Felix

Why would you have a tax in the first place? The very fact that you have a tax would mean that you have given up a part of your economic freedom. But this is a good example to explain what I mean: Let's say you have only three people. Let's say there is no tax. Everyone may keep 100% of what he earns. The only way to deal with one another is through free trade. Now one of the three people is way more productive than the others. He works longer and he works smarter. He saves and builds tools to increase his productivity. Now the two others come along and say: We want what you have. Let's start a tax. He who earns more than average should be taxed and the taxed money should be distributed to those who don't earn it. That's democracy. It's still rule by force. That it "benefits" most people creates its appeal. What you don't understand is the difference between individual rights and democracy. These are completely different terms. If the two people vote to kill that man, they can. What protects him and gives him freedom is not democracy. His freedom comes from his rights. And these rights actually hinder the ruling of democracy. What made America big was not democracy, but respect for individual rights. In a certain sense, yes. What you have to understand is that there isn't "the workers" on one side and "the market" on the other. They are the same thing. "the market" is just another term for "all the people in a country" (or on the planet). You are part of that market, so am I. No matter where I am born or how. As long as I am alive and have needs and wants, I am part of a market and people have a reason to produce what I want to get my money in exchange. The same is true for you. Wherever there's a need, there's a market and an incentive to produce something that fills that need. You can still get a job. And you don't need state support to learn useful skills to then get a better job. I would also challenge your statement that no bank would lend you money. Of course you have advantages if you start out with a lot of money. But the point I am trying to make is that your fate is not determined by the cards you are dealt. The good thing about capitalism is that it's possible to work your way to the top if you want to. Wealth is not inherited, it is created. And if you can do good work, you get paid good money as companies will seek those who do good work. And don't forget that poor people are a market by themselves, so companies produce goods that are as cheap as possible so that even poor people can afford them and they constantly underbid each other regarding prices to get increased market share.

The basic idea behind Objectivist ethics is: "If you want to live, you have to do certain things because reality demands it". There is no fundamental ought that applies to you just so. Only if you want to live you have to find out the means of how exactly to do that. So the is-ought gap is bridged by the fact that to survive you have to do certain things (eat, sleep) and must not do certain others (jump off a high building). The basic "ought" you accept when you want to live is rationality. Unlike Kantian rationalism, Objectivism holds that you should be reasonable not because it's reasonable, but because it's the only way for your to survive. Reason is your way of accepting reality and dealing with it. Your success in regard to survival is determined by how strongly you stick to the principle of rationality. The examples you gave were examples of intrinsic value: People who say: "Nature is valuable" without giving any reason why. "It just is". This is, as you correctly stated, invalid.

This would boil down to capitalism, where you get paid in proportion to the value you create for others. So you mean that everything will be dealt with by direct democracy? This is an even bigger hassle . And what makes you think that a cab driver has enough knowledge to decide which technology to use for a nuclear power plant. You'll end up with some sort of representative democracy in the end and you'll have all the problems they had in Russia and China. And what happens if you want to do one job and democracy has made the decision that you're not allowed to do it. You have then given up the right to choose what you want to do with your life for the right to meddle with the lives of others. You still don't belong to yourself and if three people vote that you should do work you hate you have to do it, because you only have one vote. The problem remains even if you had direct democracy, because you were breaking with the fundamental principle of freedom: The fact that your life belongs to you. No. There is no fundamental class split. You can start a company in capitalism. There's nobody stopping you. The profit principle just means that you want to be paid as much as you can for your work, which in the end means that you want to be as productive as you can be, which is very similar to "From each according to his ability", only that it is chosen freely and not ordered by a collective or its representative. There is no split like: "you are born poor, therefore you remain poor" or "you are born rich therefore you remain rich". It has taken me a while, too, to get this, so I'll try to explain this a bit: The only way to make money in capitalism is if you produce and sell products or services that people (the masses) actually want. You can't dictate people what they should want or not. They hold the money they have earned in their hands and they decide what they buy or don't buy. So if you want to get anywhere in capitalism you have to make your products as good and as cheap as you can. But you also have another problem: If you want to hire people to do work for you, you have to give them enough money and/or better working conditions or they will work for the competition as they can freely choose where they want to work. So the only way to actually start a successful company in capitalism is by doing the following: Offering better and/or cheaper products and services to the masses while offering more money and/or better working conditions to your workers. If you don't do the first, you can't sell anything and go bankrupt. And if you don't do the second, you can't even produce anything. And the only way to do this is by increasing productivity and sharing the benefits this brings with your workers and customers. Any other way will not work. Either you can't start or you end up bankrupt. There is no "class" which controls production. The market controls what it produced or not. Everyone is free to start a company on his own and offer new jobs and new services. So if it's profitable to start a company that pays more to its workers and creates the same products, it will be done. If it's profitable to start a company that pays the same to its workers but offers superior products it will be done. There is nobody who can control what people do in capitalism. The only measuring stick you have is: What the masses want. And even this is not quite correct as you can produce products for any group of people depending on their particular needs and wants. You don't need to appeal to everyone with your product.

That's why there is something like market research. Testing if your product would actually sell is just part of that. Actually it's the last part. You don't just start producing. No, it's based on understanding what the market wants and producing just that. That's not luck. It's skill. Oh, that's what you mean. But isn't the full quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Therefore distribution has nothing to do with production, only with need. If you produce a lot but only need little, you are basically punished for that by getting tons of unpaid work to do whereas if you are incompetent and unable to do any decent work, you have the right to declare everything that you "need" as yours. This should strike you as completely unfair given that even in the communist manifesto the basic idea was to free the productive part of the population. As I described above, socialism does the exact opposite. It won't. The planner makes mistakes since he's not omniscient. It's enough work to find out how many Coca Cola bottles can be sold in a given time period. Your planner would have to know this for every single product and would also have to find out what people want for every single person and then match this somehow to make it work. The thing is that this is way beyond any planner's capability. What makes me wonder is that you even stated that finding out how much to produce of one widget was impossible and just a matter of luck. How can you then believe that it is even remotely possible for a planner to to this for an entire economy? Planners are humans just like everyone else. They don't get special powers by becoming social planners. If you just let people decide what they want to do, they will 1) mainly produce things that are needed because they go bankrupt otherwise 2) choose the best job according to what they want And they will very closely match the workings of a hypothetical omniscient planner. They'll do it way better than any committee ever will. Thus, one argument for capitalism is that freedom is way more efficient than planning. But this is not the main argument. The very fact that you have a planner who tells you what to do and what not to do means that you give up freedom because you do as you are told and are not allowed to do otherwise. In addition to that you don't get value according to what you produce but according to what a committee says you need. How can you believe this to be just?

In capitalism you would never make a ton of a product at once if you didn't know whether it would sell for the very reason that it would make you bankrupt. Instead you test with a small amount to see if it works. And if it doesn't, you've lost money and stop producing it. And so in the end you produce things that people want. You've also neglected the fact that if you produced a ton of widgets that do sell, you'd become rich for your efforts in capitalism whereas you would just get same as everyone else in socialism. Can you explain this to me? 1) What is this principle? 2) How does it lead to the production of what people actually want?

Okay, I didn't word that one right. Thanks for the clarification.

Well, the reason I want to know a bit more about what you currently think is the fact that I don't really know what it is you want (or need) to know about Objectivism to understand what it says. I can't really lead you from A to B if I have no clue where A is. Therefore it would be good to know what your conception of truth is as well as your idea of what Objectivism's claim to objectivity means. If you don't tell me what you think I have to make assumptions. And you might then find me arguing against things you don't even believe and explaining things you already understand. Or simpler: It will be boring, frustrating and ineffective. It doesn't matter if your opinion changes now and then. Actually, it means that you are capable of finding errors in your reasoning and eliminating them. That's a good sign. I'm not an expert on Objectivist epistemology, yet, but I think I have a good grasp of the basics, so I'll just give it a try [Note to everyone: If what I'm telling is wrong, please correct me!]: Objectivity means two things: First it means that there is an external world out there. Something that is real and not only imagined. I'll assume you agree with that one. The second part is trickier and this is also where your "It's all just an opinion"-part comes in. I'll try to give you a short introduction to what this means: Man has to grasp this reality somehow. He does so through his senses, first. So the first thing you'd have to understand is that you have to take your sensory input as 100% valid. Now this requires some additional explainations. If you have a pencil and put it into a glass of water, it appears to be bent. Now you might say that this is proof that you can't assume that your sensory input is 100% valid. But how do you know that? Only through other sensory output. I guess the way to put it is that there's no reason to fundamentally mistrust your senses. For in this example, you see the pencil as bent. Combined with your prior knowledge (sensory input) you can now learn something about the nature of light. What you can't deny is that you see it as bent when it's in the water and as not bent when it's not. You don't really have a choice about that. What made me consider the possibility of objective knowledge was basically reading Atlas Shrugged. I was a full-fledged relativist at that point (Robert Anton Wilson was my favourite author). It's hard to nail it down to one single reason that convinced me, as it's hard to untangle that since AS is over 1000 pages and contained a philosophy that was the complete opposite of my own at that time. So it was pretty much a roundhouse kick to my face. But if I had to pick one reason to consider dropping relativism as reasonable it would be the approaching-truck-argument. Imagine there was a giant truck rushing towards you. What would you do? Would you say that it's only an opinion? That your senses are tricking you? Would you wonder whether you have the right to assume knowledge? Nope. You'd just jump aside as quick as possible to save your life. This is what everyone would do. The reason I like this argument is because it shows that you can't stick to relativism consistently, because then you'd have to give up knowledge completely. You basically give up your mind as a tool for survival and die in the end. If "everything is just an opinion" is the fundamental belief then that, too, is just an opinion and you lose yourself in infinite regress. If you don't want to read a large book, I'd recommend you at least go to a local video store and borrow "The Edge" with Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin.

Okay, then I think this is resolved now. You have devised a method for getting good grades and having lots of free time that works for bad American colleges, where policy makers adapt to students who don't learn to make them pass, too. I don't study at such a college, but instead at one that is similar to the top soviet union schools you described. Hence the difference in our approaches. I have to study more for my classes, which is why I have more study time to do and less free time to actually learn something useful - to a degree that I would have to cut my social life down to zero to get a decent degree and a decent education. Glad we sorted that one out. Peace!

You're welcome. But you should know that that's not my store, just one I link to. Anyway, you're welcome!

It takes quite an amount of study time here (Germany) to just pass your tests. So I'm willing to spend additional time to make sure that my results are worth my efforts. I don't just want a paper, I want a paper that's of use to me, i.e. a paper with good grades on it. If I study only half the time, I might pass just so and then have a D average. Then I could have just spent my years on vacation. If you get by in the American system by just doing the minimum, fine. But don't impose this on everyone else. You were the one generalizing by calling my approach disgusting. Besides, the problem is not whether formal education is hard or not. What matters is if it prepares you for your job. Just because it's hard that doesn't mean that it has any merit for you beyond the grades. If you had to learn something that has no value to you AND they made the tests hard as hell, guess how much that would suck. Your approach was only made possible by all the guys you despise so much, because they make your grades easier to get. They are the reason you can get by with your approach, the reason why you have so much free time to study on your own and learn something real AND get decent grades.

Why I don't feel disgusted? Because I want to get good grades and am willing to work for it. If they don't do the job to make me understand (they don't), I'm willing to do it myself. And due to the nature of the stuff they teach me, this is a brilliant method. I want the damn paper and I'm willing to do the required work. What's disgusting about that? The fact that I need the paper in the first place? The fact that I want it? The fact that I'm willing to work for what I want? I don't know about the American educational system. But at every exam I write, at least 50% fail to get the grade. And with good reason. Usually it's around 70% who don't even get a D and have to do it again. You said that they adapt the classes so that people don't fail? They don't do that here.

You may also want to try "How to live with a neurotic" by Albert Ellis.

This is great advice. I'm currently doing just that. Treat it like a job. Fixed hours. 9 to 5 if you want. Just use this time to do your university stuff and take the rest of the time to do whatever you want. If you can have a lousy job from nine to five to get money, you can do the same to get a piece of paper. The cool thing about this approach is that it destroys your ability for procrastination. You don't need much motivation once you've started. Just do the damn job. Period.

I got started with Objectivism because I, like you, believed that objectivity is impossible. "There's no truth. Everything is just somebody's opinion." were my fundamental beliefs. Is that a good characterization of your position? There is a good answer to "Why use reason?" that goes beyond "Because it's reasonable." Why bother with reason in the first place? Why be rational? The answer to this is: "Because there is something called reality out there." You may, at this point, believe that it's impossible to know objective reality. But do you agree that it exists? That there's a real world out there? In general it would be helpful if we knew more about your current position. Oh, and welcome to the forum.

Enjoy your trip!

A predisposition doesn't have to determine your behavior. You can act against your predisposition. But it's harder.

Well, what can I say: I just knew it.

I have read repeatedly on this forum that "the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim" and I have a problem with that idea. Here's an example: Let's say that I hold that animals should have rights. That would be a positive claim and the burden of proof would be on me. But isn't the idea that I can kill any animal as I wish yet another positive claim? It's the claim that rights are based on the possession of a conceptual faculty and that only man has one. So instead of one claim against no claim, you actually have one claim against another.

The Juggernaut is in that movie. Therefore it is good. (Greetings to Felipe!)

What I meant is that no matter which kind of content you have to convey in the first place, putting together a free verse version is easier than putting together one with lots of rhyme, structure, etc. that conveys the content just as good as the free verse. I guess you missed that it rhymes. Free verse has to employ great means of conveying its content without using structure. Great structured poetry would have to use structure on top of that. I'm just guessing here, but could it be that you assess free verse harder because it is less effort not to package it? You said yourself about "traditional" form: "...but at least it makes an effort." Actually, that's been my point.

This just blows my mind.

Hi there! Phew, there's a lot of stuff here. There we go: The problem is that Socialist societies a produce less b produce the wrong things (Start space programs while people are starving for example) But for Objectivists the most important thing would be (to quote "Serenity") c) they meddle. That means that they tell people what they are allowed to do and what they are not. They tell them how to do it and how not. Force is used to accomplish this goal. It's actually this moral issue that makes Objectivists reject government intervention. I don't really get what you mean by employment. If government restrictions are too high, less employment is profitably possible. You seem to forget that employment means that someone employs someone else. There has to be an employer for employment to happen. But it could be that I misunderstood you. So I'd rather let you clarify before going on. I'd also question the notion that progress would be the same if it weren't for competition. First of all, they are not really supplying a demand. Well, maybe a demand from central government. With the "incentive" of not receiving punishment for not working. In socialism you get according to your need, not according to your ability. Have you read the part on the company John Galt left to stop the motor of the world? It shows quite clearly why a man can't feel virtuous within a socialist system: He's both a slave and a beggar. I'd say the response would be this: It is true that many workers cry for government help. But this "help" tends to cause more problems than it solves. Also the question is: Where's the exploitation in a system where people can choose where to work. It's not that people are forced to work for a certain employer. They can change jobs. People tend to pick the best jobs they can get. And if government doesn't hinder the process of job creation, there are enough opportunities to get one. It's not that you have a "right to a good job". That job has to be provided. And both has to happen without force to be morally justifiable. Of what are workers to be protected? If one company starts to pay less to increase profits, their competition will take away their workers. Well, it promotes minimal government. (To clarify: Libertarians can also be anarchists, meaning that they want no government at all.) If you mean by security a guaranteed cheque if you are in need provided by government, then you are correct. Objectivists oppose this. The reason for that is that this government money would have to be stolen first.

You want a definition? Hm. Okay. How about text with line breaks in the middle of sentences? I thought what I meant would be obvious. That's not an argument. Everything can produce an emotional reaction in a person. That's completely missing the point. I said that the purpose of poetry is to express feelings. Do you think that a polynomial has the purpose of expressing a feeling like "I'm sad because my dog died."? You don't like free verse. I know. Good point. I guess it could. That's this "structure for memorization"-thing Jenni has mentioned. But I guess since printing was invented, this has become obsolete. I rather see it the other way around. Not: All poems express feelings. But: If you want to express feelings, a poem is the way to go. You could use the form of a poem for other purposes. You could perhaps even do your bookkeeping with it. You could use a hammer to open a tuna can. But that doesn't mean that its purpose is opening tuna cans. Jenni was right that historically poems were used as a mnemonic tool. I just think that nowadays this is no longer done with that intention. Especially not free verse, since it doesn't have such mnemonic structural elements.

I said that the value of a poem (not poet, it was late, sorry), should be judged based on how it describes a feeling. Feelings are by nature personal, which does indeed make it hard to define. It could be that one would have to learn some background to "get it". But I guess that one can judge here, if one knows the feeling the poet tries to convey. I think that poetry is at the other side of the spectrum of language than mathematics where mathematics is totally precise and structured and emotionless, poetry just has another motive. Its purpose is different. I agree that it is on average harder to write a highly structured poem than to write it free verse. The question is if it fulfills the purpose of the poem better than if one had just left out the formal restrictions. As far as I see it, language exists for communication, that is, to get information from person A to person B. Poetry is a way to express feelings with words mostly by use of metaphor and other hypnotic language. I just think to convey feelings this is a very appropriate means. If the poet manages to get his point across wonderfully and stick to some sort of high formal structure, that can be considered better art, but only because he managed to keep up the content in spite of structure. I think in poetry content is king. Picking the right metaphors, pictures and words is more important than making it rhyme. If you make it rhyme on top of that, fine. But it's not an essential characteristic as far as I see it.

I don't see what the fuss is all about. Most poems have some sort of structure: aliteration, rhyme, hexameter, whatever. Yet, there are some poems which don't. They are called free verse poems. You may not like them. But they're still poems. They're just free verse poems. You can say that you don't like free verse poems but I doubt that they are not poems. I think that poems exist to express feelings with words. There are other ways to do that, but poems are one of them. A poet is good or bad based on how well it conveys a feeling. If it does that job, it's a good poem. If it doesn't, it's not. Even if it has all the structure possible. And -now that I think of it- isn't adding a line break every now and then some sort of structure? Besides, usually free verse poetry uses this line break feature to put some order into the poem. Roses are red violets are blue you think this should rhyme but it ain't gonna! It doesn't even have rhythm. But at least rhyme and rhythm look remotely alike. Also note how you pause in your head like you did when you read the last clause. Isn't that enough? Edit: I know I know that poem was bad, But I just wrote it off the top of my head, I know instead of "clause" I should have written "line" But you say it's not a poem if it doesn't rhyme. It's just a few lines you don't have to recall so regarding rhyme and structure: why do you need it at all? Hey, this is fun. Last time I did this I was a kid. And now the question: Was that line part of the poem or wasn't it?