Marc K.
-
Posts
1131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Marc K.
-
-
Hi Don, I didn't write "no rights to the aluminium". I wrote "no rights to aluminium". Can you see the distinction?
Really??? You mean the only thing we've been debating for 3 pages is the word "the"??? Well, OK, this should be easy then.
So you would agree then that men have the right to own THE land that they improve and that no one can remove them from that land if they don't want to go, no matter how much more productive those others might be? And that the land owner can charge whatever rent he decides, while, of course, he can force no one to pay such rent? And, of course, since he owns the land, no one can force him to accept a rent lower than what he has decided to charge.
Problem solved.
-
There are many things to say, all of which point to Georgism and Objectivism being completely incompatible, to "economic rent" being some sort of anti-concept, to you confusing government force with voluntary free trade and to your continued belief in some sort of intrinsic value to "land". I may take the time to answer more fully but first I would like an answer to the following two questions.
First is the one you promised me a reply to earlier:Are you arguing that natural resources cannot be owned or that real estate cannot be owned?
Second is an explanation for your blatant self-contradiction:Aluminium can be owned
the aluminium atoms (which cannot be owned)
-
I am not a Georgist; I said in an earlier post I accept George has identified a problem, but that I disagreed with his remedy for reasons I will not go into now.
Can you sum-up, perhaps in one or two sentences apiece, what the problem is (as it pertains to Ayn Rand's position on private property), what his solution is, and since you disagree with his solution, what your solution is please?
I don't quite understand why are you directing us to read his book if you disagree with his solution? Perhaps it would be better to just quote the one or two or three paragraphs you think would be useful.
No, I haven't read the book and, I'm sorry to say, I probably will not in the near future. I am confident that I understand the proper basis of property rights and many of its applications. I agree with Ayn Rand on the issue, and until someone brings to my attention a legitimate challenge to this understanding I will not be changing my position. What you have said so far hasn't caused me to question what I know to be true. (No disrespect intended).
The Georgist position is that landowners have an obligation to pass any economic rent on to those who gave rise to it. They consider those who have collected economic rents to have done so by force - the force exists because either producers pay it or they are forced to move to another location - if one exists. Therefore the use of force (via a Land Value Tax) in repatriating that wealth, to those who produced it, is considered no less moral than a policeman using force to liberate stolen property and returning it to its rightful owner. Georgists are actually against all other kinds of taxation for the same reasons that Objectivists are.
This is too abstract to comment on, you should ground what you are talking about in a real life hypothetical. What is economic rent? And who "gave rise to it"? Let us just use the concept "rent", with which we are all familiar.
"They consider"??? Did someone actually use force or not? If so, that is already illegal. When living in an apartment, if you don't pay the rent you voluntarily agreed to, you are the one using force.
This is starting to sound suspiciously similar to the libertarian argument against intellectual property: that it is the government using force against the people who actually created the wealth (those who stole the intellectual property of someone else and copied it). This, of course, is just as backwards as the above, and also conforms to the labor theory of value: that value is created, fundamentally, by the muscles.
You state "we believe that every individual is an end in themselves and that they have a moral right to the fruits of their labor, and that no one, most particularly the government, has a right to use force against us" You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you truly believe this, as I do, then how can you support a practice which involves making producers pay landowners to be granted by those landowners permission to produce? Do you only have a moral right to the fruits of your labour if you pay someone for it?
I don't approve of anyone "making" (i.e., using force against) anyone do anything. Producers only have to pay landowners if they agree voluntarily to do so. If you don't want to pay me for the use of my land, then go get your own. Of course then you'll have to do what I had to do to get land. One cannot get land by doing nothing. In a proper society, you can lay a claim by working the land and registering its extent with the government, or you can do some other kind of work and pay for a piece of property (which has already been registered), both are legitimate (and, by the way, an advantage of a division of labor economy). I don't see the problem.
- Under the Objectivist position, a Government must act as a custodian of the land - this is to quickly establish objective means by which use of the land can be established by individuals concerned, but it is silent on land disputes between governments. How does one resolve those disputes?
- Ignoring this issue, say you accept the Government can be a custodian, the principle is then if you are using the land productively, you are granted a title to it. Rand says a period of five years or so should be sufficient but this is uncharacteristically arbitrary. Why five years and not ten? Why not only for the period in which it is used productively? Why does working for five years grant someone a claim to unearned income via economic rents in perpetuity?
These are issues I find difficult with the Objectivist position on land. As an Objectivist, frankly this concerns me.
Well then don't worry because these are not Objectivist positions.
"This is strictly not true. One can labor and create capital morally without owning land. Without reason -- land, labor and capital are impotent."
You have changed my statement, your reasoning does not hold when you consider what I wrote originally. I wrote "without land" - I did not mention ownership. Without land, you are like an astronaut who has by accident found himself floating in space. Without help, you will perish quickly no matter how much you think or move your limbs around. Having access to land (as defined earlier) is essential for life.
Please forgive me, but I don't think I did change what you said, because I don't see how what you said can mean anything at all if it doesn't refer to "owning land" -- after all, isn't that the title of this thread, which you created?
This conversation is starting to get bizarre, it is floating, like your astronaut. So there would still be an earth and we humans would still be living on it but no one would own the land that comprises the earth. If no one owns the land, then why should anyone be paying rent to anyone? You need to see what kind of strange consequences can come from this view ... oh, you do:
Aluminium atoms are not man-made. If I produce aluminium for use in production, then my exertion is the basis for my claim to have a right to gain, keep, use or dispose of the aluminium I produced (the aluminium being my wage). I was the cause of earning that aluminium by means of my exertion. It is not a right to the object I have- the aluminium atoms (which cannot be owned), but a right to action with regards to the aluminium atoms. This is consistent with Rand's and George's definitions. Can you see now why I asked why Rand specifically stated a right is a right to action with regards to the object, and not to the object. How could you own the aluminium atoms - they are not man-made - they are Land.
Wow, please excuse me, but this truly one of the strangest things I've ever heard.
I can own my iphone, but I cannot own the aluminum atoms of which it is comprised? So I can own my iphone and not own it at the same time????
Rights and ownership are two different things. Yes, I have a right to work, to earn money, but nobody owes me a job and they have not violated my rights if they don't hire me. But if I earn the money, then it is mine, I own it. Then I further have the right to trade that money for an iphone, but only if someone voluntarily sells it to me. If they do, then I own it and I own the aluminum atoms of which it is comprised. I can keep them and let them sit unused, I can use them and be productive with them, I can dispose of them by throwing the phone in the ocean, or I can trade them to someone else, and then they will own them.
If land and aluminum atoms cannot be owned, then nothing can be owned. We all know what a system of no private property leads to: stagnation and death.
-
Reading this may be of assistance to followers of this discussion:
Since you have linked to this page I decided to have a look. I had suspected that there was a deeper issue associated with your want to deny property rights in land and I think I have found it. From the henrygeorge website cited above:
Henry George’s brand of land reform, on the other hand, establishes equal land rights for all. It gives people the freedom to take as much 0r as little land as they can productively use — provided the obligation to society is paid. Thus, it enables the economy to progress under free conditions.
Henry George proposes to "abolish all taxation save that upon land values." [...]
Can we call you a Georgist? If so, then our perspectives and philosophies are quite at odds. You believe that we have an "obligation to society" and that forcible taxation is moral and should be legal.
Objectivists are individualists. We believe that every individual is an end in themselves and that they have a moral right to the fruits of their labor, and that no one, most particularly the government, has a right to use force against us.
We also don't believe in intrinsic value. "Land" has no value until someone designates it a purpose and performs work on it. Apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, Georgists want to collect on the value created by someone else for the "good" of society. This is wrong, in the view of Objectivists.
Not that you have any obligation to answer, and not that the answer should prevent anyone from having a discussion with you, I am just curious: what is your purpose here? My purpose is discuss the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Will you always be arguing against Ayn Rand from a Georgist perspective? If so, can you identify other fundamental views of hers with which you disagree? Property rights are quite fundamental in a political context but there are other principles of ethics, epistemology and metaphysics which are even more fundamental -- I have mentioned a few above.
I will go ahead and answer your other post but I'm afraid we will be constantly at loggerheads with regard to this issue if there are even more fundamental disagreements.
In order to own property one must create or earn and not just think.
But we were talking about the "ultimate" source of property and wealth. Man's basic means of survival is reason. Labor, capital, production, and most certainly creation do not exist without reason. Labor is a necessary condition for production but not a sufficient one. Thinking is labor also, in fact it is the most important part of labor, not one's muscles.
Without land, labour and capital are impotent.
This is strictly not true. One can labor and create capital morally without owning land. Without reason -- land, labor and capital are impotent.
Land is used in the sense that it is all materials and opportunities which exist in nature.
Shall I call this the argument from nature? I thought I had disposed of it with my first post but let me be more explicit. Your original post contained what I thought looked like a syllogistic argument:
All property and all wealth is man-made.
Land is not man-made.
What is the origin of a Land ownership claim?
to wit:
- All property and all wealth is man-made.
- Land is not man-made.
- Therefore Land cannot be property
Which I believe contains an equivocation between "land" and "real estate" and to illustrate the point I countered with aluminum atoms are not man-made and yet they can be owned. Thus the argument from nature (or the not man-made) is defeated.
Furthermore, "opportunities" do not exist in nature apart from man's mind. Though I suppose if you don't like this formulation, then we could say that a specific opportunity does not exist apart from the mind that thought of it.
In your view, why does Rand argue that a property right is not a right to an object, but to a right to action with regards to that object?
There are many answers to this question depending on context or the level of fundamentality you seek.
Metaphysically, all life is sustained by action, though I suppose this isn't very satisfying since it doesn't deal with man specifically.
Epistemologically, "rights" are one concept and all rights pertain only to action.
Ethically, if man wants to live, he must take certain actions in order to sustain his life.
Politically, rights are moral sanctions to take those actions, and a proper government is created in order to protect those actions from the interference of others. In regard to property, those actions are the right to keep, use and dispose of your property as you see fit.
If someone had a right to a thing and wasn't willing to put in the work needed to gain it, then someone else would have to provide it for them.
What would Georgists say? That everyone has a right to "land" (a thing)? Or is it just that everyone has a right to demand "rent" (a thing, money or tax) from those that are putting land to productive use?
-
Hi Marc,
Ultimately the aluminium was taken from the land via the use of intelligence, physical exertion and capital (that capital itself having its origin in intelligence and physical exertion).
Is this a reply from Jon Southall? If so, why do you have two accounts and why would you reply to me using a different name? Very confusing.
As you parenthetically acknowledge, your usage of "ultimately" above is pretty loose. There is one ultimate source of property: the mind (or intelligence as you say).
Be that as it may, the point of my post was to suggest that your usage of the term "land" is just as loose. "Land" meaning: natural, pristine, untouched land; is different from real estate, or worked land, so please be clear to which you are referring. "Land" is a natural resource like bauxite is.
Are you arguing that natural resources cannot be owned or that real estate cannot be owned?
-
"The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor." Galt's Speech.
All property and all wealth is man-made.
Land is not man-made.
What is the origin of a Land ownership claim?
The aluminum atoms that comprise the body of an iphone were not man-made.
What is the origin of an aluminum ownership claim?
-
He was very clear in explaining in his post that since people are infallible, […] [emphasis added]
You mean as clear as you are here? OK, that was a needle, maybe you are just demonstrating your point, but your point is unclear because of the imprecise wording you use:
[…] our understanding of the axioms is fallible too, […]
People are fallible, axioms either describe reality or they don’t, i.e., they are either true or false, ones understanding is either correct or incorrect. The “particular words” you use are important, no matter how much you want to denigrate their usage.
So, is this some semantic game I’m playing, as I’m sure you’ll claim, as you have been claiming about Plasmatic? No, it bears directly on the point I was making to ludicious, before you so rudely interrupted.
The point is, it makes no sense to talk about “axioms” in general. It is like talking about the shape of the earth. I suppose you would say “well it is probably spherical, though we are fallible, and people did think it was flat for a long time, we must leave room for the possibility that it might be some 5 dimensional shape that we are currently unable to describe.”
Being fallible is not a license to be a skeptic.
The question is, do the axioms Ayn Rand identified truly describe reality? Even though Ayn Rand was fallible, is she correct in this case? Don’t worry, agreeing with Ayn Rand doesn’t make one dogmatic, nor does it make her a god, you should try it sometime.
[…] as in it is possible to discover that something you think is an axiom never was an axiom to begin with.
More equivocation on axioms in general like the “axioms” of Kepler or Descartes, which I suppose allows you to continue to evade the point, even after I had already set the context as Objectivism.
The question is, is it possible that the axioms identified by Rand are not axioms? The answer, I’m happy to inform you, is NO!!! It is NOT POSSIBLE!!! There will never be a time that existence doesn’t exist, or that there will be evidence of the non-existence of that same evidence, or that there will be evidence gathered by a consciousness that proves that we are not conscious, or that there will be evidence proving that a thing is itself and not itself at the same time.
If Ayn Rand’s axioms are truly axioms, and they are, then even if some later discovery creates a new context in which we know something even more fundamental, that will not invalidate her axioms or their axiomatic nature in this context. You should have learned that from ITOE. It is incorrect and disrespectful to say Isaac Newton was wrong as some skeptics do today. He was right in the context in which he himself described.
It is skeptical and unproductive of you to focus so heavily on what Ayn Rand and you might possibly be wrong about in a different Universe since non-knowledge gets you nowhere. Instead, you should spend your time trying to understand the world as it is, and, if you are inclined to Objectivism, to understand and discover what things Ayn Rand got right.
That isn't even saying "existence exists" isn't valid, it just means that along with all knowledge, we must observe the world as it is.
Right. So does “existence exists” describe the world as it is? Still no answer from you or ludicious. If everything you know and are certain about depends upon existence existing, it would take the most dogmatic skeptic in the world to deny its certainty.
Now you are going to rant and rave and indignantly point out that you said the exact opposite, to wit:
Yes, I said "probably". But possibility of being wrong doesn't erase certainty.
But your claims to certainty are contradicted by the other things you write, including in the sentence prior to this one:
It just so happens that attempts at denying consciousness completely fail, and what we hold to be axioms will probably never change.
Yes, I said "probably". But possibility of being wrong doesn't erase certainty.
You don’t even understand what it means to say something is “possible”. To say that the axioms will “probably” never change means that you think it is possible they could. To say that something is “possible” requires at least some evidence, there is NO evidence that the axioms of Objectivism are wrong, NONE. In fact everything we know points to their truth, EVERYTHING.
To say that I could be wrong about some unknown isolated fact somewhere is one thing. It is quite another to say that I am wrong about a particular fact. And it is still quite another thing to say that not only am I wrong about everything I think I know, but that everyone is wrong about everything they think they know and that all the gathered knowledge of the ages is wrong. It defies reality and is not true. And no new discoveries or understandings will eradicate any or all past knowledge. That past knowledge will remain true, even if delimited to a restricted context. Which is to say nothing new or provocative, since ALL knowledge is contextual.
To be blunt about it, I'm not sure you understood Rand's argument. You seem to be saying you could not POSSIBLY be wrong, that is, you take it as a priori truth that the axioms are true based on logical necessity alone.
This is your personal animus toward me showing through again. These phrases, “a priori truth” and “logical necessity” when directed at an Objectivist are insults, which is of course what you meant them to be. Please quote something I said that indicates or even implies that that is what I think? And please be specific. When you are unable to do so I hope you will have the integrity to retract them and apologize.
Of course, you left yourself an out by prefacing them with “I’m not sure” and “You seem to be saying”, confirming and hiding behind your skepticism once again.
No, it is not possible that I am wrong about the axioms of Objectivism, but I know that is hard for you to accept so leave me out of it, and besides, it is not what I asked. The question is: was Ayn Rand wrong about the axioms? Is her identification of the three axioms correct? Are they true? If so, don’t be afraid, you can be just as certain as she was and I am.
Your semi-accusation amounts to a charge of rationalism; that my argument is purely deductive and completely disconnected from reality. Again, I have no idea where you are getting that from. First, I didn’t really make an argument, I mostly asked questions. But, OK, maybe there is some sort of rationalistic implications in my questions. Let’s see, I imply that proper axioms should “describe reality correctly”, I guess that’s not what you are talking about. I ask ludicious if he has “validated [his] knowledge”, which is asking if he has connected his knowledge back to reality, that doesn’t help you. I ask if the axioms “truly describe reality?”, nope, that’s not rationalism.
Maybe you are thinking that everyone talks like you, asserting one thing while saying the opposite a little while later as I pointed out above. Perhaps I just assert that things need to be connected to reality but my examples do just the opposite, let’s see:
If some "scientist" came up to me claiming to have evidence that I didn't exist, I was not conscious, or that the coffee I was drinking could be a pile of shit, I'm not sure what I would do first, there are too many logical options. I suppose a slap in the face could defeat his entire line of argument quite eloquently. When he protested I would say, protests, slaps, my hand and the two of us don't exist, certainly, neither of us is conscious so we must be dreaming, and anyway, it wasn't actually a slap, it was a kiss.
Nope, my example is quite reality based, a slap to the face of a skeptical scientist. How much more real could it get? Maybe that is what you need.
Your charge fails on all counts. Moderator indeed, maybe you should moderate yourself.
I found it quite presumptuous of you, Marc, and Nicky to take it that the disagreement is rooted in denying axioms or thinking axioms can be proved. It is more productive to correct errors and point out better terms to use.
I don’t know where ludicious’s problem is rooted or if he even actually has a problem, perhaps he is mistaken or disagrees with Objectivism or doesn’t understand it. I was busy giving him the benefit of the doubt. Unlike you to me, I was kind to him and not rude in the least. In fact, if you could be bothered to take off your blinders, you would see that I was asking him questions to tease out just these sorts of things; it is called the Socratic method. Letting a person come to a conclusion themselves is one of the most harmless, most beneficent ways of demonstrating a point I know. How is it that you could possibly see the opposite? I know how. Check yourself.
And frankly, I find it quite presumptuous of you to be telling other posters how they should argue. That is not your job. It is too bad he has assigned you to be his mouthpiece; he was doing much better on his own.
What I would like to know, from either or both of you, is if he still maintains and you endorse his statement that:
This is why evidence contradicting an axiom has to be considered: because either the conclusion drawn from the evidence is wrong, the evidence itself is wrong, or your identification of an axiom is wrong. That's three points of failure, each of which are equally valid.
Is each of the three “points of failure” “equally valid”? In other words, would it be just as logical to start your examination of where the failure is by examining your axioms?
Which is what started this whole tete a’ tete.
-
Yes, an axiom presupposes all proof - but one's identification of an axiom could be wrong. This is why evidence contradicting an axiom has to be considered: because either the conclusion drawn from the evidence is wrong, the evidence itself is wrong, or your identification of an axiom is wrong. That's three points of failure, each of which are equally valid.
But they aren't "equally valid", at least not under a completely rational, reality based, fully integrated philosophy. Part of the problem here is talking in generalities. Talking about all "philosophies" and all "axioms" in general, as if they all describe reality correctly and are all equally valid is absurd and obviously untrue. Since we are on an Objectivist forum, why don't we talk about Objectivism.
Do you think Ayn Rand's identification of existence, consciousness and identity as the three principle axioms is true? Do you understand her argument? Do you understand why these three are axioms and what the characteristics and identifying features of an axiom are? If so, have you validated this knowledge for yourself?
In other words, do you agree and accept that these three are actually axioms and that they truly describe reality? Meaning: there would be no science if existence didn't exist, there would be no science without conscious beings examining what exists, there would be no science if the thing you were examining could be itself and something else at the same time?
If so, if you agree with all this, then I don't see how you could accept any evidence that would invalidate that very same evidence. If some "scientist" came up to me claiming to have evidence that I didn't exist, I was not conscious, or that the coffee I was drinking could be a pile of shit, I'm not sure what I would do first, there are too many logical options. I suppose a slap in the face could defeat his entire line of argument quite eloquently. When he protested I would say, protests, slaps, my hand and the two of us don't exist, certainly, neither of us is conscious so we must be dreaming, and anyway, it wasn't actually a slap, it was a kiss.
-
I like art deco but I don't think there is such a thing as "Objectivist style" or an "Objectivist paint scheme".
While color is always important, to me, art deco is more about textures, patterns and designs. I would concentrate on assembling some details or accents of art deco style that you like, and then match the final paint scheme to the details. In addition, I would try to gather inspiration from other things art deco, like: buildings (the Chrysler Building), bridges (the Golden Gate), diners, posters, trains, campers (the airstream I think it is called), lamps, ceramic tiles, ceiling tiles, stained glass ... Do a google search on all of these terms and "art deco" and you will see thousands of images and websites.
Some art deco details I like:
- Check out these beautiful ceramic tiles
- I absolutely love tin ceilings, check these ceiling tiles out
- Here are some images of house numbers
- There are art deco light fixtures
- There are art deco planters on ebay
To be more specific, when I think of art deco and a building of your scale, I think of a sleek, stainless steel diner. Now, obviously, you don't want your home to look like a diner, but you can take some cues from that design esthetic. I would do something with the ceiling tiles from above (they come in many different finishes, if you click on one and scroll down you'll find them like on this page). I thought of putting them on the bottom of your trailer, and that probably could be done if you found a pattern in the right scale, but I suspect it would be too busy. So then I thought of just plain stainless steel sheets; maybe 1' x 2' laid out like bricks in a running bond pattern; maybe even with pvc moulding in between to simulate "grout". If that is too expensive then perhaps you can find a salvage yard in your closest city with salvaged stainless siding from an old diner. I do think the ceiling tiles would go really well on the upper part "roofline" of your trailer.
I might put a 3 or 4 inch black framing around your windows and doors (you should either match doors or get rid of the second door). Then, perhaps, I would pick a nice ceramic tile from above (or again salvage) and apply them to the corners of the framing. Or maybe you just save it to go around the door. Some nice wrought iron step from the salvage yard would look nice. Then choose an art deco color like a muted green or blue for the main body.
Your yard should be immaculate with shaped plantings and nice planters.
There is much more to say.
Have fun.
-
If the evidence of science disagrees with your philosophy, your philosophy has nothing to stand on. If a scientific theory is wrong, there's a scientific reason why.
Here is an article from the past week essentially saying that some scientists have evidence that free will is an illusion, that free will doesn't exist.
Do you think that such a thing could ever be proven?
Let us say that some "scientists" do "prove" that free will is an illusion. Should we take them seriously? Why or why not?
-
CriticalThinker:
Your last several posts on this subject (innocents in war) are in complete accord with Objectivist principles and doctrine. I am in complete agreement with your answers, characterizations and examples. However, I think you do your argument a disservice by introducing the concept of the "emergency situation", to wit:
The nature of war is exactly the same as the life boat.
From the Lexicon:
An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible
Certainly war creates conditions under which human survival is impossible. However, it isn't unchosen (by the aggressor) and thus not unexpected, nor is it limited in time.
The point is that one has a choice about whether to be aggressive or not. And the fact that an aggressor is objectively wrong is what gives your moral argument all of its weight.The nature of war is exactly the same as the life boat. It's either lay down and die or kill and survive. As such, the moral obligation of individuals is to fight to protect their own life.
The lifeboat is an amoral situation, meaning, there is no right answer, no right or wrong, any action you take might be appropriate. You have the right to defend yourself, but so do the others in the boat.
In war, as you have been properly arguing, there is a right answer, a universal principle: DO NOT INITIATE FORCE. If someone has initiated force against you, you have the right to defend yourself, to use force in retaliation against those who initiated it. The guys who initiated the use of force have no right to defend themselves, they have forfeited their rights. Their only option is to stop initiating force and surrender immediately.
Anyway, continue on, you are doing a great job, just leave out emergencies, you don't need them.- Nicky and Easy Truth
-
2
-
This story is vapid, what is one story? What really matters it the situation on aggregate.
In other words, the individual doesn't matter, only the collective does?
-
Cowardly. Uh huh. That's not a personal attack at all. No siree.
Anyhow, like I said, I'm not going to win an argument with the moderators, and I'm not even going to try...
Interesting how when given a choice between two descriptions you chose the one labeling yourself as evasive. Thank you for acknowledging the truth.
Besides, you admitted defeat before the moderators got involved. First with your childish tantrum and then with this:
If anybody actually wants the tldr on my position, see the OP. After this many posts I don't think anything new has been added to this subject...
Essentially saying: "I don't know what I'm talking about so read this other person's post, I agree with them even though I don't understand it."
-
You are equivocating between the personal use of force and that of the government's use of force:
It is good to finally hear you acknowledge that you think the government should be allowed to initiate force against its citizens. But now you want to pretend that that was Ayn Rand's position? No matter how many times she explicitly said no to that proposition? It would be far too kind of me to call an evasion of that magnitude chutzpah.
Here is Ayn Rand's actual position:
"[...] But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his."
-- Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, pg. 183 -- From the Lexicon
Oh, and for your edification, she wrote the last sentence in that quote just for you: it is the definition of anarchy. No one here is advocating anarchy except you.
[Remainder of nasty personalized rant ignored]
Ignored? Yes, ignored and evaded.
What a pathetically weak response. I will take it as your acknowledgment that:
- You are ok with treating everyone like a criminal.
- You are ok with putting a rational, hard working person in jail for doing nothing.
- You want to abrogate rational, objective thought and outlaw independent thought altogether.
Can you please settle the argument and tell us which you are: an anarchist or a communist?
[Ayn Rand] wasn't an anarchist because anarchy is retarded... It's not even worth arguing against since it's self-evident how unworkable it is.
Well, Ayn Rand wasn't eight years old either so she would never write what you have written here. Nor would she call an argument "self-evident". In fact she said: "Nothing is self-evident except the material of sensory perception." [from the Lexicon]. Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist because every principle she ever discovered pointed away from it. You, however cannot say the same thing.
I could say that in principle you support and defend anarchism and in a sense I'd be correct, though inaccurate. Because here, as everywhere else on this forum, you show an inability (or unwillingness) to think in principles. All you have to say about anarchism is that it is "unworkable". Meaning that if it was workable you'd be for it. In other words you have no principled objection to anarchism, but whether that is because you are an anarchist or a pragmatist is up for debate.
Everyone can see what you are doing here, it is called: avoid, deflect, evade. There is no logical way you for you to defend your position that objective laws require the government to initiate force or that individual rights can be protected only by violating them. These positions are self-contradictory!!!
So what you do is pretend that those of us standing on the principle that civilized society requires the initiation of force to be outlawed are somehow advocating the opposite. I'll call it the argument from defeat and it is reprehensible and as childish as pretending someone said something they didn't and then arguing against it by calling it "retarded". What a joke.
I was going to recommend that you give up while you still have a shred of integrity left but it is too late for that.
-
Protection from crime is necessary in order to live freely in a society.
Guess what else is necessary to live freely: the initiation of force must be outlawed. You want to make the initiation of force lawful! Which, of course, is the contradiction inherent in your position.
How are you protecting people from crime by making the government a criminal?
--except maybe for Men who think anarchism is a realistic solution to government
Your position is much more conducive to anarchism than an Objectivist's. You want to make the initiation of force part of the government's proper role. In principle you support anarchism.
Even more malevolent though is your psychological justification for such. Supposedly you are worried about the "free riders" and you want to turn them into criminals, the disgusting part is that you want to treat the rest of us as if we were criminals. The people who would have donated to the government of their own free will will be indistinguishable from those that wouldn't have. In a free society we would probably know who those people are and we can act accordingly.
Nor can you see a legitimate reason not to pay. What about those who can't afford to pay? In a free society this group would probably be very small but nonetheless you would send a rational hard working person to jail for doing nothing. Much more important though are those who wouldn't pay, or who would restrict their payment, on principle, whether they are right or wrong in their reasons. You want to not only outlaw independent thought, you want to abrogate rational, objective thought.
All of these actions and thought processes betray a malevolent psychology and align you politically with not only anarchists but socialists and totalitarians.
The rest of us are fine: we believe in objective laws and individual rights protected by a government.
Objectivists are fine because they apply principles consistently. Those who think that objective laws require the government to initiate force and that individual rights can be protected only by violating them are delusional dumdums (to use your terminology (which really should be spelled dumbdumbs)).
-
"Although America’s goal regarding Iran should be not merely to end the regime’s quest for nuclear weapons, but to end the regime altogether, thus clearing the way for liberty minded Iranians to establish a peaceful, rights-respecting republic..."
Oh yeah, that will work. Just like it did in Iraq. And Egypt. And every other country we've "liberated"...
Who writes this crap at the OS anyhow? "Dumdums For Objectivism"...
So it is fine with you if Iran continues on as a theocracy that not only threatens the US but has actually attacked and killed many Americans? And it is also OK with you that this same regime acquires a nuclear weapon?
Who writes your stupid stuff? Let's see, you can't be agreeing with Krugman this time since he actually believes that war and destruction helps the economy. Is this Libertarian or pacifist baloney you are selling today?
-
What I'd like to know is: if someone can own a concept (such as an invention; abstracted from each concrete instance of that invention), which can be shared and distributed infinitely without being consumed or diminished in any way whatsoever, [...]
This problem is solved by current patent law and is one of the things alluded to by Ayn Rand in the article to which you refer.
[...] then why the Hell can't I lay claim to the specific procedure of "cooking food"? (What if I had invented "cooking food"?)
Can you say "dropping context"? You have been given an answer to this non-problem before in one of the other IP threads.
We have a word for a person who intentionally avoids truth or reality because it doesn't fit with their preconceived notions.
-
LoBagola:
I appreciate the questions you ask. You seem thoughtful and inquisitive and I don't want to discourage these things in you.
However, two things you seem to have a penchant for is quoting out of context and not giving a citation for the things you quote. Both of these things are highly inappropriate in rational discussion. It is ESSENTIAL that you provide a citation for your quotes: Who are you quoting? From where? What book? What edition? What article? What chapter? What page? What paragraph? If you are quoting from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, then say that and provide a link to that page of the Lexicon.
In addition it is improper and illogical to quote someone out of context. It is almost never appropriate to quote just one sentence. As a general rule I would suggest quoting the entire paragraph from which the sentence originates, highlighting (and noting) the sentence or phrase you wish to discuss. In fact, it may be appropriate to quote the paragraphs before and after (and maybe more) the one under examination, if they bear on what you wish to discuss, i.e., if they provide even more context.
Doing these things (among others) will facilitate a more fruitful, targeted and less disjointed discussion.
As for what you've asked so far ... I don't think one fall's "in love with another persons sense of life". I believe you fall in love with a person.
And in your question you ask "what I don't get is how people can fall in love with someone who remains indifferent to them?" Using the word "remains" can be confusing. Does it mean that this other person was always indifferent or that they changed their mind?
-
As others have hinted: the question is illegitimate.
Here is an excellent explanation of that answer from Craig Biddle of "The Objective Standard".
-
-
I just noticed a newly reblogged post on honesty:
And it reminded me [...]
Blah, blah, blah ...
Hilarious that you want to reopen this thread and your opening line is about "honesty". Your impudence and shamelessness are unparalleled -- on this forum at least (well actually paralleled by your earlier behavior here) -- probably SOP over at OL.
In your last post to me you not only proved yourself a liar, you admitted to it. Here is the reply I had generated but didn't post because there was no point. Why talk to a liar? There is no reason.
-----------------------------------
And by the way you did make a positive claim about the Objectivist view on lying. You said that it was ONLY allowed when one is under threat of force. So contrary to your assertion that you can't prove a negative, I never asked you to. Provide a quote in which Ayn Rand said those were the ONLY conditions under which one could lie. Show me where she uses the word ONLY.
Oh, how big of you. Is that how it works? You just admit to lying and then everything goes back to normal? I don’t think so. How am I supposed to have a rational discussion with a liar, hypocrite, mischaracterizer, misinterpreter? I’m probably more likely to get the truth from Bernie Madoff.
You did much more than just “overstate your case”; you made up something you knew not to be true in order to support your preordained conclusion. In other words, you did exactly what you accuse me of doing below (with added emphasis); which, of course, makes you a proven hypocrite for the third time.
No. You entered this discussion with an irrational, emotionally desired conclusion -- that I am dishonest, "scum" and hypocritical -- and you've been actively focused on inventing reasons to continue believing that conclusion, while avoiding the substance of my posts. You still haven't offered anything to support your claim that Rand believed that privacy lies in the absence of threats of the initiation of force are moral.
Who is it who “invented reasons” to support their conclusion in this case Jonathan? Come on, time for another disingenuous mea culpa Mr. Hypocrite.
This is often the case with liars: they accuse others of the dishonesty they know themselves to be engaged in. Sometimes they do it to cover their tracks, sometimes as an argumentative device, sometimes because that is all they know: lying.
--------------------------------
I'm not really willing to further engage you on this subject since you have admitted lying about it.
I have been debating with myself about engaging you in the current music thread because it would be an easy matter to show how you have been, at the very least, intellectually dishonest there also.
-
thenelli01:
I am going to jump into the middle here without knowing your full position. So, please don't take this as disagreeing (or agreeing) with your position in particular. As the first step in an effort to be constructive, I like the question you ask:
It would be more appropriate to begin with the question: what rights does a child have?
It would be even more appropriate and instructive to ask: What is the fundamental nature of rights? What principle in ethics gives rise to the principle of rights? What implication does this have for children (or anyone unable to exercise their rights fully)? What is the nature of property rights? Do they differ from other rights somehow (fundamentally)?
I'll give a hint quoted from Ayn Rand: "rights pertain only to action" -
Based on my own daily reading of PK, he absolutely does not think this. Detroit certainly was a victim of market forces. So are lots of people. How we react to them can be different, but market forces certainly involve winners and losers. So what. He also blames "political dysfunction" aka political corruption. He also blames the disintegration of the concept of city centers. All of this is just plain science and observation, not political editorial.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This paragraph: Pure. Irrationalism.
Krugman absolutely DOES believe that these problems can be solved by multiplying the government money thrown at it. You know what his prescription is for the stagnant economy? The government didn't throw enough money at the problem. TARP should have been at least doubled, probably more!!!!
"Market Forces"???? This is your diagnosis???? Completely absurd. I guess you don't realize that it is "market forces" that provide jobs and create wealth. Market forces don't destroy cities. The solution for Detroit is to reinstate "market forces", not more government intervention.
Science and observation??? This is the same kind of observation that says that the rooster crowing causes the sun to come up. You have named effects not causes. Complete logical abdication. Not one of those things you mentioned has anything to do with the destruction of Detroit. They are all liberal talking points.
It is ALL political editorial and that is what makes Krugman not just sad but evil: he is a liar. He is smart enough to know that less freedom and government confiscation of wealth are what will destroy this country and yet that is what he advocates. Most politicians are ignorant, Krugman is evil, he seeks destruction. Why you would defend anything he says is beyond me, maybe you actually believe what you wrote in this paragraph: are you just stupid or are you evil?
-
FACT: Atoms are not alive
FACT: Human beings are a group of atoms
CLAIM: Human beings are alive
CONTRADICTION: A group of non-living things cannot be alive
Do you see a problem with this logic?
Innocents dying, ethics
in Ethics
Posted
Yes, Ayn Rand was very clear on this point. The following quote is perfectly clear and concrete -- not an out of context, floating abstraction.