gags
-
Posts
1755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by gags
-
-
I accept as a moral principle that it is never proper for the government to violate rights. The reason I asked the question above is that I wondered if you had a different take on the phone tap issue. Am I correct in assuming that you don't?
-
-
IAmMetaphysical, are someone's rights being violated if their conversations with suspected terrorists are being taped by the government without a warrant?
-
JMSnow, this is something that I've been noticing with greater frequency. There seems to be a growing inability to distinguish crucial moral differences. If Bush wiretaps suspected foreign terrorists, he’s supposedly establishing a fascist police state and using the Constitution as toilette paper. If he takes pre-emptive action against an outlaw nation run by a genocidal madman, he’s trying to secure more oil supplies for his rich friends and doesn’t give two shakes about the cost in American blood and treasure. I’m no big fan of Bush, but he can’t do anything without being accused of having the most evil motives and intentions. I doubt that he goes to bed at night thinking about how to best exterminate the greatest number of Muslims. Those who accuse him of being a modern-day Hitler have absolutely no sense of moral proportion.
Perhaps our entire culture is being adversely affected by the philosophical implosion that has been occurring on the Left for at least the last three decades. The Left is increasingly obsessed with moral equivalence, which in turn leads to nihilism. As evidence of this, I point to a couple of recent movies from Hollywood. From what I can gather (I haven’t seen either movie, they’ve been described to me), both "Syriana" and "Munich" depict Muslim terrorists as people with whom we can relate. The idea is that if we could all just stop shooting at each other for 5 minutes, we’d find we have many things in common with the suicide bombers. Give me a break.
As far as your father’s comments are concerned, you clearly have different views of your childhood. You may have hit on at least part of the answer in your explanation #1 above. I think it’s fairly common to have the things that a parent does to a child leave a far bigger impression on the kid than on the parent. I know when my dad would scream at me and/or get out his belt, it scared the living hell out of me. Strange, but to this day my mother insists that I was a little angel and they never had to discipline me. Go figure.
-
Graatz, I'll deal mainly with your examples.
So what if Exxon refuses to research alternative energy (assuming that your claim is true)? There is plenty of incentive for other companies to develop alternative sources of energy. When the technology becomes feasible, perhaps Exxon will get involved with it and perhaps they won't. How does this demonstrate a failing of Capitalism?
As for the brake drum example, did you ever consider that American consumers might not be interested in paying the extra cost associated with brake drums that never wear out? Given that most replacement brake drums aren't even produced by the "Big 3" American car companies, there is somethig wrong with your logic. Also, if this is something consumers are willing to pay for, why don't the Japanese offer indestructible brake drums?
Regarding segregation, I think you would find that racism and segregation would be much less common in an LFC society than in one where we have a mix of capitalism and socialism. When people deal with each other as traders, there is little incentive to be an irrational racist. However, when the government distorts markets, racism and segregation often thrive.
Oh and by the way, Ayn Rand died in 1982, several years before the fall of the USSR.
-
That's excellent. How long have you been drawing?
-
Nerd, I read your blog on Wagoner and GM. Excellent!
By the way, I recall during the Hillary Clinton health care fiasco that the Big 3 were some of the most enthusiastic corporate supporters of a national health care system. They clearly wanted the American people to bail them out of the years and years of bad deals they had struck with the United Auto Workers. Shameful, IMO.
-
I haven't seen it yet but I've heard some claims that the movie is "racist" because of its portrayal of the African natives. Is there even a sliver of truth to that?
-
As for unions raising wages, all one has to do is look at the American auto industry. Unions did raise wages-rates there. Sometimes the "short term" is not that short; it can last years. My guess is that if the UAW were to miraculously disappear, Detroit would be an automotive boomtown. Not only would the "big three" be better off, but Toyota and the others would be setting up shop in the Detroit area.
What you say about the UAW is likely true. However, much of the blame for the current plight of the domestic auto industry rests on the shoulders of management. The execs at GM, DCX and Ford have buckled to union demands for years, thinking that it's cheaper to pay off the union than to endure a strike. Now GM and Ford have a $2,500 per car cost disadvantage compared to the foreign makers. Unfortunately both GM and Ford may need to go bankrupt to change their cost structures.
-
Mention the high suicide rates in Sweden and wonder if they aren't the result of the last vestiges of capitalism remaining in that country.
-
I'm by no means certain about this, but asking her seems like a bad idea at this time. She has already demonstrated that she doesn't want to be smothered or pursued and this smells like both to me. I don't claim to have any special insight into the mind of the average female. However, given what some of the ladies on this site have said, it seems that backing off now and maybe talking to her about it later would be a better approach.This is excruciating to me, you could speculate forever as to why she isn't into you but you probably won't know unless she tells you. So why not ask her? -
Congratulations Hak. When are you sending out the cigars?
-
Yes, absolutely. Assuming you did a good job on the assignment, your instructor has revealed herself to be an intellectually dishonest slug. There is no sense in further sacrificing your grade by writing something that is perfectly reasoned and logical. She apparently prefers the opposite.Should I glorify Sweden? -
I assume most people would say that a "right to privacy" was being violated. Perhaps the government is conducting some form of unreasonable search and seizure by listening to phone conversations? Although in this case it appears that there was reasonable cause in the sense that the conversations took place between persons inside the US and foreigners suspected of having terrorist ties. What are your thoughts on it?But the question that remains unanswered is, what right is being violated by wiretapping. This is a real question, and I don't see that it's obvious what that right is, even though I have many feelings and some thoughts on the matter.
Agreed, with the key phrases being "In this context" and "as a principle".In this context -- considering that not every injustice committed by a government is a violation of rights -- it remains true that it is never proper for a government to violate rights. And, it is never practical, as a principle. -
This hypothetical has become a bit of a cliche, but what about a situation where the government apprehends a suspected terrorist within the United States? Assume there is reliable information that he's involved in a plot to destroy a large American city and this will cause millions of deaths within a few short hours. Given this context, would you insist that the suspect's rights be assiduously observed despite what is likely to occur? Or, would you allow the man to be tortured to extract information that could avert a disaster?Violating rights is never practical.
Thanks for the quote Felipe, it's helpful.The answer is that it is never acceptable for a government to violate individual rights. Rights are either respected, or they are not. Here is Ayn Rand's view on the question:
Does the idea that our government should never violate an individual's rights extend to all people in all locations, just US citizens, only people within US borders, etc...? The reason I ask is not because I don't understand the meaning of the word never (my font is biggerAt the risk of being redundant, it is never proper for the government to violate an individual's rights.
), but because it seems to me that this sort of extension of rights to everyone makes it nearly impossible for us to fight and win the war against Islamic fundamentalism.
-
It's never proper? It isn't too hard to think up scenarios where an individual's rights might need to be violated in order to avert a terrorist or other attack. It seems to me that in a time of war or national emergency, there may be occasions when it is simply impractical to observe everyone's rights completely. Of course I'm not saying that all rights go out the window during wartime, but don't practical considerations come into play at some point?The short answer is that it is never proper for the government to violate rights. -
Over the weekend, President Bush admitted that the super-secret National Security Agency (NSA) has been surveiling telephone conversations and e-mails of some US citizens without obtaining warrants. The phone conversations have at least one international leg and are also connected with suspected terrorists and/or associates of Al Qaeda . Apparently this type of surveillance has been going on for some time now, as there was a "60 Minutes" story back in 2000 about a similar program. The usual group of civil libertarians and Democrats are now screaming bloody murder about these activities.
In an Objectivist society, under what conditions would it be appropriate for the government to violate our privacy and other rights? Would it only be acceptable in times of war, or are there other circumstances which would make such actions by the government permissible?
-
The Isrealis should have known better than to concede anything to these murderers.
-
Having Ford on the list makes me laugh. Ford spends an incredible amount of time and money trying to make itself look like a "good corporate citizen", yet they still get kicked in the teeth. Maybe the Ford family should forget the politically correct window dressing and concentrate on making better cars and trucks.
-
Wow, my time is worth a hell of a lot more than that.
-
Me too. I think the whole "Michigander" thing is a viscious slur formulated by people from that state below us.
-
I have a couple of gold fillings, so mine would be worth at least twice that amount.
-
Welcome. I'm glad you're here.
-
I would like. I don't like the generic-human or the wages-only POV (perhaps because I've selected more 'personal value' over 'cash value' in my life).
Sorry about the delay, I had a busy week. Here are some excerpts from an article I wrote a number of years ago with a former colleague, Mitchell Genova.
The article was entitled: What Is The Monetary Value of Your Life? and it appeared in the Michigan Lawyers Weekly of Mar 15, 1993.
Some of this is paraphrased for the sake of brevity and I tried to focus on the parts of the article that dealt with actual estimates of the value of a life. Of course the amounts mentioned could be translated into current dollars using an inflation index.
The hedonic value of life represents a monetary quantification of the pleasure of just being alive.
Economists have long recognized that life has value beyond the income a person earns and the services a person performs. In an attempt to value life, economists have studied the risks people take and the amounts consumers are willing to pay for incremental reductions in risk. This has been called the “willingness to pay” (WTP) method. Since certain studies analyze the amount people require to be paid for an increase in risk, the method is sometimes called the “willingness to accept” (WTA) method.
In 1983, and again in 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the WTP studies to determine whether they provided a value of life that could be used by the EPA in setting policy. From the studies, EPA economists derived a “judgmental best estimate” of the value of life indicated by each study. In the 1983 review, the values ranged from $400,000 to $5.7 million in 1982 dollars. In the 1989 review, the values ranged from $1.6 million to $6.4 million in 1984 dollars.
Another review of WTP studies was made in 1990 by Ted R. Miller of the Urban Institute, with support from the Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. He looked at 67 studies, adjusted them to compensate for inconsistencies and systematic bias and attempted to put the studies on the same footing. From 47 of the best studies, he computed a mean value of $2.2 million and a standard deviation of $650,000. He concluded that the value of a statistical life is $2.2 million in 1988 dollars, plus or minus about 30 percent.
The studies completed so far have been criticized, both individually and collectively, and no single WTP study gives a definitive value of life. However, even if we had the perfect study, the question remains whether the value of life reached is applicable to wrongful death and personal injury.
The studies discussed thus far typically use the incremental changes in risk to determine before the fact, or ex ante, a value of life for an unspecified person. Critics point out that, in a wrongful death or personal injury context, we are dealing after the fact, or ex post, with the actual death or injury of a specific person whose identity is known. Rather than minute changes in risk for several thousand anonymous persons, wrongful death and personal injury deal with 100 percent certainty of death or injury of one person whose identity is known.
Proponents argue that the WTP studies provide useful information to a jury about the value of life used in setting public policy and arrived at in a neutral, objective fashion, and provide a context for more informed decision making. In the final analysis, society and the court system must determine whether ex ante WTP risk studies on the value of a statistical life apply ex post to wrongful death and personal injury cases.
Must We Accept Certain Things On Faith?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
Geoff, I don't thnk your dad is using a proper definition of faith. If you read something in the newspaper and believe that it occured, you aren't taking that on faith. Experience dictates that the paper had a reporter who did the necessary leg work to validate the story (although with today's media, maybe that isn't the greatest example).
A good definition in this context would be something along the lines of: belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.