Easy Truth

I honestly wish I could do it, because it is nerve wracking for me. I just question the wisdom. You may have more sources of information than I do, that may allow you to be less "dependent" in a sense. I really learnt alot from the Wolf program from Yaron, but his comments about "look at how he sneers", " he's a horrible person", I ignore. But all in all, I have also learnt a lot from Wolf in his Libertarian debate at Soho, about the problems with Crony Capitalism. So I feel "ignore" has to be carefully qualified. Ignore when you see X, Y and Z. Rather than stay away, you can figure it ou

I was under the impression that you were an admirer because I see 2046 in the chat system. Agreed Rand herself started this with the excommunications that would routinely happen. And then it continued with the institute. But I have discounted that, as I believe most of us have. The work that she has done stands on its own. In that sense I would agree, one can ignore the noise around her. Having said that ... how would any of us have known that she had major character flaws if we had ignored all those people around her. The reason I bring this up is that we have no choice a

Ignoring is not impossible, it's just not preferred. As in, it is not impossible to ignore them, I value their opinion. Problem is, as you say they are human and they make mistakes. Ogden's signal to noise ratio is my complaint. I want them to cut the noise, the muddying the water, the confusion they insert in the discussion. I wanted Yaron's speech on Wolf the socialist (and Wolf is frightening) but I meet people like Wolf all the time and I learn from Yaron how to counter things. I also learn how distracting some of Yaron's emotional comments are (and to make sure to not inclu

One way or the other isn't it via induction? (experiencing some form of repeating "essence") The other question that comes to mind, is there is the "valid" or "validated" concept, vs. just a concept. Or is there no difference? Even memorization is going to involve repetition, artificial repetition, not exactly inference but forced association vs. "figured out/concluded". As far as I can remember, the fundamental question about formation of concepts (from a normative perspective) was how many times do you have to see it for it to be valid. Is that correct?

I suppose it may be a false expectation that things have been thought through, "rational", so the bickering has been ringed out of it. The chaos and bickering in nascent, non-thought out philosophies, is standard, expected and not finding solutions is par for the course. Objectivism, certainly in abstract areas, areas that Boydston mentioned is pretty solid and complete. There is no bickering there. The more concrete on gets, i.e. practical application, it starts looking almost like all previously validated principles are now suspect. As far as ignoring goes, I can't simply

I just wonder if the purges are going to start again at the Ayn Rand institute. I guess time will tell. Although the Branden thing was a major hit. Objectivists had to take sides etc.. Hopefully you are right about this. It certainly is the philosophy that has effected me the most and I support, but times like these requires some adaptation that I wish was not required.

Although it is significant in that the same divisions that exist amongst us and the country exist in the Ayn Rand Institute. In hind sight, maybe 10 years from now, the reasons why will be discovered. The other issue is that Peikoff has now said that Yaron Brook is crazy. Again another disturbing turn of events. I suspect the biggest loser in this election is going to be Objectivism.

Karl Marx argued that competition over limited resources was inherent in society and framed it as a perpetual conflict of interest of the members of that society. Marx’s theory of exploitation of the working class in capitalist societies is summed up with a ruling bourgeoisie and an oppressed proletariat are not interacting using rational means (voluntary agreements). “The bourgeoisie maintains social order through domination rather than agreement.” This state of affairs is considered a constant conflict of interest going on in society … not voluntary trading. "Exploitation: when wor

We have to be careful because we are getting caught up in analogies and metaphors. I don't know how to communicate, using price and plan metaphors in combination. The closest thing I can come up (based on my understanding of Rand) using your labels, would be "actual interest", would refer to "what you want, which takes into consideration that (it is right to want it) it is the right thing to want" i.e. a rational person would want the right thing. And when rational people want the right thing, conflict goes away. This would end up including "you deserve it, it is just, it is proper,

Clearly an ethical question, but how do you see it in the terms of "conflict of interest"? Internal conflict or between people?

Yes, that has to be the case, it is the only way that it makes sense.

The issue arose when actual interest was questioned. What is the nature of actual interest? To determine actual interest objectively, not opinion one has to have an environment that would provide that. The disagreement about asking or selling price can be arbitrary, it can be a lie as in I am willing to sell lower but i will ask for a higher price. But that is not the objective price of something. So it has always been irrelevant in this discussion. People disagree about the price they paid, (the actual price) when they discover some unfairness. In a fair trade, that disagreemen

Of course not, because I said price. Then take my example. Since we both place a different price on an iPhone, is it because we don't yet know what the actual price is? Or is it because there is no such thing as actual price? Is it because of another reason? That actual price is the price paid when the voluntary exchange happens. That's why it's called actual. What you describe "we both place a different price" is not actual, just because we "place" a price. An offer is not a price. An ask for is not a price. The exchange, the ACTUAL exchange determines the ACTUAL price at that mome

Yes, I have seen the following too "When a person reaches the stage of claiming that man’s interests conflict with reality, the concept “interests” ceases to be meaningful—and his problem ceases to be philosophical and becomes psychological" (VOS, p. 47) Seems like she may be attacking the idea that there is a conflict of interest between man and reality (which I would suspect all of us agree with -- it is meaningless). Does Marxism hold that reality or a society is perpetual conflict of interest? Or that the reality of society i.e. the nature of society necessitates conflict of inte

Yes, a "single" class of referents. What was pointing out as referent was the same/single concept that the multiple definitions refer to. One single concept with multiple definitions. (which I have also asked why "dual", not multiple) In other words, multiple definitions can't mean there are multiple concepts too.

Are you saying value or valuation is unidentifiable? As if the "objective" value of something does not exist? Indeterminable? Unknowable? I'm suspecting you have a misunderstanding about the nature of a free market. If so, think of a fair market, a just market. I say this because it seems like you are ultimately saying that a free market is not a fair market. If so, the conflict of interest is inevitable. Rand's "No conflict of interest" could never be the truth. Is that what you are arguing? Conflict of interest can only be avoided/eliminated if there is such a thing as a fair

Price disparities with "what"? When two people are haggling, I assume you would agree that "that is not the conflict we are talking about" (some may say that is a conflict). I am saying if the haggling, the competition was fair, then the price arrived at is fair. It is as fair as possible. That is as good as it gets. If the process is not fair, or if the actors are not rational, you could get a price that is NOT as fair as it gets. That is the best price I am talking about. That is why I rely on a free market to support the ACTUALLY fair/good/proper/moral/correct price.

Another way of looking at it might be "What form of society does not create victims? Or actual sacrifices?" A conflict of interest that won't be fixed/addressed/healed is going to produce a victim. Rational men address these conflicts (rationality) preventing victims. But I see a problem with that formulation in that it implies "conflict of interest" can exist in the first place (to be dealt with). Most of us seem to want it to have a specifier like "big" or "long term" or "essential" conflicts of interest. I believe Rand said "Rational Men Would do the right thing". I susp

But a legitimate free market, one where rights are respected, justice applied, is the fairest possible market. Yes, in the real world, rational people don't know everything and in their limited context could make a deal that is worse than if they had been omniscient. Knowing that "there is no better way" to come up with a fair price, rational people would and should find the prices as "good/fair/moral" prices. Unless, you know how people can come up with the "perfect price". Then when you say disparity, you are saying disparity between "the perfect/omniscient price" vs "the free

You see, I don't have formal philosophy education and I don't follow it in an academic way. I am simply trying to apply the knowledge, but I don't understand it so I've mentioned it in this forum hoping that someone does understand it and can explain it to me. If it is permanently unintelligible, then it implies it does not make sense, meaning it will never make sense. But is that what you are saying? She uses "interest" unequivocally to describe the scope of one's good or wellbeing in life. I assume scope means "space or opportunity for unhampered motion, activity, or thought

I was hoping you would have expanded your definition to deal with the issues I brought up. Conflict of interest is about a conflict between 2 or more people. It is a conflict within a society. Getting your needs satisfied does not correspond to "conflict of interest".

The assumption is that she is correct in her observation/description. If she was mistaken, I would agree, we would never know what she meant. But if she is correct, then we should be able to determine what she meant.

I like the direction you are going before you see me try to poke holes in. I would say you have to include some element of "fairness" in there. Two or more people have these "needs"/necessities. Where does the competition/conflict fit in? How do you eliminate the conflict of these needs? Or when does this conflict not exist at all. In the face of scarcity, conflict of X does not exist.

A free market is a system where rights are respected and trades are made voluntarily without initiation of force by anyone. It is through this system, with rational actors, that you will see the good/ideal/best trades take place. And in such a system, an actual "good" can be determined. Once irrationality is mixed in with the system, be it in administering a free market (which means a semi to no free market), or with actors that are irrational and don't determine good trades, actual Desert cannot be determine. Pricing will not correspond to what you or they actually deserve. The p

The idea that "no conflict of interest" exists means NONE of something and we are trying discover what that something is. Using 2046's observation, whatever definition we discover has to work with her system, so I used her version of the free market. In a marxist system, without the concept of pricing, how do you determine what your ACTUAL deserved fair share is? You can't. As Swig says, they are all inter-related Justice, Rights, Desert ... and interest. You can't have actual interest, when there is no actual Justice.