Easy Truth

If we live in a world where people don't all live "the right way", does that mean "the right way" is irrelevant?

I had trouble understanding the Venn diagram myself, but regarding your statement, if it is in A's interest to go North, and B's to go South, isn't that a non-overlapping interest? That would have no conflict in it. I say this because I thought you were making the case that overlapping interests means "a conflict" in the making. But i did enjoy your research from Smith, trying to absorb it. We have to differentiate conflict of interest, in the area of perpetual vs. non perpetual. There are some conflicts of interest where "the system" will not allow it to be solved i.e. it has evil or corruption. A society with slavery has conflict of interest built in. A cannibalistic society also has conflict of interest built in, even though there are friendships in it "sometimes". A monarchy has conflict on interest built in. In all these cases, conflict of interest is perpetual. I take Merjet's fundamental argument as being "if we take what Rand said, with the common meaning, she would be wrong". If so, we all agree with that. Is "being rational" this procedure? Or is there more to it? From what I am gathering, there are optional values ... but are these optional "rational" values? I mean are there "good values" that are not necessarily rational?

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 out on your own.

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 about "when the quality information will come your way". You sort of have to be receptive and open. Ignoring means close the door. You claim to be dismissive, yet you pay attention and you participate. So what you are saying (steer clear) is more nuanced than how it comes across.

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 include them). Peikoff was a great teacher, far more engaging that Branden. But I found Branden far more correct on psychological issues that Peikoff et. al. Ignore (in this case ignore completely) implies that their input has not been helpful at all in my life, and that is not the case. So I would have missed out on some of the benefits I gained, some better understanding. Kind of like, if this forum did not exist, would life go on, yes it would. But there is a wealth of knowledge here, there is concretization of concepts, explanations, different way of interpretation that one is exposed to. And clearing up of misunderstandings or confusion. But participation is so small compared to the half a million Objectivists that I assume exist in the world. (arbitrary assumption on my part)

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 ignore something Peikoff or Brooks said. I have to examine what I thought I didn't have to examine. That's what is distressing to me.

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 workers receive less money than what their labor is worth." Rand argues for a political/economic/civilization model in which demonstrates that the conflict is not a valid conflict i.e. in a laissez fair Capitalist system, this conflict is simply nonsensical. Similarly, "Problems become noticeable because the upper class is looking to get the most production possible for the least amount of money." would also indicate a conflict that does not exist. "Consider the relationship between the owner of a housing complex and a tenant in that same housing complex”. An Austrian economist “might suggest that the relationship between the owner and the tenant is founded on mutual benefit. In contrast, a conflict theorist might argue the relationship is based on a conflict in which the owner and tenant are struggling against each other." And sure enough "Social conflict theory is a Marxist-based social theory which argues that individuals and groups (social classes) within society interact on the basis of conflict rather than consensus." In Objectivism/Austrian economics, these conflicts don’t exist. In other words their (Marxist) ideologically based perspective observes a conflict that is not valid. The implication of the Marx’s analysis is that "conflict of interest among men" will be perpetual since bourgeoisie “domination” is itself a "conflict of interest". A Hegelian Dialectic progression that will never end. So they see Capitalism attempting to create law and order … through "conflict of interest" (i.e. domination and subjugation). In a free market society, by it’s nature, no one is dominating. This is seen as impossible in the Marxist view so Rand’s “no conflict of interest” is a refutation of the impossibility. Competition over limited resources (a normal free market operation for an Objectivist) is considered to be a state of “conflict of interest” by a Marxist, in fact, it a perpetual state of conflict of interest. So based on Marxist reasoning, (what an Objectivist would consider normal) as in a competitive market pricing allocation supply and demand based system with the inequality of outcome it produces is viewed as a perpetual conflict of interest. According to them rational agreements, between members, are not happening (perhaps because they are impossible in a Marxist perspective). As far as rationality goes, Irrational justice, or justice among irrational people, at best may refer to a momentary blip where these people were lucky and there was some justice. Perpetual is the key word that Rand uses specify conflict. Rand writes: "Only an irrationalist ... exists in a perpetual conflict of 'interests.' Not only do his alleged interests clash with those of other men, but they clash also with one another." (VOS, p. 58) The momentary aspect of “conflict” or “interest”, their not being in the long run has some relevance. Rand is to attacking the perpetual aspect of Marx’s formulation. Perpetuity is an implication that has been omitted from “conflict” but essential to gain a proper interpretation. Therefore, I would argue that in the context of refuting Marx’s argument, conflict refers to perpetual conflict. So whenever she says conflict, she means “perpetual conflict”, and no conflict means no perpetual conflict. It is obvious to any observer, that “no conflict” cannot mean absence of all conflict (as was observed in the thread). She is also attacking the Marxist idea that Capitalism. by its nature, is an exercise in dealing with “conflict of interest” via brute force, subjugation of the worker by the bourgeoisie. Finally, it is common sense that, rationality is at the core of eliminating “perpetual conflict of any kind”, including conflict over scarce resources. But in Marxism you are a product of your environment, so rationality has no import. This is currently is my most plausible interpretation of “no conflict of interest” among rational men which is her response to the Marxist notion an “inherent” perpetual conflict of interest exists among men in a Capitalist society. I think I am satisfied no and I'm letting it go. Thanks for helping get me here (all of you in the thread). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory https://learn.robinhood.com/articles/gzswQoUGEZSTPk9xcGS2T/what-is-conflict-theory/

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, it is fair ... and all in the long run". As in rational people would appreciate and push for laws, rights, justice, responsibility, etc. In broad strokes, that is reasonable/common sense, right? I suspect no one disagrees with that. The objections have been regarding the potential interpretations, because things can mean "long term" or temporary, or that "no conflict" would mean none at all. And from what I gather we all agree that those aspects or terminology are at a minimum ambiguous. But we don't disagree with the idea that rationality is good and conflicts (of any kind) certainly decrease because of it. So, now, I am trying to find out what was she arguing against.

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 disagreement should not come up (i.e. it is not real, just a psychological reaction). That similarly (actual and opinion) can apply to "no conflict of interest".

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 moment. This of course has to happen in uncoerced circumstances for it to be accepted as fair ... by rational people. That is the fair price, that is actual desert, that is what happens in Market A in my example. When a price is determined by a free market, this is what is meant by a good/fair/appropriate price, not the subjective opinion of a trader that has not made the trade. The ACTUAL price is not determined by a Marxist Central Planner, or you and I's opinion on what the price of the iphone is supposed to be. A free market should determine the price.

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 interest?

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 "interest" (ultimately meaning what you deserve objectively).

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. The "good/best" price can't be determined without such a fair process going on. And any calculation about the good price, or interest has to assume this ideal environment. So people who believe in Marxism, or Monarchy etc. don't have the ability to calculate an actual interest, and actual price, and actual determination of who deserves what.

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 suspect the fundamental recurring problem we have with her statement is "It is not guaranteed". As far as dual definitions goes, I understood it to mean multiple definitions that fit different contexts, but describing the same thing. It is actually the same single referent with a different identified contexts. If that is true, it is not limited to "dual".

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 market/human-contextual price" and I am holding the human-contextual price as "the good", vs. your formulation would amount to "the impossible". Your assessment of the interest you would be obtaining, based on the price you would be paying should prevent a conflict with another in a rational market. "It should". It was in fact a fair deal. In other words, you get a fair price in a fair market. So what would be there to have a conflict about?

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". Which if we "spell it out", interest ends up meaning, "opportunity/non-interference in acting toward flourishing". So a conflict in this case, would be interference in one's activity (by others), which to me ends up meaning infringement of rights. So "no conflict of interest", would mean no infringement of rights as in rational people would not infringe on rights (in principle). I would assume that all rational people would want "rights".

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.