Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

spadeaspade

Regulars
  • Posts

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    India
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

spadeaspade's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I don't understand what you mean by productivity generally. Isn't Productivity itself rational, in the sense that, whoever decides to be productive is rational, no matter what he 'believes' his drivers for the same are? So no matter what some people 'believe' the drivers for their productivity are, the actual drivers are something else and these are objective. Ok, I am clearing the context a little more. I want to know what makes people productive is because productivity is what sustains organizations in the long-term; it adds to the bottomline of a for-profit organization and helps keep it black ie it is productivity that keeps the organization from going into the red and not only that, but it also helps it grow. My observations were that some people are more productive than others and they subsidize the non-productivity of others in an orgaizational set-up. Now, if only a few productive people contribute to the bottomline, and the bottomline is in the +ve, it surely will grow exponentially if more people became productive. So, if one wants more people to be productive, one needs to understand what drives productivity. If these reasons/drivers are shown or told to the non-productive people, they could be inspired to be more productive and thus the organization prospers. As you have pointed out, there are some people who might not know the actual drivers and knowing these can help them be more productive. Anyway, the main discussion topic is not why I want to know about the drivers. The topic is 'what are the drivers'. But yes, maybe why I want to know might shed some light. So here you are. Is this clarification ok or still not good enough?
  2. Check out the following. I just had a cursory glance at both. So, no idea whether these are really helpful. But these seem relevant here. The first contains smth to the extent that emergencies actually contribute to the bottomline of the hospital and there is a trade-off between the costs and revenue (directly or indirectly) generated by the EDs. The second, I am not sure what it is really about. http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/research/h...ofitability.pdf http://www.tha.com/pdffiles/Industrial-Imp...resentation.pdf Well, some thoughts : It is a capitalist society. So, would it be right to assume 1. There would be no or very less poverty and no individuals with no income either of their own or someone willing to pay for them (eg non-working population like children)? 2. Stretching a little bit, if in general, the ppl are 'accepting' capitalistic society, they are 'accepting' and 'agreeing' to the principles underlying it. So that, in general, the ppl are 'principled' with the right principles in place. So, there are no or very less cases of non-payment or denial to pay on recovery. What I am trying to say is that even if there is a possiblility of non-ability to pay at the given moment, there will be no unwillingness to pay. And so, either there will be immediate payment or smth like a loan or instalment could be worked out. Also, I think there is a point missing. When anyone takes a decision unilaterally, he is the one responsible for its consequences. In today's situation the hospital is forced legally to treat emergencies. But in a capitalist society it is not. So, if it decides to go ahead without checking on the ability-to-pay, it is a voluntary decision and so it is responsible for it. In effect, what it means is 'I will treat you no matter what'. Now, if the patient refuses to pay saying 'I didn't ask you to treat me', the hospital cannot, at least on moral grounds, ask the patient to pay. So, now the hospital has to bear the costs. But, businessemen (especially in a capitalistic society) are smart. They are not going to allow this to turn into losses. So, they will find out some means to trade these off against revenue from other sources. One of the ways this can be done is pricing the in-patient section in a manner to absorb probable ED losses (this is a complex statistical exercise and am not going into detail here). Or the hospital can be smart to recover it from the said patient albeit without stating it explicitly. Maybe smth like, discontinuing further treatment till the patient agrees to pay once he is conscious. Now, the patient has two alternatives, either agree to pay or shift to some other hospital. In the second case, when he shifts (if that is physically possible in the first place), the other hospital will need the medical reports and documents from the first hospital regarding the treatment it used. Now, the first hospital refuses to furnish these (in a capitalistic society, I don't think it will be forced to furnish without being compensated for it). The second hospital refuses further treatment in absence of history (assuming this is critical for further treatment). And thus this goes on with each hospital the patient shifts to. He suffers. So, he is 'forced' to return to the first hospital and make good the payment. I know I have made many assumptions and I don't know if this is the best way to handle it. Just a suggestion. Or another way is stating that it is not charging for initial treatment, but for further continued one (after the patient is conscious and agrees to it) and it prices the further treatment in a way to absorb the initial treatment costs. Also, the mentality of -Uncle Sam (consequently the tax-payers)-should-take-care-of-my-medical bills- will not be very prevalent in a capitalistic society. So, the financial model for the EDs will be very different from what it is now. Again, in all probability the ED will be just one part of the hospital whose costs will be traded-off against revenue from other departments. There will be no special emergeny hospitals in absence of a strong financial model (whether for-profit or not-for-profit) which will need to be worked out. Just my two cents. Open to discussion.
  3. Moderators, is this thread in the wrong place? Could it be better somewhere else? Or simply, no takers?
  4. Bingo! Hit the nail, I guess. Man, you have no idea what you are saying! And you are being so very presumptuous. If you had just added 'For me' for all of the above quote, it would be fine. It seems from all your posts (not just the above) that you have no idea of what you are talking about - sex and the fine art that it is. For you, the only purpose of sex is to use it as a means to express your 'love' (with no regard to the how, the technique, the skill, the fine craft of the act - which very much goes into the pleasure or satisfaction index) .That is ok as long as you talking for yourself. Don't generalise it. If you do, what you are saying is essentially, anyone who engages in sex for anything else other than expressing their love are 'wrong' or 'immoral'. That is heavy ammo. Completely unwarranted. Nobody (including Moose) is denying the superiority of spiritual sex with a romantic partner over casual sex with a non-romantic partner. You are working on the premise that whoever engages in sex does so only for psychological reasons. I don't understand why you would assume that. The whole point in the given example is that a man engages in sex with a woman and both agree not to bring in psychological factors and enjoy only the physical act (in which both could be experts). Why is it so difficult for you to imagine that there could be someone looking for enjoying, say, the craft of sex only and has found someone who is similarly interested - ask price matches bid price : trade goes through. Why is that 'wrong' and 'unproductive' for either of them? It will be 'psychologically unproductive' iff he is looking for psychological satisfaction. What if he is not? If you are saying that there are only psychological reasons for enjoying sex and no physical factors are involved, what would you (not personally but anyone with your viewpoint) do if you found that your romantic partner is not 'good in bed'? For 'psychological reasons' you may not leave that person for someone else but that will not deny the fact that you don't enjoy the 'sex' at a 'physical level' with her no matter how well wired you are psychologically. Or you have to enjoy whatever she does no matter how lousy it actually 'feels physically' and then that would be an evasion of reality. For a moment think on why one says so and so is or is not 'good in bed' - according to you it should suffice to say so and so is 'good' or 'not good'- period. But you see, sex is very much a physical activity until one adds the psychological basis to it - and that is a choice which an individual has to make for himself. In the given example, the choice is made not to involve psychological basis. And anyway if this is mindless, how is the mind going to be affected in any way when the one making the choice is completely aware as to the what and why of his action and has decided precisely to block the mind out? Are you denying the possibility of existence of such a man or the non-possibility of blocking the mind out? You see, even if pleasure or satisfaction are a feature of the mind or they arise in the mind, their source could very well be physical. Have you never eaten smth which was harmful to your body (read 'junk' food like an overweight person hogging on a pizza) because you loved the taste of it and you were not even hungry? If you eat smth that is harmful when you are not hungry, isn't that 'immoral' according to your viewpoint? Also, for one moment let us assume you are right. What then? W.r.t such a man will you refuse to 1. buy a pizza from him 2. play TT with him 3. be operated on when he is the only one who can? What? What is the point of you despising him? How is that productive for you when you have already made your choice of a sex partner and not looking for any other? Are you saying according to you one who is immoral in such a way can't be competent in any other thing? And do you think you judging him thus is going to make any difference to him in any way? The chances are he will just laugh in your face and go ahead anyway. Do you not see how so very pointless this is? I am through with here.
  5. What I don't get is why is it so difficult to understand what Moose is trying to say? Nowhere is he 'supporting' or 'recommending' or any such thing for 'using other' sex or 'casual sex'. He is just saying that if someone wants to engage in it, fine, if that person wants to. And as to the others, what would you do if you came across a completely rational, happy individual with high self-esteem come and tell you that he has engaged in casual sex and utterly enjoyed it physically? Would you say that he is not applying his values/principles to 'sex' even though to everything else and therefore is immoral? Or are you all denying that person the 'fact' that it could've been enjoyable (physically) to him? And why in heaven's name would his self-esteem be affected in any way if the purpose of his act has got nothing to do with it? Again just as you all have misunderstood Moose, it is very likely that you will misunderstand me. So, for the record, I don't recommend 'using other' sex either. And also the personal accusations made by Sophie and Kevin against Moose are completely baseless. What they suggest cannot be deduced from any of Moose's posts on this thread.(I haven't read any of his other posts but the ones on this thread are very clear).
  6. The Context : For-profit business organization What makes an individual human be productive? The list will include both cause-drivers(motive) and effect-drivers(purpose). The basic are : 1. Willingness 2. Ability There can be n factors influencing both 1. Willingness Individual interest/liking Survival Profit/Reward for long-term sustenance Influence of others (parents,teachers,friends etc) Mental set-up - the whole gamut of emotions(or any of them) 2. Ability Training in a particular activity Physical fitness Skills for the activity 3. Other Knowledge and Information Environment conditions Culture Do the above factors influence productivity of an individal? I would like comments on the above as well as any additions to the list. Also, is happiness both an effect and cause of productivity? Is it true that 'a happy individual is more procuctive than an unhappy individual'? Or is it that 'an individual is happy because he is productive'? Or are both true? i.e. can the happiness experienced as an effect of one activity be the cause of the next?
  7. Sorry for the delay. Was busy with something. My dear Proud Father, Judging somebody by comparing to someone else is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the British Raj in India was evil. It was. As far as the modernization is concerned, you seem to suggest that it wouldn't have come to India at all but for the British. It would definitely still have come without the British colonising India - by means of trade instead of by means of force. Ends do not justify means - modernization is no justification for what the British did in India. And as far as being grateful is concerned, I am grateful to those who invented these modern things and made those available to all through trade. You seem to be saying that as long as you got the modern comforts from the British you don't give a damn if you had to lick their boots(both literally and metaphorically) and be slaves to them. Sorry, I value my freedom much much more than any material comfort. Freedom is a price no rational person will pay for anything in this world. Are you aware that the British cut the hands of silk weavers because the silk cloth they produced was much superior to the one the British brought which was woven on modern powerlooms? Do you know why? Because nobody would buy the powerloom cloth. Why? At that time, at least, the quality of handloom was better(even today some particular types of handloom cloth are superior in quality - and therefore costlier). Are you saying this is justified because powerloom is modern and its product was brought here? The Indians had to humiliatingly travel in 3rd class compartments of the trains. Are you saying that just the chance of getting to travel in a train justifies the British treatment of Indians? No, it doesn't. Also, remember the British had come to loot India which means India had something they desperately wanted or needed. India didn't find the need to go and invade others and colonise them. Have you forgotten that they 'looted' the resources available in India - they didn't trade (as they initially intended to or rather at least that was what they said they had come for).And whatever the problems inherent in India at those times, those don't justify the British invasion. Nothing justifies the British Raj. Initiation of force can never be justified. And they were not at all outstanding. The only ones outstanding were the inventors and the traders who traded in these inventions for a price other than the buyers freedom. The British Raj had nothing to do with modernization of India. India would have been modernized anyway. And as far as Shivaji is concerned, you surely remember that he had declined to be coronated as a King. It was on the insistence of everyone (incl the public) that he agreed. And the question of rebellion against the monarchy arises when it ceases to be monarchy and converts into tyranny. As long as its monarchy, there are no problems. The bottomline is : colonisation is not justified. A tribal has a right to remain so if he chooses; you cannot force so called 'civilised' ways on him - you can convince him by rational means but no force. If you use force for 'civilising' a so called 'uncivilised' man you will be violating one of your cardinal principles - respect for individual rights (which BTW is your very defn of being 'civilised') - if you use it you are the one who will become 'uncivilised' because you would be violating the 'uncivilised' man's right to choose to remain so. It is better to be a free tribal than a civilised slave and if that's not possible, fight for freedom unto death.
  8. (The assumption is correct.) But I disagree. It's plain old power and at any cost, by any means. It is not evil for evil sake as you suggest. Fear (and its last stage - terror) has been the age old weapon in the hands of all power-hungry people. And rule does not only mean physical power but includes mental power. And that is what modern terrorism is all about. Also just because they have not achieved power doesn't mean that is not their intention. The only difference between power-hungry socialists (and their ilk) and power-hungry terrorists is the means they use to gain power. Power is the common fundamental. Forget other countries in the British Empire. We are not concernced with those here. My context was only India. And I suggest you get your history lessons on India correct. Whatever you've said, go and tell it to the individuals who were jailed (for no reason) and brutally physically abused in all manners possible by the British. And what is this "spread the cultural and philosophical values of the enlightenment"? And as far as feudalism in India is concerned, the people were plain stupid to have tolerated it. But that does not mean the British had the right to rule India. They had come to trade initilally and that is what they should have stuck to (I think some of them did). Prevailing evils in a land do not give a right to an outsider to come and capture it unless the owners of the land consent to it - to this extent you could argue that many Indians did consent to the British and that's the reason they could rule so long - but not everybody did and they paid a heavy price for it. Why is it not applicable to nations? Fundamental principles are applicable only to individuals and not to them as a group or a nation? The dichotomy between individual principles and group principles is a false dichotomy. Have you studied all the political systems of the world? And even if all had evil elements, one of them wouldn't be justified for being 'less evil than the rest' - there are no degrees to evil - evil is evil 100%. As far as the British and India is concerned, just because some of them got certain modern inventions, the atrocities committed by the Raj cannot be wiped out or justified. What you and sNerd are saying in essence is because they ruled, the inventions got into the country otherwise these wouldn't and because the inventions got in, the rule is justified.Well, how about trade instead of force? The inventions would still have got here and I would still have learnt English - only we wouldn't be talking on such a topic. No, they had no business ruling India, their only business should have been, well, business. BTW the Indian struggle for freedom didn't start with the British (it ended with them), it started with the Mughals. And there was a King Shivaji in the 17th century who was the only one in his time who was successful in defeating the Mughals and establishing freedom for his people (and yes they were happy with him). I would say that it was a mistake on his part to not have accepted ruling India despite having the power (acquired rightfully). If he had, well, history would have been different - maybe the British would not have been able to rule at all.
  9. Power at any cost and by any means. Do be labelled 'good' one has to be good always consistently. But one act of evil is enough to label one evil. Remember?
  10. I am not talking for sNerd, but I think you have misinterpretated him. What you are saying is that 'to destroy their philosphy we should burn their books or whatever other means used to propogate it and this is against our ideal of free speech'. But you have missed the word 'source' in his post. Books are not the source, they are just the means. The source is their thinking and that is what needs to be destroyed and it cannot be destroyed by destroying or attacking the means used to propogate it. That's why I said it's easier said than done. To destroy a thought in a person's mind is the most difficult thing to do - and no, destroying the person himself by bombing him is not the solution because it is simply impossible to know to who thinks what and who all think terrorism. So just bombing them is not the long-term solution - it might work (rather seem to work) in the short-term. One cannot destroy a philosophy by burning books - it actually was tried in India (and maybe many times with many philosophies in the history of mankind) during the freedom struggle. Lokmanya Tilak (a freedom fighter who was an 'extremist' as against Gandhiji who was a 'moderate') had written a 'philosophical' book when he was in jail. The British burnt it. All of Tilak's colleagues were naturally very angry and very worried that such a book was destroyed and that now it will be lost forever. Tilak was very calm - he told them not to worry. He said everything was in his head and he will write it again. (They couldn't and didn't kill him - maybe for some political reasons which I don't remember). He came out, wrote it again and published it. It is available in all the leading bookstores even today. And no - there is no basic, fundamental difference between the British then and the terrorists now. So forget burning books and dropping bombs (I am not saying one shouldn't do it at all - if they threaten, you have to do it - not as a long-term solution but just as a defense - had it been, I think, AR would be in the US army and not writing philosophical works). The only real long-term bomb one can drop is a counter-philosophy which attacks the very fundamentals of theirs. The challenge is in getting them to want to listen to it first and then try to understand it. And that's far from easy.
  11. It's true that protecting the targets is not the solution. The only solution is to stop the terrorists - rather terrorism - the philosophy as you very rightly said. Not that there is no solution. Not that it cannot be stopped. It is not a question of non-ability at all. It is a question of non-willingness. Vested interests in and for the short term. Who bothers about the long term? Only people like you and I (which, in all probability, is a minority). But it is not easy to destroy their philosophy - again because they don't want to change it and it's very difficult to convince anyone anyth unless he is willing to, at least, listen. Nonetheless, efforts have to be continued towards changing it. Do you have any particular suggestions as to how one could seriously do something about it?
  12. Yet another horrendous act! On Tuesday 7/11, 7 bombs exploded within a span of 10 mins in the first class compartments of local trains of Mumbai between 6.23 pm to 6.33 pm - the rush hour. The official figures for the dead till today is 200 (which is bound to be much much less than the actual - some maths below). Innocent unsuspecting middle-working class returning from work targeted (as usual). Same day Kashmir also saw 5 blasts (but this goes largely unnoticed because everyone is very much used to it - every other day it happens) The next day (ie yesterday) the media was lauding the 'spirit' of Mumbaiites for having 'bounced back' to 'normalcy' - trains were plying on time and everyone went to work - that there were no riots or anything like that (which is supposed to be the intention of the terrorists - triggering communal riots). I don't know whether this is good or not. But there was not enough condemnation for the terrorists by the media - at least not yet or maybe it is too early to say. It is said that Mumbai is the only major city to have been hit by bomb blasts twice (Mar 1993 and Jul 2006) - don't know whether this is true. Now consider this : 7 compartments with a capacity of 200 each. That makes 1400 people. During the rush hour the actual no. of commuters is much higher than the capacity - 1.5 - 2 times. So that makes more than 2000 people - only in the exploded compartments. Forget the people in the adjacent compartments and on the platform (some exploded when the train was on the platform). And the official figure is 200 dead. Its disgusting. The police reach the spot only after an hour. The injured are rescued and hospitalised by other commuters and the slum dwellers nearby. No stretchers - carried people in blankets, bedsheets, in hands etc. Today's newspaper says the ATS (anti-terrorist squad of the police) was informed 3 months ago by a captured LeT (Lashkar-e-toiba - the Pakistani terrorist outfit suspected to be behind the blasts) and it seems they have failed to do anything about it. Are we in a sane world? Also, if anyone knows anybody in Mumbai and needs help, feel free to ask. Don't hesitate. I will do whatever I can.
  13. No that is not the question. I mentioned that A refuses to go and check meaning he did not know the condition of the patient either. So, the question actually is when a doctor is on strike - meaning he won't carry out his normal work - should he go and check a patient bcoz it may be an emergency case? And then decide his course of action - if it is an emergency, he does his work breaking the strike and if it is not, he decides on the basis of the severity? Also, if we generalize that doctors are ethically obligated, then even when their rights are not upheld they would have to work. But I wonder how long they would last under such circumstances. You should check the plight of doctors in government-run hospitals (especially in India as sNerd has rightfully mentioned). There was a big strike just a month or so back in my city. At logger-heads with the government. I think private doctors were also backing the strike though not participating (don't remember clearly). And it lasted quite a few days. Was front-page news. Their working conditions are really pathetic. God alone knows how they work under such conditions! Sheer passion - but then that can go on under their conditions only so much - thus far no further.
  14. Of course not. No rapist can be 'great' ever. Period. Then there's that 'if you believed'. In this circumstance how can one tell that about a stranger? He may or he may not - that is if I choose to dwell on it in the first place. You hit the nail. But both together dwelling in the recesses of memory is not a easy or simple thing. The life-saving part is a good act whether or not one uses it to judge B on the whole. Exactly. So what is the reason and purpose in this case? So, that was my last question - should A take the incidents as happened and leave it at that? Also, the problem is not so much with judging B as with the feelings and mental conditions of A in the aftermath (the facts won't go away; they will remain forever in the memory). What I mean is it will be way too much privilege to B if A reacted negatively - B simply doesn't deserve it (I would say the least deserving person)- A cannot let him affect her mind the way he forced her body. Many times rape affects women 'mentally' rather than just 'physically' and that is what I wouldn't want A to let happen - a rational woman with good psycho-philosophical standing won't. That is not to say that she shouldn't judge B or anything like that - only she shouldn't let it affect her in any negative manner like for eg. getting angry. Bcoz, that, I think, is giving way too much importance to B (and the evil act) when the opposite must be true. Also, regarding the saving-life part, even though B is evil and this is known to A, it would be difficult not to be grateful (assuming A values her life dearly). This does not mean A judges B as good but merely that she is grateful. In effect, what I am asking is can a person be grateful to another person for saving his life despite knowing he is evil? Also, would it not be that concentrating on the rape and ignoring the life-saving would be to put evil over good which is not healthy? Another perspective is with relation to the following from AS : F D'Anconia "If there is anything of importance in this world,it is how well you do your work. Nothing. Only that." (Correct me if I have quoted wrongly - I don't have the book at hand) In our example the first part is clearly violation of 'doing work well' through one of the most heinous acts (so it is a double whammy). But the second (life-saving) part is work well done. So, only from this angle it is a contradiction - that is two contradictory instances in one man within a short period of time. Could A's thinking in this regard go something like 1. If work well done is the only important thing then forget the rest. Concentrate only on that. 2.'B is unstable mentally'. I am not able to conclude conclusively in this regard and hope you help me out with it.
×
×
  • Create New...