Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Greebo

Regulars
  • Posts

    1458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Greebo

  1. Your article states the RISKS of regulation. I agree fully with it. There is always the RISK that a regulation will yield more regulation. That is not why regulations are immoral. Regulations are immoral because they nullify the judgment of the individual.

    You are committing the fallacy of over-generalization and now you cannot defend it, so you're resorting to ad-hominem.

  2. There are lengthy explanations showing why regulation does lead to more regulation.

    So provide them.

    I don't agree that the *outcome* of all regulation is always bad. For instance - lead paint regulations *require* landlords by law to take steps to mitigate the risk of exposure to lead paint in buildings built prior to 1955, in particular to protect children from eating paint chips that flake free. These regulations are reasonable, rational, and result in good things - safer apartments and rental houses. They also dead end - if you remove all lead paint from a building completely, you're in the clear - and so are your tenants. There's nowhere for these regulations to go to make them bad.

    Its not begging the question, because I was arguing that well meaning regulation leads to absurd regulation in principle. Once you say that the government can predict and judge the actions of people's future actions you introduce absurdity into the law.

    Unless you can back up the claim that all regulation, good or bad, leads to bad regulation, you are begging the question.

    Understand - *I* agree that regulation is immoral - that forcing people to act in their own best interest is not in anyone's best interest.

    I simply won't accept making falacious arguments to support a valid one.

  3. Which part of the building code (the IBC), per your experience, is inadequate and leads to unsafe building?

    Ever watch "Holmes on Homes"?

    It's not so much that code is "unsafe" - but rather that code is just the "bare minimum".

  4. Regulations lead to more regulations for the simple reason-they stiff the mind of the regulated who forfeits the power of his own judgement and therefore has to be leaded like a blind.

    You seem to be assuming that the regulated chooses to forfeit the power of his own judgment. This is not a universal truth.

    As a landlord, I never let my own judgment be overruled by whatever the regulations say. I will *comply* with them, but as often as not compliance is only the minimum I'll do. For example - there is no requirement for me to make my units completely lead free - I only have to abate the risk of exposure - but I choose to make them lead free anyway because *I* want my units to be that safe.

  5. I don't think it is speculative on the simple basis that regulation has yielded more regulation.

    All that proves is that regulation MAY lead to more regulation. Regulation can also lead to less regulation (its rare but it happens). It's arguing may be's and might have been's.

    Upon reflection, it's also begging the question - it presumes that regulation is bad, more regulation is worse - and the question is "Why is the regulation bad?" - so presuming the answer isn't valid.

  6. The problems seem to be that they don't like the only non forceful remedy they have, not to stay in a building that they deem unsafe. Who decides what is safe or even safe enough? I think It should really be up to the building owner, the insurer and you the potential customer to make that determination. In the United States there exist a couple examples of private safety standards organizations, namely the UL for electrical appliances and SNELL for motorcycle helmets. One of the ways Movie Theaters competed in the early days was to advertise that they had Air-conditioning. I could see an organization like SNELL or UL making fire safety standards and certifying that a building meets them. You want my business you better have the Fire Safety Corp plaque on your front door. No need for force.

    This is very helpful - thank you.

    "In a nutshell the question is "Is it immoral under objectivism to insist that buildings be constructed with adequate fire doors?"

    It would be immoral to buy such a building and to risk the lives of its dwellers. But it would be equally immoral to force the builders to install these doors by means of government regulations.

    "Who decides what is safe or even safe enough? "-You are.

    Likewise.

  7. Its very obvious why fire doors are unacceptable. Because it starts with fire doors and ends with outlawing bake sales and governments defining what a true "Champagne " is. Every other damn regulation out there is evidence of this. It promotes corruption in the business class and sheepish dependency in the working class in the name of safety.

    The business class uses regulation to push poorer competition down. The working class sits around looking for some politician to solve every little problem in his life. This is why unions are dead and worse than useless in this country. All they do is get themselves involved in politics instead of representing workers like they did in the 19th century.

    All we really need is a health department and the CDC to be there to handle disease outbreaks.

    While we agree on the eventual outcome here, the sliding slope argument is not really a good argument technique. It's speculative.

  8. This has me a bit stuck.

    In a nutshell the question is "Is it immoral under objectivism to insist that buildings be constructed with adequate fire doors?"

    The argument has its misrepresentations, which I've corrected, but the core argument has some merit.

    There should be no conflict of interests between rational men - but I cannot see how to resolve this conflict cleanly.

    Presented unfiltered, more to follow:

    It usually comes up in discussions of taxes, and government (though the wishes of the majority), "forcing" an individual to part with his money against his personal desires. It goes further than that, but the main point is that my understanding of the objectivist view is that no man (woman, man, whatever), absent a contract for same freely entered into, has the right to "force" any other man to party with money or goods, or to live/operate in any particular way. However, if force is brought, it may be met by return force. This can be moderated through an agreed third party, like a governmental justice system, or an arbitrator. But this third party can only step in once the violative force is brought -- once damage has occurred. There is no allowance for a preemptive force that might temper a later force that can bring greater damage.

    My position is there are cases where a preemptive bringing of force is justifiable, if it is brought in order to prevent a more damaging example of force on the other side. The objectivist take, I believe, is that preemptive force is never viable. That any potential difficulty in a victim being made whole following an imposition of force is irrelevant to the discussion. That punishment/retribution after the fact is all that is available.

    I posit that preemptive regulation is necessary, because retributive punishment after the fact often (1) fails to make the victim whole (which I believe is a goal of a society) or (2) cannot be imposed to any meaningful degree because of the shields afforded by bankruptcy and modern corporate structures. As an example, consider a government-imposed regulation that a certain number of fire escapes be provided in a manufacturing facility. I argue that the taking of liberty of the manufacturer (forcing him to purchase, install and maintain additional doors that he otherwise felt unnecessary) is justified given a] a demonstrated history of fires in facilities of this size being fatal absent an appropriate number of accessible fire escapes; ( b] the inability of a judicial system to make survivors "whole" following a fatality; and c] the modern reality that even if money were to equal "making whole", the manufacturer is often structured to make collectibility difficult and any actual retributive punishment (meaningful fines, jail time) difficult to impossible.

    When this was brought up in an earlier thread, Greebo's response was something along the lines of "since when is holding people prisoner legal?" which totally chucked the whole thing right off the rails in a manner in which he would likely never tolerate of others, so I just let it go. Had I come back I would have noted that the staff aren't "prisoners". They have access to the same large sets of doors at the front of the plant that provide them access in and out every day, as well as access to the large bay doors at the very rear of the plant where the product comes out. The owner thinks those should suffice, and will allow him to better monitor comings and goings and smoke breaks. My position is that the liberty taken from the owner by requiring him to install the extra doors is justifiable given the improbability of there being any punishment/restitution that could compensate for a fatality so easily avoided ahead of time. The objectivist position, if I understand Greebo correctly, would be that even this small infringement on liberty is too much, and that freedom is paramount, and that the potential for restitution isn't to be considered. My position is that this is a huge flaw in the theory that makes it difficult for me to view it as anything other than an interesting discussion in the abstract; but not anything of any potential import to modern society.

    Now on this point: "The objectivist take, I believe, is that preemptive force is never viable. That any potential difficulty in a victim being made whole following an imposition of force is irrelevant to the discussion. That punishment/retribution after the fact is all that is available. " - I clarified that the initiation of force is never MORAL. Pre-emptive is different and can be moral (you have no obligation to let your enemy actually attack you first) and of course, force CAN be viable - force is very effective - its simply never moral.

    But as to the fire door example - I'm torn. I'm inclined to determine that the building owner has no right to deliberately create a dangerous environment and expose others to it unwittingly. Why? Fires are a real hazard. We know what happens when fire doors open the wrong way. We know what happens when there aren't enough exits. You have no right to drink and drive creating risk to others - can you have a right to put others at risk when you "hold forth" your building as safe?

    On the other hand - does a person entering a building have a moral responsibility to judge the building's safety for themselves? I'm inclined to say no - that the primary burden is on the building owner.

    Of course, there are other problems - WHO decides how many exits and of what nature are safe?

    So - I'm stuck. I need a little help figuring this one out. Would anyone care to invest some time in this?

  9. A new species comes about when an animal can no longer create offspring which are capable of reproducing through mating with others of the species one descended from, but can still reproduce with those animals having compatible DNA. No reproductive ability means if they're a species at all, they're limited to 1 generation - and I don't think that qualifies - so no, getting a sex change doesn't make them a new species.

  10. Pleasure is one half of the the internal compass that tells us when we are on or off of the proper course of action for living.

    The person guilty of monstrous injustices against others is guilty of an even greater one against himself - his own self destruction.

    That he faces the consequences for that self destruction is just - but should one ever feel joy at the destruction of life? Even if that life is guilty of destroying countless others?

  11. Man is an integrated living being of mind and body.We are not a mind in a body, with the body being the environment of the mind; and we are not a body devoid of awareness of reality and incapable of thinking things through. You are what you are when you look into a mirror -- that entity that you observe is what you are. Neither the mind nor the body takes precedent when it comes to considering man. However, the mind is not a given the way the body is. Your body will grow to physical maturity all by itself (provided you eat well) without the need for intellectual guidance; but the mind is under your direct control as to how it functions and what you will consider and what you will learn and integrate (barring some sort of neuro-chemical malfunction). It is philosophically improper and a big mistake to think of the mind as needing the body as a support system; that one is a mind and that so long as the mind has some sort of support system, then one is human -- i.e. a brain in a vat may be possible some day, but such a brain in a vat with a support system to keep it alive would not be a human. Similarly, getting the body modified to fit an environment (gills or wings or eight arms) makes one no longer human, because qua human, man does not have those physical attributes.

    Refresh my memory here - how was it that Rand defined Humanity Qua Humanity?

  12. Burdening it onto your friends is not a good way to do it

    Hmm. You seem to be making a leap of assumption here.

    Regarding modifications to the human body, I've already stated the general principle of human health and well-being. Getting a set of gills versus operating a machine underwater, I think, would be changing the nature of man and it shouldn't be done.

    What is the nature of man? Are you asserting that Man is defined not by his mind, but by his body?

  13. Yes, of course, and one should seek to resolve mental problems through counseling or medication. Trouble is that if one has a mental problem to such a degree that not much can be done about it, and one cannot be restored to good mental health, then one is in a bind as to what to do about it. The standard would be rationality and adherence to the facts of reality rationally.

    And what if the course to mental health is a sex change operation?

    I have a good friend who was born male but could not be happy in themselves after YEARS of therapy until they went through the extremely painful and difficult series of procedures to convert her body into what her mind told her she was - a woman. What would you say to my friend? That the therapists conclusions were wrong? That her new found joy is a lie?

  14. I had a similar thought. Deciding what button to push is much more like a random number generation experiment than a real decision making process. When faced with two arbitrary choices, where selection between the two is meaningless, why not a die roll of the brain? A similar experiment in which they were able to influence the choice being made similarly seems more like loading a die than disproving free will.

    I'd be much more interested in seeing them do testing on a much more complex decision making process.

  15. He doesn't have to value it or buy it [since he doesn't need it]. But the transistor still has value. For example, the cave man can acquire knowledge about how to use it and then use it. So if he wants to buy it, he still has to pay the price for it.

    That wasn't my question. my question was, OF WHAT VALUE IS A TRANSISTOR TO A PRIMITIVE TRIBE MEMBER?

    A value "exists" TO someone, FOR something. But its magnitude is determined by its inherent quality.

    How is that inherent quality assessed?

  16. He was just parroting the majority [here]. His conclusion was not based on free will.

    That's amazing. How do you reach that conclusion? How do you know that he hasn't measured and evaluated every tenet of O'ism and decided on his own that he agrees with it?

    Just because I think Objectivism is wrong in some aspects doesn't mean that I understand it any less. And why can't I challenge it?

    Because this forum is private property and has rules.

    I've already stated that I think it's appropriate to use force to do what is RIGHT [i've already stated the reasons why I think I am right : deserving, balancing, etc].

    And I think I'm right to kill you if you come into my place of business, or my home for that matter, and try to force your way of living upon me.

  17. Who made this transistor?

    Someone from a Capitalist nation, introducing it to a tribe in the Amazon.

    imbalance, a looter-victim relationship.

    What imbalance?

    Nope : A value cannot exist someone to create and where there is someone to create it, there is someone to use it

    So a value is a value TO someone, FOR something?

  18. Yep [initially. But it turned to sarcasm quite quickly and by the end he was laughing at my stupidity for thinking he is a victim].

    A sentiment I share.

    The problem is that he is a victim and is praising himself for it

    I find it interesting that you think it is up to you to judge whether he is a victim when he asserts that he is not.

    Are you saying that his free will in the matter is irrelevant?

    For the record, I said that because I realized you aren't as objective as you claimed [i couldn't stand being a victim of blatant subjectivity]. Now, this doesn't matter to me anymore as I realized that I was actually not an Objectivist. So your mockery of Objectivism is irrelevant to me now. This is what made me reply [if you care].

    I find it amusing that you accuse me of mocking Objecitivism when it becomes increasingly apparent that you are anything but an Objectivist, not at all interested in actually undertanding Objectivism, and are only participating here in order to assert your own premises, as opposed to what the actual intent of this forum is, which is to ask questions about the philosophy, not challenge it.

    (1) I've already found an answer which can preoccupy me for a while : "Labor Theory of Value"

    (2) You're really not considering my view of the argument. Eg: you concluded that I was supporting your argument when I said "But that is only because acquiring it is beyond your control and anything beyond your control is outside morality". Your logic is limited by what you have already taken for granted.

    You've already stated that you think it's appropraite to use force to assert YOUR view. I see no need to consider it further. Quite simply, if someone like you tried to assert your will upon me in such a manner in my own place of business, at the least I would simply evict you. If that didn't work, I might have to kill you (meeting your force with force), since you seem to be pretty content with being a threat to my own freedom.

  19. The value of the widget does not change. The new machine was not produced by the widget but your mind, your intellect which did the work. "How it can be used" depends on the nature of the product. "How it WILL be used" depends on your ability/capability, which is what gives value to a product.

    Of what value is a transistor to a cave man?

    Not really [this was what I had in mind. I thought you would make the association that a poor guy doesn't own a house while the rich guy did]. Now explain "relative values".

    Reality disagrees with your basic assumption. One can quite easily produce a virtually boundless list of people who have houses who are dead broke and not getting any wealthier. All one needs to do is examine their debt to asset levels and expense to income ratios.

    I wasn't. I meant that existence of people makes value exist. But how much a product has value for people is decided by its nature. Assuming its nature doesn't keep on changing, its value is fixed.

    So to your way of thinking, a value exists whether or not someone can make use of it? Then in that case the space widget has the same value as the earth bound widget.

    He can do whatever. It's just immoral.

    Why? If the seller chooses freely and the buyer chooses freely, what makes it immoral?

  20. Before I say good-bye to all I would like to say one more thing : (To everyone:) You people exaggerate your rights. Pull down your egos and stop pretending that every great thing in history is associated with you (This was actually a problem with Rand and she got blinded by it, especially with the capitalism she promoted, which had lots of flaws which she overlooked. This process becomes almost unnoticeable when people start congregating. So maintaining a forum could actually contribute to this. This has been the problem with every culture in history and I am afraid 'Objectivism' is becoming more and more of a culture [and don't pretend you are free from the ill-effects of culture]). Every one of you need to learn the difference between freedom and power (and freedom can never be abused but power can. Abusing power is not your right). I've been browsing the internet and observe the same trends (and it is only due to fear). I'll rejoin the forum when people actually man up [and not just pretend to be].

    So there's one final thing to do : how do I delete my account?

    For the record.

×
×
  • Create New...