Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Content Count

    715
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Easy Truth last won the day on May 13

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

About Easy Truth

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1382 profile views
  1. As if the government's response to Covid did not do that. As if printing money has not done that. As if gerrymandering has not done that. Which eutopia do you live in? I thought you did not believe in the supernatural. There is no evidence of a business on the site of a riot has done anything wrong. And in that sense they are innocent and there is no justification for them being harmed. Agreed in principle. That applies to a "just society" where laws are equally applied, individual rights exist, not privileges for this or that group. In our mixed system some free market, some fascism, some socialism and a history of racism the "just society" and its rules of conduct are not present. There is evidence of black people being stopped by police far more than white people. There is evidence of drug offenders mostly being black. There are far more black in jail than white. There is evidence that blacks die of covid at rates like in Italy. And now and again, video evidence of them being treated different by the law. The evidence is evident. We as objectivists did not cause it, we are innocent. But we live here. Where the injustice exists. Are any of us innocent when drug laws exist the way they do? Are any of us innocent when churches have their privileges? Are any of us innocent when we allow our taxation system to be the way that it is? Are we innocent when we allow some to have forced monopolies with tariffs or licencing laws? Are we completely innocent when we watch some lose their assets due to eminent domain laws? Not completely. There is no justification to hurt innocent people, granted. The question is around innocence in this type of society. Am I innocent when we bomb children in Syria or Iraq etc? I had nothing to do it. But if I were there, they would have some (maybe miniscule 1/350000000) legitimacy to hurting me. But it is reasonable for me to expect that they could. If it was a white person that was killed like Floyd, even with instigators, it is doubtful riots about "treatment of white people by police" would spread to other cities. If there was some rioting, it would be objectively illegitimate. "BE careful of the Justice you advocate for lest you find yourself on the wrong side of some flawed system you helped create." EXACTLY, ignoring the connection is going to lead to bad consequences. If leadership does not pay attention to grievances, real grievances, not fake ones' instigated by a few, it will experience social disturbance. If we follow the logic of no evidence, no connection, then nothing must be addressed. We can look forward to perpetual curfews, lockdowns and yes riots too. After all there is no evidence of any legitimacy to the grievances.
  2. This is at the core of the issue. If one sees NO evidence at all, i.e. no connection at all. What you are describing is something with little legitimacy and perhaps there is a threshold. But saying there is NO connection, no, none, zero is not true.
  3. I have to digress first: The situation cannot ONLY be described in terms of retaliation, as some of it is random and illegitimate simply blowing off steam. Some are people trying to find something to express their frustration with. Young men being bored, people being upset at losing their jobs and wondering about their future. Aggression will go up. So to prevent it, other pressures have to be alleviated too. Having said that, back to the current thread: If this violent activity is reduced to the premise that "this is only justified if it were retaliating against the officer who was on Floyds neck", then this is not retaliation. But ... that would imply that retaliation is only justified against the necessary and sufficient cause (which can't be true). Amount of legitimacy in retaliation is based on destroying a proximate cause (anything that supports the existence of (the harm/damage/effect)). To defend yourself against a larger assailant you have a right to hit them where you can, not only the hand that contains the weapon. And yes, the closer to the necessary cause, the more legitimate the retaliation. A proximate cause could be the "supporting police", or the employing police station, or the state that has the police force, or the nation or society that finances it. Now, if these people went to Senegal/Africa and brunt their police cars, they had nothing to do with the Floyd Killing. That would be retaliation that was absolutely and objectively illegitimate (zero amount of Legitimacy). What is going on in cities in the US has "some" legitimacy as retaliation. Therefore it "eventually" requires and deserves some sort of non violent alleviation. The areas where it had zero legitimacy it deserves aggressive retaliation by the government.
  4. The current high emotion is due to political failure. Could be Covid, could be racism, could be other frustrations or fears, and in politics, perception and emotion are far more central to outcomes vs. the philosophical view, where reason takes center stage. One does not win political campaigns without influencing emotions of voters and a mob is not an entity with a faculty of reason. Where there is pent up anger, sometimes violence erupts. Philosophically it is usually wrong. Politically it is natural and expected. In times of high emotion, since the faculty of reason is diminished, the ethical thing to do is to either avoid discussion in times of high emotion, or to avoid high emotion at times of discussion. But right now, it is too late for prevention of violence. High emotion does not allow reason and opens the door to demagogues. (as an aside, Trump and Bannon are a masters of that). The only thing that can be done is either actively try to calm emotions or to wait for the storm to pass, to settle down, and then have the discussion.
  5. It is hypocrisy but what are you aiming at with the question? Hopefully you are not trying to justify looting because corporate welfare exists.
  6. More info. Judge Nap brings up the fact that then knee was kept on the neck even after there was no pulse. https://video.foxnews.com/v/6160400938001#sp=show-clips
  7. Rand seemed to be resistant to the death penalty because of the mistakes that could be made. Looks like such a mistake was made in this case. If there were underlying conditions, does that justify the way the police handled it? A justified standard around use of force needs to be used. Perhaps sometimes it will be too much and that it should be okay, some mistakes will be made. It all depends on how much of a "high risk" Floyd was or could have been. If they found a large bomb in his pocket, people would be cheering. At this point the videos showed he was cooperating. Why aren't handcuffs enough? Why sit on someone's neck for eight minutes? I'm willing to wait to get more information but the only thing that could justify something like this would be that Floyd "was a major deadly danger to the police or others". Not an African American father with some drug offenses. We shall see.
  8. Let us say that another employer offers a job at 10 dollars an hour and some do accept and work is completed. (He might have gone up to 15 dollars an hour but there were takers). This is where a transaction has occurred, in reality. No research, no guessing. That was the price at that moment. Are you saying that some research somewhere is going to counter that determination? Based on what again? You only give examples of your sense, opinion, feeling and some appeal to authority. For some reason that is far more valid than the market price. Furthermore, that research that you talk about, has to be based on actual transactions that have been recorded i.e. market price. You can record their blood pressure, their other bodily reactions like brain waves etc. to determine what price should want. But ultimately, there is no way to determine price but via observation of transactions (voluntary decisions) that actually happen.
  9. One way or the other, we both have to concretize things. My going into detail, is an attempt at concretizing things, it is not an attempt at educating you in particular. I also have to determine if I am on the right track or not too. The other issue is leaving breadcrumbs for posterity. There is no telling who in the future will read this stuff, some beginners. In many cases people disagree, when they actually don't, they are just looking at things from a different perspective and pushing for their perspective as being the truth. One example is the following: Gamble in the sense that our knowledge is contextual, that we don't know everything at any moment. Gamble in the sense that there is always some risk level in any action. We all will have moments where we don't know what will happen but we chose to believe that "it will be okay?, simply to be able to function. It is a rational choice amid a psyche that contains emotions and desires that can paralyse you without the motivating thought. There are many business ideas that don't make sense to one person but make a lot of sense to another. And many high risk activities that have very high reward. Rationality and risk averseness does not always make you rich. When you go into business, you never know who will compete against you. You don't know what innovation is going to be discovered by "the other guy". So, you go forward with the idea that you can survive. Sometimes one is wrong. There is a minimum environment, an environment where you need so much nourishment and hope to live. But that relates to abject poverty in which a minimum wage would make sense as a punitive measure against an authoritarian system that is stealing the wealth. You would agree that 15 dollars is far above that minimum environment. In a free market, no one is stealing anything from anyone, a minimum wage that is enforced skews prices and takes opportunities from some and gives it to others. In other words the government is stealing from one group and giving it to another. It is a racket, like licensing laws that keep out other people. In our environment, it is an authoritarian attitude to think "I can determine what a basic life is for someone else". You can only determine what a basic life is for YOU. And even then, when push comes to shove, you may accept something even lower than what you expected to. "Living a basic life" is very arbitrary in the sense that: what we don't like, we can get used to. It is a moving target. It also depends on your knowledge of alternatives. If you don't have any better choices, it is the best choice. For instance, people can live with others and create arrangements that allow for lower cost of living and lower wages. In other words, people can change their baseline for "a basic life" based on the situation at hand. There are variabilities that are not taken into account with a blanket minimum wage enforcement ... or even its academic determination.
  10. Is immoral, agreed. What a king or Pope does is immoral. Now let us talk employer employee. is between two people with specific conditions between them. It is not trying to convince someone to adopt altruism, it is a negotiating tactic. One offers lower until something is accepted in the end. At this point, that attack is on negotiating tactics and on gambling. It would make saying "common, you know I can do better, lower the price" an immoral statement too. Isn't gambling what we all do at any moment of our life? It can't be immoral or outlawed, it is life. No matter how a just a society evolves, haggling, negotiating, trying to push the price down has to be part of the economic process. Pushing the price down is a gamble, sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. Negotiating and haggling is part of the competitive process in the market and without competition there is no valid price. Ultimately the problem with the minimum wage is that it is anti competitive. The idea that competition is immoral (one should not be free to compete). So ... The 15 dollars is arbitrary one size fits all is also anti competition And yet we can't get away from the fact that it is competition that ultimately determines the price of anything. In that sense, the minimum wage is immoral.
  11. This is browbeating, shaming, guilt inducing but it does not eliminate the other person's ability to judge, to think, to choose. If this is aggression then there would be no free speech. This is an attempt at persuasion. Am I missing something? If it were true of course there it would be perfectly ok. If it were untrue, only if there is a power relationship, a overwhelming dependency, this would be okay. Peter Keating's mother perhaps. It certainly is ugly. One could also claim that these actions are agression. Except they don't remove the (victim) person's capability to judge. It seems like you are saying that "ugly", distasteful interactions, someone yelling without a proper reason, would be immoral. Immoral in the sense of inappropriate, uncalled for, unwanted. If so, then I would be wrong. This could be true if we take immoral to mean those things. I don't have an objection. But Objectivism may have an issue with it as I think in OPAR, Peikoffs defines morality to deal with important issues, not pedantic ones. I don't know what the threshold is. But bottom line, in all these cases, is the supposed victim not responsible for the next decision that they will make? Based on the interaction. Are they influenced in such a manner they are rendered incapable of making an objectively good decision?
  12. I argue the opposite. All immoral manipulation is aggression. Otherwise it is not immoral. Aggression is the differentiation (and the immorality). It also indicates that Immoral manipulation is a subspecies of agression. The key to identification of aggression is if the act causes the other person to lose their natural and necessary survival faculties. If you prevent them from seeing, knowing, analysing, that is agression. Fraud is causing them to "know" what is NOT true, or preventing them from knowing what they would have naturally known without another's interference. There may be individual case judgement necessary rather than blanket rules. Bullying may be agression if the person is purposefully persuaded to think there is a gun to their head and can't make a proper decision. Terror has to be judged in a case by case basis as some things would terrify someone and not another. If it is clear that the employer is actively and overwhelmingly confusing someone to get a deal it would be immoral. Otherwise if the employee is very afraid of their future of not having the job, the employer's offer is moral and the final contract is moral. In other words, agression is not just physical force. It would include inserting a drug someone's in drink to get them to do what they would not normal choose to do.
  13. Notice the phrases this is bad for your business less effective employees you would have a hard time retaining employees These all refer to long term self interest of the employer and would be a valid moral reason to pay enough to prevent the particular problem with a particular employee. But a minimum wage is not about a particular employee, it is a blanket policy regarding all potential employees, good, bad, deserving or undeserving. There are more details. The words advantage and manipulation similar to the word selfishness has a reflexive negative connotation. And comparable to selfishness, manipulation has multiple connotations too. Basically, there are two types of manipulation. There is the type that is aggression (immoral), the type that takes away the other person's ability to voluntarily make a choice. The other type of manipulation is "persuasion". When you convince someone with valid understandable facts. It is the "okay" version, the legitimate type. In business the saying is "successful communication is successful manipulation". "Morally speaking", a person, should take advantage of their opportunities. An opportunity usually is an advantage. If the opportunity is immoral, then it involves aggression, threat, fraud, or robbery and would be immoral. If the other party has less negotiation skills, or less choices, there is no blanket overall moral directive, duty or principle that the advantage must be forfeited. As to the statement regarding advantage if some changes were made (would like to know your objections): "Morally speaking, an employer should not take "immoral" advantage of their employees or potential employees. That would at least indicate what kind of advantage referred to. But as it stands, it is a blanket moral statement that by default includes all types of taking advantage (aggression or non). Another way would be if one says "an employer should not take advantage of their employees or potential employees in a particular situation where it is not to their own long term interest", it could work too, again not a blanket statement.
  14. Agree to what? Robbery? Fraud? Cutting a horses head and putting it in their bed to get the deal? That type of (agreement) taking advantage is immoral. Why? Because it is not a voluntary agreement. In a voluntary agreement, a transaction between two people, it is fair to take advantage (subjectively, in your own mind) as long as you have not tricked them, robbed them, or threatened them. To the best of their knowledge, they gave you a good deal. In fact it is your moral obligation to find your advantages and to "exploit" them. Many times one gains an advantage without knowing it and finding out after the fact. Are you implying that you should go back and refund them the difference? No, a deal has to be a deal. If not ownership can't be determined. It was fair yesterday, it is not fair today. Usually taking advantage is based on superior knowledge. You may know that if a seller had researched more, or waited longer, another buyer would have paid them more. It is to your benefit, and it is a moral requirement for you to be silent about the existence of your competition. It is the seller's responsibility to become more skilled at transacting and to find or create your competition just as it is your responsibility to find their competition to get a better deal. As a store owner, you may know that the guy next door will sell the same thing for less. You may argue that the moral thing to do is to tell a prospective buyer. No the moral thing is to offer it, and if accepted by the buyer, take the money. Of course from a marketing standpoint, it is now to your self interest to drop the price because most people will do a little shopping. The problem is that you are making Socialist arguments.You don't realize that you are in fact promoting needs based valuation. Based on that I can't know what you believe or don't so I have to emphasize the basics. Based on what? According to whom? If the person refuses to go lower than an amount, then that is the threshold. Otherwise, you are talking intrincism implying there is a specific value emanating from the service offered or the goods that are offered (and everyone sees this specific value). To spell it out: The unfairness I am talking about is a perspective of a third person with his own valuations. Rather than the valuation agreed to by the transactors. Person X has ten oranges and person Y has ten apples. X gives 2 oranges and gets 5 apples. You as a third person who likes apples more than oranges, will have the perspective that X took advantage of Y, even though between themselves, they are fine with the deal. Or alternatively, based on equal amount based fairness, as a third person one could say it was not fair, it should have been 2 oranges for 2 apples. But person Y likes oranges far more than apples. And person X is okay with it. Person X IS NOT obligated to tell Y, hey, let me give you two more so it is fair? Successful business, and moral action, is in fact finding and taking advantage of these types of (supposedly unfair) advantages. Finally, one of the highest virtues (rarely mentioned) in any human being is the act of "Shopping Around".
×
×
  • Create New...