Easy Truth

What point are you trying to make?

I see, then I would conclude that "arbitrary" is a subspecies of "imaginable" rather than "possible". "Possible" has to go through verification of cause and effect. The Jist of the argument is that "Just because you can imagine it", does not mean that it is possible. (and the proof would be the law of identity and of causality) That argument did have some effect last night, the idea that everything is NOT possible is understandable to people. I want to hold it in my mind, for me, I need a sentence like: Imaginable without any indication and unverifiable. I understand that I should ignore an arbitrary statement. But I am concerned about being too quick to judge something as arbitrary. There is a difference between refuting "anything is possible" vs. "there are things that don't make sense to me that are possible". There is past "evidence" of things that did not seem possible that ended up being possible. At a minimum: Arbitrary is a subspecies of "Imaginary" Or must a person not even imagine an arbitrary? There are categories of arbitrary: "A blirk will always swoobjat all kobutabees" Is arbitrary, meaningless. (I just made it up)` The meaning is inconceivable, let alone verifiable. "The bricks in my walls know what I am doing" Is arbitrary, has an imaginable meaning, but can't pass through the filter of the law of causality (when imagining it, one sees it happening (doesn't that imply some variety of possible?)) Is there two kinds of "possible", like possible in the mind vs. metaphysically possible? To determine if it is actually possible, doesn't one have to "assume" that it is possible to determine how it could be verified? If so, considering it arbitrary (and not allowing the possibility of "possible") does not allow that phase of analysis. Regarding:(evidence includes what you know to be possible) There is a problem in the area of incorporating new knowledge. If what I know to be possible is the arbiter of what can be included in my mind, then truths that I don't know or understand can never get in. I suppose you will emphasize that even a shred of evidence should give it a foothold to go through more validation. When cavemen saw birds fly and they imagined that they could fly, was the idea of "human flight" arbitrary at that point? (or was the fact that birds could fly a shred of evidence that it is possible for man to fly?)

Air on earth is too plentiful to own. But on a spaceship, going to mars, inhabitants of the ship can only be allotted air that is theirs (that they can use unmolested etc.). The same issue with ocean water exists. I believe it is the basis for the "tragedy of commons" problem, the inability to own (because it is too plentiful).

Last night I was in a discussion on Objectivism's View on Atheism and the "Brain in the Vat" argument came up which got me interested in this thread (again). From what I see, the main argument against it is the fact that it is arbitrary which has always been difficult for me to hold mentally. From what I have gathered, arbitrary is a subspecies of possible. Possible is: Arbitrary is: Possible without any indication and unverifiable

My understanding is that, to "own" something, it has to be rare enough to own. And in the case of looking at something, granted, there is no labor there, no justification for ownership. But a particular, bounded, identifiable piece of information is rare enough to own. Since as Objectivists, we don't respect the notion of a "collective brain", I just thought that subpoena power is an argument for the creation or enforcement of such an "anti-individual rights collective brain" which I would have thought Objectivism clearly opposes. After all, there is such a thing as "my" information vs. "your" information. It all seems to belong to "them". Meanwhile, there is the other argument regarding subpoena power that "if I were in their shoes, I would hope that people would come forth and give information that would help me." (more of a reciprocal ethics motivation which I find has some utility but seems to be strongly rejected as an ethical guide in other threads). As you said, it would depend on many other things too.

If I say that I am using, or disposing of the information that I have, because I have the "rights to it", isn't that an indication of ownership?

I suppose one can make the case that "leaving someone's" premised (after having been invited), is part of the fabric of rights or implied rights. Kind of the like the right to "not talk back to someone that is talking to you". There seems to be an implied right to "ignore". But a subpoena implies government is the other party. Is there an implicit right to "ignore" a request for information, where there was no contractual obligation to do so? (I may use legal terms without knowing it, I am not a lawyer) I go back to the idea that with "a government" as opposed to "a person", there is a definite contractual relationship. Otherwise, the government has no right to do that. Let us say a foreign government, grabs you and interrogates you based on "might is right". It is not your government and you have no obligation to cooperate.

I am almost sure that we all agree that a injustice remains an injustice even after multiple generations. An injustice does not suddenly lose its identity because of time. It does not age gracefully into becoming justified. There is no moral requirement to solve all problems due to finite resources. A problem can change from being a problem to a non-problem when it is not a current obstacle to a goal/need. But a past injustice remains a historically recorded fact. A problem (as with an injustice) by definition is something that needs to be solved. The only reason that they don't (or shouldn't) get solved is due to the hierarchy of values. The moral principle countering it would be to "get the most important things done first", based on the reality that our time is limited. When there is no cost, fixing an injustice is going to be the right thing to do. A cost-benefit analysis is what seems to shift the moral direction/option.

It is a continuum at the heart of current defense spending discussions. I would agree with both of you. Based on the amount of military spending and the number of military bases the continuum seems to be weighted more heavily toward "react based on what the other guy says" than based on what he does (or can do).

Then when you have rights, that implies "no moral requirement (and thus no political requirement) that every rights violation be fixed"? Is this the alienable brand? What I am hearing in that statement is: "Sometimes it is okay when people steal from you". I doubt that is what you mean. I would argue that in principle there is that requirement. It just can't be done in practice.

One is man-made (in fact mixing of labor with the land) I wonder if that indicates ownership/responsibility. Once you own a car and it rolls and crashes into something, you are responsible.

Then according to Rand the act of "refusing" can be an exercise of a type of force. (but it refers to refusal when you don't have the right to) Which supports the idea that refusal is an exercise of force. So entering into a society give one a right to certain information from others? (as it is needed for one's survival?). If one does not give people permission to leave their premises after they were given the right to enter, very few will visit other people. I assume some societies may choose to have that type of "system"/culture. (you know ahead of time that entering has a very high risk (although dysfunctional and inefficient)) The implication is that some societies may decide that you initially "own" all the information you have, and others may universally agree that you don't "own it". Isn't this going to an agreed on (perhaps voted on) issue per government? At that point, people would add as part of their agreements that you are giving away some of your privacy by entering in this contract. In other words, couldn't refusing to obey a subpoena in a certain Objectivist country be considered a violation and not in another Objectivist country? Furthermore, an Objectivist/Minarchist country, you pay for legal protection, and that comes with an agreement. If you have agreed that the court system owns some of the information that you have/or that you would cooperate in a certain way, then not obeying the subpoena would be a breach of contract and an absolute violation. One would probably lose all police and legal protection at that point. There are cultures that are very privacy oriented and bend over backward to have privacy as their highest value. Clearly, they give up something for that but I am not sure if it is involuntary.

But when does one's right to self-defense kick in. Only after, you got hit or stabbed or worse? (is that the only way force is identified?) Isn't identification of threat relevant to one's safety? Doesn't what an enemy says make "some" difference? Doesn't what a potential assailant says have some relevance to how you should protect yourself?

I'm going mostly after the way it was phrased and I think you agree with me. I just want to make sure that (new readers) understand that is not a complete disregard/disdain of everyone. (I maintain that neither you nor I nor anyone on this forum has a complete disregard for other's opinions or we would not try to have proper grammar). I would not have brought it up if the statement said: If your inquiry into Objectivism is earnest, you will find that rational egoism disregards subjective opinions of others, and instead, focuses on truth as based on verifiable evidence, and the pursuit of one's personal happiness without conflicting with the truth. (Sorry to rehash the reasons) ... Reason being: 1. "Disregard for a subjective analysis, as expressed by another person ", refers to a subset of all opinions. 2. How does one find out if their opinion is subjective vs. objective when there is a complete disregard for it? A complete disregard does not allow identification (of subjective or objective) to take place. 3. It is only when phrased as "disregard for some opinions" based on some logic, it becomes valid. When the implication is that everyone (past present future) has nothing of value to contribute then the statement loses validity. Examples of Hedonistic would be when one feels comfort in shutting others out without any principles behind it. No thought behind it, it just feels good to ignore, pay no attention to the existence of others. Narcissistic may also include an unadmitted fear of truths (from others) that may be painful.

Isn't disregarding any (and all) concern for the opinions of others irrational. Isn't it narcissistic, selfish in the negative sense? (Maybe hedonistic for that matter) It must be a disregard for certain opinions, or opinions at a certain stage of the argument, there must be some limited specification. Choosing to have NO awareness of what others think or feel is not survival qua man.

Agreed, also found this quote from the Random Quotes on this website which would confirm the conclusion about the US but not some of the friends of the US: Ayn Rand There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule; executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses; the nationalization or expropriation of private property; and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

I want to be sure that I understood this correctly. So an individual is not free from "others' value judgments" would mean value judgments that have no harmful "acting out". In other words, others are free to have negative thoughts or feelings towards you, until and unless it manifests itself as infringing on your rights. A question that comes up is: Can a negative thought expression, coming across as a threat, be considered force? Or a threat of force? If it does, it can give credence to the idea that government forcing a societal change in attitude (value judgments) is a moral option. And yet, isn't any ethics based on that?

Most people hear an "opposition to regulation" to mean "ignoring fraud". One fundamental problem with arguing successfully against regulation is not coming across like you are advocating the absence of "the rule of law". The advocate of Capitalism has to quickly assure that objection to regulation is not against fraud or the police or judicial system. Pollution is an infringement of someone's rights. Joe did bring up that fact that it was illegal to pollute. The idea that an insurance company would not insure/certify is not commonly accepted as a solution due to the diseased intertwining of government and insurance system, there is no example of complete of private regulation, only partial private regulation. They think a regulatory bureaucracy (which is familiar) does a better job than a competing set of insurance companies (chaos). Most people would be against, prior restraint of voluntary contracts that don't harm. It's the determination of harm that is the disagreement. It is hard for them to envision, but I submit that it is hard for us to envision and explain privatized "regulating". And that is the crux of the problem. We don't demonstrate the way that the system should work through art or even computer simulation.

I would accept the gift to spite him. How are you going to determine where opportunities exist if you choose to be blind to that? "You didn't build it" (from Obama et. al) is basically another way of saying that you inherited it without making any effort to produce it. As in you inherited it from the people who came before and made it easy for you to ... But there seems to only be a view that inheritance is a gift from someone who is conscious. Isn't it one of two definitions: 1. Someone giving it to you 2. The government giving it to you based on (?tradition? etc) What is the moral principle behind the government giving it to you based on genetic association?

For reference: An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . . One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad—undesirable, socially destructive, evil—something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country—which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat, protesting that they didn’t mean it. Mean—what? . . . It is doubtful—even in the midst of today’s intellectual decadence—that one could get away with declaring explicitly: “Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!” (though some men have tried it). If, however, one declares; “Don’t let us polarize,” and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means: the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.

Ok, then let's try another one: Slave owner A creates vast properties based on the labor or Slaves X, Y and Z. Slave owner A has descendants now. Slaves X, Y and Z also have descendants too. Should (X, Y and Z)'s descendants have a right to sue for the property inherited by the descendants of A? Or omitting the legalities: Should the descendants of the slaves (that did not exist at the time of slavery) get compensated for the crimes of slave owner A, who does not exist anymore?

"The criminal builds up a precarious image of himself as a unique and superior human being by tearing others down and preying on their vulnerability. His “self-esteem” is based on pretensions and conquests. Put another way, having made choices to take a particular path in life, the criminal has no basis other than his own pretensions to “feel good” about himself." from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201102/note-the-criminal-and-low-self-esteem

I would argue that theft is immoral based on the fact that it does not allow a person to thrive (particularly regarding one's social needs (qua man)). To be yourself, fully, or shall I say, to be able to be yourself fully, is a great gift. Not having to hide from anyone, no fear, no shame is a privilege to be fully conscious (in a psychological sense). To survive by doing what you and others think is unjust is going to invite contempt, from others. Some will argue that one can escape contempt from others by escaping them physically. But contempt from oneself has no escape. It follows you everywhere. One way to deal with it is through drugs, alcohol and other addictive processes. One can live a life of wealth by looting, but one cannot live a life of inner freedom, the full sense of safety to enjoy. For those who don't have (or don't choose to have) an understanding of that, or can't appreciate that fact, the ultimate in life is not possible to them and they are more likely to be antisocial or dangerous as friends which also causes rejection. People talk about the need for self-esteem, but usually, there is far less talk of the pleasures based on self-esteem. The freedom from guilt and shame that allows a full experience of any pleasure, be it triumph, sex, sensuality, a vacation, friendship or just plain relaxation.

Turns out there is a whole thread on this subject.

Granted, the role of government in this scenario muddies the water, but I am arguing that "what ultimately should be", as in "the deserving" student does not get what he deserved (based on merit and innocence re. slavery). And the fundamental reason, the justification for affirmative action, is the debt that "some" owe due to the heinous institution of slavery that once existed. (in a prior government committed by the particular owners/dealers etc.) The problem is also due to the fact that it is a one size fits all law, not a "case by case" based outcome.