereotypes those influenced by Objectivism as unfeeling, suffering from low EQ and possibly even sociopathic. I don't think it is a term I would want to be associated with. From discussing Objectivism with Objectivists, there are certainly some who deserve this accolade. Fortunately, there are a few who are warm, assertive and reasonable life-loving people. Avoid the Randroids.
  18. Jonathan. It's great to see your contributions to this forum, I thank you.
  19. When I think of eating my cat should she die, I personally find the idea repulsive. So is the reason for finding it repulsive just because it is an irrational social convention? What then would be the ethical status of eating the corpse of a relative that has just passed away? Would being curious and wanting to eat the corpse of say your deceased child be immoral? I would personally find such an idea to be horrific. When we value another living being, its because of the virtues we identify in their character. We hold them in such high regard that we are willing to make exceptions for them - we also respond emotionally to them. To then do damage - to then destroy and consume what's left when they die only for pleasure seems totally at odds with this. It would seem immoral to replace a greater value for a lesser value in this way, driven only by hedonistic impulses. I could entertain the idea of eating cat meat, but not if it was meat taken from my pet cat.
  20. You could write a couple of thousand words on that question. More even. I would interpret the question as asking what extent was the financial crises a result of irrationality. The financial crisis certainly was not just a result of government involvement. Snerd is right, you would need to research a much broader range of factors to give an objective well-reasoned answer. I'm not sure what level you are studying at, but these resources might be of interest to you: http://people.duke.edu/~dandan/Papers/PI/CA.pdf The above is a paper identifies how people can arrive at an initial price somewhat arbitrarily - but that variations in prices between comparibles is rational - so for example something of better quality will be valued higer, which is objective, but the initial price is arbitrary. It's a good paper to get you thinking. Miller wrote articles about "Irrational Exuberance" - might be worth looking up some of that. Miller's articles/books will give you a feel for the sort of academic thinking around irrationality. The Rational Markets Hypothesis rests on a premise of easy access to good information as well, so information assymetry may be another aspect to consider. People act on the information they possess - if there is a problem with this then it can lead to people trying to act as rationally as possible but still making the wrong choices. You have to consider that we do not live in a fully capitalist system - instead it is a mixed economy. So perhaps you could break it down and focus on those two aspects (planned and free), contrasting them and exploring the dynamics at work.
  21. I consider taxation to be theft, because taxation serves altruism; others get to dispose of the wealth I produced, and I do not get a say in it. So we are agreed in the conclusion. Playing devil's advocate, someone could say "ah but you do get a say in it - you get a vote. If enough people felt that tax was theft, then we would stop taxing people!" If you do voluntarily accept to be ruled democratically - the argument goes - then you voluntarily accept the consequences which is to pay tax should "the people" vote for it. If you don't give consent - if you refuse to pay tax then you are in breach of contract as a citizen of a democracy. This supposedly justifies the use of force against you. I think we need to explore Rand's concept of inalienable rights here - don't you? Her argument was there are some rights which cannot justly be voted away by others - such as the right to life, the right to property. (An idea of mine would be a citizen's veto - a constitutional right to veto any policy that infringes their inalienable rights). If we accept these rights cannot be voted away, (or taxed away), then it comes back to consent, and how it is given. Does choosing to live in a democracy mean that we are consenting to tax, when that is what the majority rule in favour of? Good example - In the case of ring fighters, the whole point is to initiate force on the other but that is understood and accepted by all parties so it is voluntary - it takes on the form of a trade where the use of force is the currency. Do citizens in a democracy, who know that being taxed is a likelihood, voluntarily sign up to it via a "social contract" when they choose to be a citizen? It is customary in all Western democracies to pay tax (as you know I disagree with establishing rights premised on customs - but I make the point for the sake of exploring the issues) I agree with your conclusions; do you think that both the citizen and the bureaucrat are being defrauded then - i.e. they cannot truly be said to be giving their consent because they are ignorant of the involuntary nature of the interaction? Rand wrote: "Representative Government The theory of representative government rests on the principle that man is a rational being, i.e., that he is able to perceive the facts of reality, to evaluate them, to form rational judgments, to make his own choices, and to bear responsibility for the course of his life. Politically, this principle is implemented by a man’s right to choose his own agents, i.e., those whom he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. To represent him, in this context, means to represent his views in terms of political principles. Thus the government of a free country derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”... As a corroboration of the link between man’s rational faculty and a representative form of government, observe that those who are demonstrably (or physiologically) incapable of rational judgment cannot exercise the right to vote. (Voting is a derivative, not a fundamental, right; it is derived from the right to life, as a political implementation of the requirements of a rational being’s survival.) Children do not vote, because they have not acquired the knowledge necessary to form a rational judgment on political issues; neither do the feeble-minded or the insane, who have lost or never developed their rational faculty. (The possession of a rational faculty does not guarantee that a man will use it, only that he is able to use it and is, therefore, responsible for his actions.)" The power of the government to tax could, by our oponents, be argued to be something that we have consented to as I wrote above. I would like to further explore the nature of consent in relation to the initiation of physical force to get to the bottom of this. I think it is a fact that inalienable rights are not fully respected by any democratic regime in currently in existence. So does that mean no rationally acting Objectivist truly consents to being governed in this manner, or if we do is it because we are being defrauded? I don't think you (meaning - any Objectivist) could argue it is OK to accept our form of government knowing that it does not fundamentally protect our inalienable rights, and in fact knowing full well it would initiate force against you if you were to try to protect them yourself. You could exploit such a regime to your benefit (a kind of depravity perhaps), or keep a low profile and tolerate low level infringement for an easier life (sanction of the victim), but either action would be self-defeating. Surely we should be saying No. What are your thoughts - to what extent does a citizen of a representative democracy consent to being subjected to force initiation? Going back to the cage fighter example - let's face it even a fighter who likes a scrap doesn't want to lose the ability to defend himself, he doesn't want to have his shin snapped in half or suffer a major brain injury. But he has voluntarily waived his rights to a degree. What do you think are the differences?
  22. Luck yes, not by his own effort - well that depends on how he came to have it. An inheritance is one thing, theft, fraud, government privilege quite another.
  23. Well he can agree any rent on his property so we even agree on that, we just disagree on whether or not the location value he collects is his property.
  24. I am referring here to the initiation of physical force and coercion. Under Objectivism this is considered immoral because, fundamentally, it violates the victim's right to their life. It prevents the victim from acting according to their own judgement of what is best for them. To accept the general principle of force initiation would be self-defeating for that reason. Force initiation can be overt, a robbery, seizure of property by the state, a murder, an invasion by foreign military forces. Here it should be easy to identify force has been initiated. Force initiation may be "covert". Some examples: - Imposing restrictions on free trade - Minimum wage regulations - Taxation - Fraud In the case of covert force initiation, the nature of the action is that they may be permitted by the victim. The act is not packaged in such a way as to make it's nature as force initiation immediately obvious. Some victims agree to the "crime" being done to them because they already consent to it willingly and don't recognise any involvement of force. Taxation may be used to fund infrastructure, schools, emergency services, welfare payments and much more. Many taxpayers will want to benefit from such services, and may think that life would be worse if the government didn't provide them. I have had debates with people who claim dropping welfare would mean to take us back to the times of Dickens, meaning cruel and inhumane treatment, terrible living conditions, no meaningfull access to justice for the majority. They scoff at the idea of charities providing welfare because they consider people to be fundamentally of bad nature and would not reduce suffering on a scale achieved by the government, however imperfect it may be or even though its achieved by force. Being forced to do "the right thing" is OK in their view. There is also the question of whether their can be cases of "consensual" force initiation. Where consent is implicitly rather than explicitly given. A notorious example from The Fountainhead is when Roark technically rapes Dominique. Is taxation in today's society ever a case of "consensual" force initiation? If not, why not? Is submission to tax the same as permission? If not, why not? What about implicit slavery, where one person is forced to work for another, but does not identify this as the true nature of the relationship. Is the slave still a slave or should we view it as a trader relationship if that's how both parties parse it? What are the indisputable grounds for identifying what is both explicitly and implicitly a true initiation of force? Thanks for your views
  25. "But, second, they also think they should force their neighbor to pay too. I don't know if people parse it out that way, but I think this is what it boils down to if you were to analyse it" If they don't parse it out that way, then does it boil down to force? I agree with you actually that it does. I use the same reasoning on landowners. They think its ok to force their tenants to pay economic rent because they have land ownership rights. They may not parse it that way, but that's what it boils down to. And like in your example where those forced neighbours may not parse it that they are being forced, so can be said for renters who pay willingly. If you reject that reasoning, you have to reject your own analysis above don't you? It interests me to know what distinction you will apply. I suspect you will say in my example economic rent is fair and square because its paid in trade to benefit from property. However in your example you could apply the same thinking to conclude its fair and square that people pay a tax for welfare because it has been voted for democratically, the voter who forces his neighbours to pay has a right to vote in such away, and everyone accepts this right, so if the largest majority agree with him then he has the right to insist if you want to live in this society you will have to pay for welfare. In fact the above sums up the response from Oists on the economic rent argument. Renters and landowners "vote for" economic rent going to the landowners and so the landowners who force tenants to pay it to them have a "voted for" right to do so. We agree wrt welfare, so don't get me wrong on that. What interests me is why we disagree on the other matter when the essence of it seems essentially the same. Perhaps you could clarify what really counts here.
×
×
  • Create New...