Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

gags

Patron
  • Posts

    1755
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by gags

  1. Where does Condi stand on the jailing of Martha Stewart?  On new tariffs imposed by the Bush administration? On increased government spending (up by 30% since Clinton)? On the Prescription Drug Benefit? On mortgage welfare? On what Bush's new chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors calls "positive inflation"?

    Before we start rallying behind a new leader shouldn't we have at least some vague idea of what she stands for?

    I'm not aware that she has made her positions known on anything other than foreign policy. Maybe others know more than I, but I haven't seen her even take a public stance on most domestic political issues. Let's face it, the conventional choices are fairly depressing.

  2. I'm curious, would you mind providing some details about this ghost you saw? Was it in the form of a person? Did it speak? What were the circumstances under which you saw this thing and who else was there with you?

    Also, I don't think science assumes that we know everything about reality and the world around us. In order to accept science, there doesn't have to be an assumption of infalibity. There are things which science cannot yet explain, but I don't think that's an indictment of science or scientific methods of research. Perhaps we simply don't yet know enough about various phenomena and energy forms.

  3. I've found that fear of failure is very debilitating. Simply thinking positively can be helpful. However, when you are confronting a particularly difficult situation, taking a step back and contemplating the worst possible scenario is also a useful technique. What you often find is that an outcome you imagine to be very bad, really isn't all that bad. Even if the worst happens, life will continue (assuming you're not confronting a life or death situation) and you can recover from temporary setbacks. I guess this is fairly similar to what JMSnow described.

  4. From what I see, it's not the Democratic Party that is in danger of becoming extinct, but the two-party system.  What we have now is basically one socialist party representing itself under two different names.

    Both parties are so busy "running to the middle" that it's hard to tell them apart. However, I doubt either will disappear. There is just too much momentum behind their existence. The Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years or so and the Republicans didn't go away. Besides, Queen Hillary is going to win in 2008, causing a great revival of the Democratic Party. Oh, the horror.....

  5. I don't think it should. I don't believe it's the same thing to say that something is art and that something is artistic. To say something is artistic is to say that it shares some of the characteristics of art, but not necessarily all of them, or the essential ones. So, it could simply be beautiful, or well-crafted, etc.

    That's an important distinction that I haven't made before. Certain pieces of furniture are clearly artistic, but they may not necessarily be art. The same would be true for cars and glassware, etc...

    My take on the art vs. craft issue is that art projects a world view and craft does not. Craft does not re-present reality and so it does not provide the mind the same benefit as art, which is a projection of epistemology, psychology and metaphysics, i.e. a belief system and a way of intefacing with the world from a mental standpoint.

    In many other regards, they are simlilar, and I've seen plenty of crafts and everyday designed objects that were extremely artistic and have been much more interesting and exciting to look at than many art works I've seen.

    Thank you. That makes a great deal of sense.

  6. Rich, thank you for posting your essay. I enjoyed it. I've been curious for some time about the question of what exactly is "art". I have a few questions for you or anyone else who cares to discuss them.

    So what is Art? Ayn Rand said it best: "Art is the selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments." Whoa, what the hell does that mean? Basically, an artist must create something that re-presents reality in some way that is consistent with a judgment that he or she attaches to a value such as love. Whether it is a painting, statue, poem, or song, it must represent a judgment of a value (i.e. "Man is a hero" or "Love heals" or "Life is ultimately meaningless"). The painting or poem is a vessel that conveys the importance or the realization of this judgment.

    Then following from Rand's definition, I assume it would be possible for some work to objectively qualify as "art", even though it portrays reality according to a metaphysical judgment with which we might disagree?

    So what is craft? Craft is basically everything else that goes into an "artistic" pursuit (Note: my sketches, while not qualifying as Art, can still be deemed 'artistic' in that they present an ability that I have. This ability would allow for me to craft pieces that represent a judgment and thus contain artistic value). I would consider myself a good craftsman rather than a good Artist if I were to judge on the sole basis of my sketches. My hand and my eyes work well to draw the lines and to create shades that blend to form a face. There is little to no creativity involved. I am not expressing what I think about the face or what it means to me. I am simply recreating it using skill. This is akin to building a motor or a birdhouse. All craft, no Art.

    This question of what is art and what is craft is a fairly hot topic in the woodworking community. I'm an amateur woodworker who has built a bunch of cabinets and furniture for my home. I'm semi-skilled at the craft, but I would never call any of my works "art".

    However, there are woodworkers who claim to create "furniture as art". For example, one artist makes chairs that are built in such a way that nobody could ever sit in them. They are either upside down, or the seat is tilted at a wild angle, or there are sharp spikes protruding from the chair back and the seat, etc.... Not only do these "chairs" lack any functionality, but they're also hideous in my opinion. Nevertheless, someone buying one of these pieces would clearly be purchasing it as art, not as a chair. Is it valid to call this "art" in accordance with Rand's definition?

    But Art requires skillful craft in order to be good. Good Art, the kind that deserves to be in museums, is that which selectively recreates reality in a profoundly meaningful way and which presents the skill of the artist at its peak.

    Certainly I would agree that in order for something to be art, it requires skillful craft. Some highly skilled woodworkers make furniture with intricate patterns of contrasting wood or other materials inlaid into their surfaces. This "Intarsia" is essentially painting a picture using small pieces of inlaid wood. It is very difficult and can be quite beautiful, if done the right way. Nevertheless, I still have a problem calling this "art". To me, it remains furniture with a nicely inlaid pattern. It's beautifully done, but it's still a chest of drawers or a dining room table or a kitchen cabinet. These things are all primarily functional pieces, not art.

    Can art also be functional, or does it simply have to be something that is beautiful in its own right, with little or no functionality? On the other hand, is it possible to take mundane, everyday objects and apply such skill to their creation and make them so beautiful that they become art?

  7. Psychologists have found that in children that at least 50% of cognition is genetic, but later in adults genes account for 80% of the cognitive abilities.

    I'm not aware of these studies and the "science" behind them. How would one objectively come to such conclusions? Perhaps you can give me a link or cite one?

    Also, I just saw on the news that a young boy who appears to be of Indian (from India, not "Native American") descent just won the national spelling bee. Over the years, I've noticed that many of the finalists in these competitions tend to be Indians. You might ask the Racists if this means that Indians have some sort of superior spelling gene not possessed by white people? I doubt it.

    It would seem that culture, an emphasis on learning from an early age, and mental discipline play much more important roles than genetics, when it comes to winning spelling bees.

  8. For older property owners, the spectre of losing it all to the government is just too much to bear. I myself am a very material person. I have possessions that could not be had in a multiple unit housing complex. My needs are for a place out in the country, with lots of land and distance between me and the neighbors.

    If I were to lose it all, I doubt that I would be able to attain this level of personal wealth again due to age, failing health, energy levels, etc. In fact, I probably would be reduced to an existence akin to peasants prior to the French Revolution. It would not be a life worth living, at least from my frame of consciousness.

    If I were alone, it would not be a difficult choice to make. The plan would be simple: to create as much damage and destruction and kill as many of the bastards as possible. (I already thought about collateral damage, and realized that any taxpaying neighbor would be a supporter of the monstrous enemy that would be taking my property, and would therefore not be entitled to any special protection.)

    But the reality is, I have a wife and kid (I know, started out late in life) am about to retire and am stuck with property taxes that equal 50% of my net income now. I can't sell, and can't move (and even if I could, the problem would simply reocur somewhere else) and all I can do is get politically active. I'm even thinking of starting a philosophy show on cable public access, but I have been actively writing in the local newspaper for the past 6 years. But I can see the writing on the wall. Taxes are rising and my income is decreasing. Even so, I find few individuals who share my sentiments. It is a very difficult road to travel, when there is no other country to flee to.

    I can certainly see where you're coming from. Until I purchased a house, I really wasn't aware that in this country landowners simply rent their property from the government. If you don't pay their rent (in the form of outrageous property taxes), they'll take away your land and your home. Oh, and if you're foolish enough to improve your property, they increase the rent. It's quite a system. :(

  9. Being that I consider destructive tendencies, immorality and irrationality to result from child abuse/neglect....then I would want a restructure of society whereby we define a fit parent, and allow those who pass psychiatric tests to have children.

    I hardly expect that this would ever be accepted as most people consider themselves as owners of children, whereas I consider it a privilege based on parental competency.

    Btw, from my POV, there is the truthstakes, ie, that which truthseekers can discuss, and that which is practical, given the widespread irrationality....my ideas aren't practical at this juncture, but may or may not be of interest to certain truthseekers.

    Not to pile on here, but your idea about requiring prospective parents to take a psychiatric test is a stunningly bad one, IMO. Who would administer such a test? How would it be designed to produce objective results? What would society do with parents who fail the test, but still have children? The whole thing sounds very totalitarian as well as impractical.

  10. Of course, but that doesn't prevent the abuse in the first place, this is the societal indifference I refer to, in that despite you being a law abiding citizen, you don't advocate any preventative measures and this prevalent mentality guarantees more madman{ as the evidence indicates, I'm not guessing}

    What sort of "preventative measures" might be taken? Child abuse is a crime that is usually hidden and sometimes very difficult to detect. It's easy to blame "societal indifference" for abuse, however I don't see what preventive options we might have that aren't being employed currently. Perhaps you know of some?

  11. There is a point I didn't notice while reading the post, and I think is important. There are two kinds of taxes.

    One kind is what the government takes away from you and uses as it sees fit, that is, redistributes it, presumably according to needs. Such a tax is the income tax, for example.

    The other one consists of taxes with specific destinations, such as unemployment tax or social security tax, which is also redistributed, but then again, the very principle of any insurance of any kind, is redistribution.

    In my opinion, the first kind of tax is theft and taking any of that money is accessory to theft. Examples of such money are subsidies for underdeveloped areas.

    The second kind of tax can be assimilated to an insurance monopoly, in the meaning that I, on my free will, might want to pay unemployment, or social security, for whatever reasons, only I wish I could pay the money to a company of my choice, not to the monopoly established by the government. These taxes are from my point of view as immoral as - let's say - the electrical power bill is, since the electrical power provider has a monopoly where I live. In the case of these taxes, the problem lies with the fact that a monopoly exists, not with wether you benefit from a service you are paying for, regardless of the amount that is returned to you.

    Those are valid points along the lines of something I was getting at. You did it more clearly and succinctly. :)

    BTW, the primary principle behind insurance is risk mitigation, not redistribution.

  12. Who said anything about not feeling sympathy for the current victim?

    And what about the fact that most madmen have been horrifically tortured?

    Exactly what would you say to appease them?

    Why is it ok for society{but specifically a handful of individuals} to abuse a child for years and then just expect that person to function ethically?

    What are your thoughts on preventing/mitigating the years of abuse that random children suffer?

    Have you ever been abused in an horrific fashion?

    You might find this thread to be interesting reading:

    http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ildren%20rights

  13. (I have included a link to an essay by Jensen down below to get the general idea of where he is coming from if anyone is interested-although it does not address this particular subject)

    The Jensen essay was disgusting. I see that it also appeared in a number of radical environmentalist publications including "The Earth First! Journal" and others. Rand's book, "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" deals with these people rather well. This crowd values plant life over human life and their worship of the "Noble Savage" is simply an extension of their anti-intellectual tendencies. :thumbsup:

  14. Putting aside the circumstances that arise due to misjudgements (which are quite high as someone pointed out) is it objectively moral--as a big picture--to execute someone for a crime?

    I don't see a moral problem with the proposition that someone who is willing to take another person's life (assuming there are no mitigating circumstances) should have to forfeit his own life.

    Here's a more provocative question: Should serial (more than one actual conviction) child molesters be given the death penalty? In many cases, child molesters literally destroy the lives of their young victims, causing them to have serious psychological problems for many years to come. Furthermore, there seems to be little evidence that hard-core molesters can ever be cured or rehabilitated. Most of them continue to harbor their desires after being punished, and their recidivism rates are quite high. Even molesters who were chemically castrated have been known to repeat their offenses.

    Given the incurable nature of pedophiles as well as the terrible impact of their crimes, I'd like to see serial molesters given the death penalty.

  15. In fiscal year 2004, the U.S. spent $466.0 billion on defense.  That's about $1.58 per man, woman or child.  Now how do we know that $1.58 is sufficient?  Or not enough?  Or too much?

    Not important, but assuming roughly 300 million people in the US, wouldn't that be about $1,558 per man woman and child?

    I think that one of the major reasons why the United States has the best armed forces is that it is a volunteer army. 

    A volunteer military helps in that people who join are generally motivated and enthusiastic. However, we had quite a bit of military success even when there was a draft.

    Without REASON, you can have all the money in the world and still get nowhere. If you are don't know how to use your money to "pave over" your inefficiencies (whatever that means), you will remain inefficient.

    I think you and Jmegan (who is almost always brilliant) are closest to the answer to a complex question. However, there are many other considerations. Technology, strategy, morale, luck..... all enter the equation.

    Early on, the Nazis were quite successful militarily, despite being led by a madman who despised reason. It isn't a widely known fact, but the combined Allied forces arrayed against the Germans at the time of the Battle of France (in 1940) were generally numerically and technologically superior to Hitler's forces. It was Hitler's bold plan of attack combined with Allied strategic paralysis that caused France to fall in less than a month. Having a technologically and numerically superior force doesn't necessarily guarantee succes.

    Ernest May wrote an interesting book about this entitled "Strange Victory - Hitler's Conquest of France".

  16. It doesn’t follow from the fact that the government declares something to be “insurance” that receiving benefits from the fund is moral.  We could call food stamps a form of insurance; but naming it such does not legitimize it.

    You don't pay a food stamp tax, but you do pay an unemployment tax for that specific benefit.

    There are those who are net tax producers and those that are net tax consumers.  I regard the latter class as recipients of stolen funds.

    Given that the top 10% of wage earners pay about 65% of all Federal Income Taxes, then the vast majority of Americans are recipients of stolen funds. The politicians want it that way.

    I agree that it is unfair for me to benefit from cheap milk that I have subsidized through taxation.  I will make it a point to put back into my pocket any savings I have realized through my involuntary support of farm subsidies.  If cell phones have been created through government technology, I will seek out any cell phone manufacturer who evades paying patent royalties.  I’ll try to pick up one on my next trip to Hong Kong. 

    You can just send the money directly to me. I'll make sure it gets to the correct parties.

    If the NEA collected its own taxes separate from the rest of the federal apparatus, this might be a valid point. However, since the NEA is financed from one big pile of tax loot, collected mostly by IRS brigands, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to say that if one is taking from the NEA, one is ultimately taking from the big pile of loot that one’s income tax went into.

    Perhaps, but if one is taking from the NEA or getting a stadium subsidy, one is also giving the thieving politicians an excuse to perpetuate their game. They can point to all of the money given away in the form of NEA grants and stadium subsidies and say "See how we fullfilled the tremendous need for NEA grants and stadium subsidies." "There is such a strong demand for these programs, they must be continued and even expanded." "Of course we'll need to raise taxes to pay for these very important programs........"

  17. It is a matter of degree as well. But also this...

    There is a crucial moral difference between an artist (Mr. X) who cheers the NEA, supports its establishment, wants to increase its funding, etc. and a second (Mr. Y) who does not want the funds to be government-dispersed, tries to have the NEA scrapped, etc.  but takes its funds because he judges it as the only way to counter the advantage delivered to Mr. X. The difference is not simply a state of mind. If everyone was like Mr. X, the NEA would be all powerful; if like Mr. Y, there would be no NEA.

    I agree that in terms of morality, the difference you point out is important.
  18. But if the “premiums” for the unemployment fund are coerced, then it does not matter whether we call it “insurance” or “looters’ plunder.” As long as there is one person who does not wish to pay the FUTA tax, then anyone who receives pay-outs from the fund is a recipient of stolen funds.  The fact that recipients are far more likely to be chronically less employable than non-recipients simply underlines the basic injustice of the transfer. 

    I don't argue that the unemployment tax is a just tax or that it doesn't redistribute income. However, it seems to be slightly more just than many of the other taxes we are forced to pay. At least this tax is put into a special fund that pays benefits only to those who have actually paid for unemployment insurance.

    Since government funds in general are coerced, then anyone who receives government money is the recipient of stolen funds? If that's the case, then in a welfare state like the current one, there isn't an innocent person in America.

    Except that land owners and their guests have “right of way” access to their property, and that in virtually every present case they have no power to choose an avenue to their land except by roads paved by the government.  Thus government-maintained roads are an unavoidable “public good,” no different than the classical music that drifts into my home from a "free" concert in a city park.

    But what conclusion do we draw from this?  If we are all tainted, isn’t it legitimate for the ball club owner to get a tax-subsidized stadium?

    Forget the road and sidewalk example. If you go to the grocery store and buy milk, you're the beneficiary of a government subsidy provided through the use of coerced funds. If you use a cell phone, you are the beneficiary of technology originally developed by the government using coerced funds. The examples are almost endless. Again, I see it as a matter of degree. We're all made guilty by this welfare state, some of us more than others.

    Of what significance is this?  The argument we have been examining on this thread is that one is morally entitled to get back what has been coerced from him.  Why should it matter what percentage of total revenues collected ends up as subsidies to artists?  If an artist has contributed $100,000 in taxes over the past ten years, should he have to file for a farm subsidy since the Department of Agriculture consumes a bigger slice of the budget than the NEA?

    I was simply pointing out that the artist who has paid taxes for years and uses this as justification for obtaining a grant, has actually paid very little toward funding the NEA.
×
×
  • Create New...