Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Easy Truth last won the day on September 21 2021

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

2861 profile views

Easy Truth's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)



  1. Then is "an inherent political action" an interaction as in a human interaction? It seems it has to be a "rules based" agreement of some sort. The problem I run into is "An individual makes up a society", but "an individual is not a society". 2 or more people makes up a society and also is a society. Now is a political entity a subspecies of society?
  2. Then would the implication be that the objective basis for governance is some form of "safety"? And then is politics a study of "safeness"? I'm not looking for a yes or no, but a better formulation.
  3. I would agree with you Greg, but I would say that two represents the anarchist type of government. Unless you make a case that it does not qualify as a political system.
  4. But you wouldn't begin by knowing what is good for you in the domain of politics. Then how would you begin? You are bound by preferences, predefined preferences and they are at the core of value judgements. It's as if you're proposing that Politics is impersonal, like it shouldn't be about you. Then what is it about? And as for the smallest political unit, it has to start with 2 people, otherwise one would be talking about internal voices within the same person. (which I suppose one could make the case that some voices within the psyche have more authority than others etc.) In that case, and I have heard this case made, that politics is the study of "power". The dynamics of power, of its accumulation, of its projections, of defenses against it etc.
  5. I'm going by the definition of science where everything has to be demonstrated via experiments. Perhaps I should ask people what they mean by science first. What I am arguing is that things like deduction and induction are validated without experiments. Similarly, good governance should be discoverable based on philosophical inquiry. What I run up against are the areas where experiments have not been done but one can logically come up with the answer.
  6. I don't see any other way other than starting with what would be good for me. Why else would a body of knowledge be accumulated? There has to be a sense of how things should be like (and what shouldn't it be like) to be motivated to pursue any inquiry.
  7. Yes, but doesn't that confuse the delineation between science and philosophy? As in, saying that "biological purpose" is not a philosophical position but rather a scientific one? I would argue that I don't have to know the science behind biology, other than life exists and the fact that I am alive to come to the ethical conclusions that are necessary. Unless you are saying that knowing that life exists and knowing something about it's nature inherently is scientific.
  8. True, politics goes beyond how a particular society governs itself. Regarding family and governance being unrelated, I disagree very strongly. In fact, the way a family governs itself influences how people think of a government. This creates the tendency for people to push the idea that if we all treated everyone as family, then we wouldn't have any problems. Politics as a body of knowledge has to be concerned about "how to have functional or peaceful resolution to conflict". Otherwise, what is it concerning? If it were a study of how people interact, then wouldn't sociology take care of that?
  9. True, "not necessarily". The problem I have seen is that people push the idea that "science" can determine ethics while it's really the domain of philosophy. And in that sense I would argue that Objectivist Ethics is NOT scientific but rather philosophical as it should be. Keep in mind was was simply observing descriptively/objectively how the current thought process I see in discussion groups outside Objectivist circles. I am not advocating utilitarianism but I see it as been the predominant attack on Objectivism in general. You'd be surprised at some of the arguments I have heard. Primarily by people who say that without safety, there are no "rights". As in it's empirically demonstrable and then the conclusion is that authoritarianism is in fact necessary.
  10. Similar to "society" the most basic political unit has to be two people. The objective basis of politics is going to contain "methods by which people attempt to get along". Ultimately it's about "law and order" meanings the rules of conduct and the way they are attained or enforced. What is the purpose of governance? You can't divorce governance from the purpose of governance. There has to be a point to it. So, what's in it for me is relevant, and inevitably makes it normative. As in what type of governance would be good for me in the long run influences "what should be". If the consensus is that it has to be scientific, it seems that the answers we come up with are going to be utilitarian, as in what benefits the majority. Democracy becomes very attractive and is good until it becomes bad. Let us say 1000 people land on an island. What system of governance "should" they choose? What they will choose is based on their back ground, if most come from a monarchy (that met their needs for the most part), they will want an arbitrary strongman that they can support. If most have come from a rights respecting system (like a modern western nation), they will want that. So the actual makeup of the population muddies the water when coming up with what should be because it includes "what can we handle". After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was an opportunity for Liberty, but they could not handle it. Similarly Liberating Iraq or Afghanistan did not happen. There is a strong argument that many cultures "objectively" can't handle rights based governance, so then, what "should" governance look like in those cases? One obfuscated element is the idea that governance is to minimize conflict, but it goes too far since non violent competition is necessary. One can easily make the case that economic competition has to be freely exercised but many unfortunately disagree. Ultimately, the apparent purpose of government at a minimum, is "the method of minimizing violence". As Objectivists or even Libertarians, eliminating initiation of force covers that purpose of governance. But to determine "good governance" is slippery because many dysfunctional systems can have "enough" of a benefit to have support. Even in our system, one could say we have a "participatory fascist system" that is well tolerated and functional in many cases. But back to an objective basis. If you requested a survey of political systems, then you could go from how animals piss to indicate their territories to a constitution that respects individual rights. There is a continuum of "government of friends", i.e. functional anarchy to Somalia type gang warfare or any civil war. Therefore, after the survey, even within this Objective basis, you are inevitably inviting the normative i.e. a preference for a system. It starts with two people, and how they get along.
  11. Granted, the basic point is that the liability should be actionable rather than be non existent. In other words, it is a case of aggression.
  12. Wow Greg, was waiting for this argument. This is the perfect argument against nothing is real. (I assume that also applies if you are in a dream, that one can conclude existence exists even there). I think when people make the argument for simulation, they are claiming a "partial simulation". Like there is an existence but "you're perception of existence" is being simulated. And there, unless one has some evidence, it's simply arbitrary. In a sense, it's not a philosophical question anymore, it's more a scientific question.
  13. I'm confused about the OP asking about skepticism and then discussing arbitrary claims. The disproving of skepticism is that it is self refuting. The idea that one cannot know anything is refuted by "then how do you know that you can't know anything since you can't know it". Unless I misunderstood the question.
  14. Bottom line for me is that some think that Trump should be president. I don't. The gridlock we have in Washington is far better than the streamlined hyper spending we would have had with Trump. The Supreme court selection is unfortunate but most likely there would not have been a changeover if Trump had been elected. Elections have been stolen from us a long time ago and perpetually the case. Once you are in a corrupt system, living with the corruption means there are stolen elections and yet we go by the rules. I would go a along with making it better and better but again, I prefer the Gridlock we have.
  • Create New...