Greebo
-
Posts
1458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Greebo
-
-
If I delegate only the right to self-defense and Grames delegates the right to build dams, how does a government go about deciding how much of its limited resources to allocate to either task?
Non-sequitor.
The same question exists regarding the funding they bring in no matter what tasks they perform.
The same question exists for ALL entities - individual or business or Government.
Possible solution: In the case of a special project, Gov't could accept specifically earmarked donations.
-
http://www.wbal.com/absolutenm/templates/story.aspx?articleid=74080&zoneid=3
The details are sparse but it seems to be saying that while temporarily food trucks can park w/in 300 ft of a competitor, pretty soon they won't be able to do so.
In the city, 300 ft is a football field - and as a radius covers as much as a city block - so potentially these vans could end up being severely limited in where they can go.
Meaning all those employees in the city will have to choose to walk a long way for quick cheap food or pick the "city approved" place in a nearby building.
-
And just for the record, it should be noted that despite its success, many people did not want the seawall in Fudai built at the time. There was no concern for the "consent of the governed" in that instance.
But did those people have a legitimate claim to halt its building?
If I want a cell phone tower in my back yard and you live 2 doors down and don't want to see it - what real basis would you have to stop me?
"We don't want to see a seawall" isn't the same as having a right to force building to stop.
-
I haven't claimed any right to deny anyone anything. What I've claimed is that the Rand designated what a proper government consisted of and that what Grames is describing is outside of that bounds.
Careful - you're in danger of committing an argument from authority fallacy here.
It is, indeed, beyond the three governmental functions defined by Rand. And without doubt, she explains quite well why those three functions *must* be run by Government in a rational society. Remember as well, those three functions are reactive - they levy force only in retaliation.
However, what I have never found is a case where Rand explicitly defines that Government may not do anything BUT those three things, or why. She has also stated in several interviews that Government could raise revenue on a fee-for-services basis which would *augment* personal right protection without any actual violation previously have taken place. By definition, such services are proactive and under O'ism must be voluntary. Formal registration of marriages, titles, property deeds, and the like would serve to augment the protection of property, survival rights, etc - but are NOT necessary and are NOT reactive in a rational society.
In theory, I suppose the community of people could delegate any task to government they wanted under the provisions you mention (although 2046 offers why this would probably be a bad idea in the long run). In reality however, I've never seen nor heard of any political election, referendum or vote that had a 100% unanimous support with 100% of the population actually voting. Sure, that does not prove it has not happened, but I'd doubt it. Is it remotely possible? I suppose.Unanimous consent isn't necessary. We didn't even have unanimous consent for independence or the Constitution. Ratification only required a 2/3rds majority.
If the Government does not use force to build a levy wall and no person presents a justified claim as to why such a construction would directly harm them, Government needs only the same kind of majority sanction that it needs for any other action.
What I've challenged from the beginning of my participation is Grames' claim that a voluntarily funded government would be a better choice for this concern than a private entity. In a proper capitalist government, the financial and legal situation would be so significantly different from what it is now that all we can do is "imagine" how things would be.Indeed, and I do not suggest that Government *would* be better at it - in fact I think building and maintaining such a levee wall would be a potentially profitable enterprise - since proper construction and maintenance would potentially open up new lands not previously usable, which in turn could be utilized for production. Meanwhile the property owners protected against overflow flooding would be wise to also contribute to the funding of the wall.
-
If you mean that I agree with Rand's idea that the proper province of government is limited to the protection of individual rights, then yes, you are right. Up until now, I thought you agreed with that as well. Now that i see your view of government goes beyond that, I'm kind of surprised.
"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according toobjective law." - For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand.
I'm sure you are capable of looking up any number of quotes that demonstrate what Rand intended government to be. Should you do so, you should see where you are in disagreement with Rand. Now personally, I don't mind if your individual philosophy differs, as all men must think and reason for themselves - I support that as much as anything Rand said. However, I think you should truthfully distinguish when you go outside the bounds of Objectivism so as not to confuse others by what set of ideas you are representing to them.
So what in the above prohibits a people from delegating additional tasks to Government, so long as the execution of those tasks is not done in a manner which violates rights?
Recall:
The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.I do not see a conflict here. So long as a Government can perform such a task without violating the rights of others - so long as the funding is voluntary and approved for that specific purpose - the question now becomes, by what right do you deny the freedom of the people of a community to choose to task Government with building a flood wall?
-
Would you rather the wars as they are now, inimically endless, or no wars at all, as leftists would have?
False dichotomy.
Thanks for playing.
-
He doesn't care about their survival, or their use of reason. He is perfectly happy to substitute his reason for their own.
He's not alone, but that still doesn't make it rational.
And in doing so, he lived a long, happy, prosperous life.Constantly on guard against the threat of revolt, sure.
Perhaps the slave owner recognizes that he too could be enslaved and would have no moral argument to make in response, but he is white in 18th century American, so this is very unlikely. And he doesn't care if his slaves live qua man.To be clear, I agree that the slave owner should want to live in a world without slavery. He should vote to abolish slavery. But since it is legal, and he can't change it, how is it in his interest to abandon slavery?
The should is the answer to your question. The alternative, accepting and prospering off of slavery, destroys his integrity as a rational being, even though it doesn't harm him from a materialistic sense. Thus he chooses to accept a division of his reason from his action, and thus he lives as someone who is NOT fully integrated in reality.
-
I don't think anyone here would say that it is impossible to commit a crime with no external consequences, or rather, no counter-force applied. And because it is not impossible, that argument can't prove that initiation of force is inherently wrong.
However, I think many people here do claim that initiation of force results in, as you say, "the destruction of one's own integrity as a rational being". If this is true, it is destroying man's means of survival, and therefor certainly not in his interest, regardless of rewards, and is therefor wrong.
Here is what I am missing, and I suppose I'll get in to this now because the other discussions I have been reading are starting to deteriorate as the participants grow angry with each other.
Reason is man's primary means of survival, but at some point, man must act on what his reason has shown to be right. Objectivists seem to claim that if you are initiating force, you somehow failed to exercise reason. This is the issue I am struggling with.
Let us take, as an example, an 18th century American plantation owner. He owns slaves, becomes wealthy, grows old, and eventually dies. He could do this openly and honestly, as the government recognized this as acceptable. He didn't have great alternatives. To pay free workers a wage they would accept would price his product out of the market, as there was no way he could compete with slave labor.
How is it against his self-interest to own slaves? How does it destroy his reason?
The ownership of a slave is intrinsically an act of initiated force against another.
To own a slave is to claim ownership of a human being, denying that human the right to determine their own course of action. It denies the slaves the right to use THEIR own primary means of survival.
To own slaves is to sanction the idea that a person can be property - thus sanctioning the idea that ones own SELF can be property. Thus, by owning slaves, the slave owner denies that Man must be free in order to live qua Man.
-
Most arguments, such as the one linked by Marc K, suggest that it is wrong because you might get caught, or fear getting caught, or have some other social difficulties due to your crime. While this is true in 99% of cases, it isn't hard to imagine a situation where the crime was so perfect, you are going to get away with it and have nothing to fear.
The idea that it "isn't hard to imagine" such a situation suggests you haven't really given much consideration to just what would be involved in "getting away with it".
Which is disappointing since you yourself gave the 99% estimate already... that should tell you that it *IS* hard to imagine such a situation - and I dare say its closer to 99.99999% when dealing with LARGE values (ie: millions of dollars).
Which is not to say that the fear of reprisal is the only or primary reason - it's just the most easily understood. It's the destruction of one's own integrity as a rational being which is the primary reason not to sanction the initiation of force against other rational beings.
-
I think its silly for you to think he doesn't know the things are important to you. OBVIOUSLY they're important to you. *HOW* important, well - he may not know that, or he may - but that's beside the point.
What obviously isn't obvious to him is that HIM BEING THERE is important to you. Let him know BEFORE hand that it would mean a lot to you if he could be there for you.
-
I would like to establish a few new relationships with people but at the same time it doesn’t make a terrible difference to me right now if I don’t.
Nothing wrong with that - that attitude helps ensure that you don't end up seeking relationships with people out of desperation, but instead that you'll form healthy relationships with people who have similar values and ideals.
-
Your reaction to the betrayal is understandable.
But take care - you mentioned it not being worth the risk. Do not commit the sin of condemning everyone who has not wronged you because one person has.
It's ok not to be in a relationship - but not if the reason is you're assuming everyone else out there is also going to lie to you at some point.
Give everyone a chance to prove you wrong for trusting them - it gives you and them a chance to be proven right for trusting each other.
If you never give anyone that chance, you'll never have anyone to trust.
-
No, they will not get paid, they will be dead. We are not talking about estates.
Sourpuss
-
Do you think they get paid when they are dead?
Actually if they're killed in a workplace accident they very well might... well I mean, their estate...
-
mustang: WRT unintended consequences - I suggest that you only think the argument is unconvincing because you haven't actually dealt with such regulations.
Suggest you research the cost of implementing Sarbanes-Oxley. I have first hand experience as to the cost vs. benefit. Meeting the requirements set forth are quite cumbersome - and rarely add any real value. Instead, now, to fully comply, I need to get written (email) approval from management in order to correct a spelling typo in a production system and every other minor issue that comes along. My boss has a backlog of email a week long.
-
O'Ism does indeed rely on people to be at their best - to act in their own rational long term self interest.
But O'ism doesn't expect that everyone will do so - thus we recognize the need for protection from those who would choose the short term solution. That is why O'ists are PRO Government when it comes to the three basic functions for which Government is needed - police, courts and the military.
-
Because you need food to survive, perhaps?
The question asked was "Why would you be starving?" - and you gave the flip answer.
The question, however, is serious - the question "why would you be starving" takes you out of the immediate moment of "I'm hungry" and asks you "How did you get to a point in your life where you have no food and no proper means to acquire it?"
It asks, in other words, "Is it JUST that you are starving?"
It puts your life in the context of the whole of your actions and choices. It makes the point that at no moment in your adult life are you separated from the consequences of your prior choices. In a society such as ours, there are opportunities aplenty - EVEN in these rather dismal economic times - for a person to earn their own bread.
A person does not simply go from being well fed to being starving - there is a time period involved during which the long term thinker SHOULD think, "I will need food. I need to find a way to earn my food." and go hustle and find work - ANY work if needed - that provides the moral means to acquire food in the short term. From there one should start thinking even longer term - like securing food for tomorrow, and the next day, and so forth.
If a person fails to do this, well - there is a consequence - you end up starving - and it's your own fault. You've already FAILED in a moral sense - you've failed to think and act long term.
This is why we ask - "Why would you be starving?"
-
I meant that what is true determines what is good. Knowledge is good. Knowing fundamental facts about reality is good. Ignorance of fundamental facts about reality leads to error and devastation eventually.
Yes but you haven't established any facts, you've assumed them, and you have ignored every point showing that your assumed facts weren't necessarily the only option.
-
1) Because what is true is good and right.
Poppycock.
What is true is real. What is true may be good OR evil. That the lion wishes to eat the gazelle is true and good for the lion, and true and bad for the gazelle.
The Earthquake in Haiti and the Tsunami were good and right for no living thing, and made no difference to anything else. They simply were.
I want Objectivists to know the truth concerning Theism because knowing, integrating, and applying the truth (especially regarding fundamental issues) is always good and right important.Even if your God exists - of what use is he or she or it?
-
Apologies if this was asked before...
As I understand Objectivism, I must act in my self interest, anything which hinders this I must regard as evil.
Suppose I give 100$ in charitable aid to some tribe in Africa. Over my life span I will receive a total return of 1$ for this investment. I have essentially burned 99$.
Is what I did evil? If I burned 99$ anyway it would be, would it not?
First off, you are mistaking "money" with "self interest". O'ists consider money to be EXTREMELY important - but contrary to popular misconception, neither we nor Ms. Rand considered Money as the ONLY thing of importance. Money is simply a means of trade - and the reason it's so important is what it represents and what we can do WITH it, not the money itself.
Giving $100 to a tribe in Africa could be a perfectly moral act on your part, even if you never see $1.00 back, *if* it contributes to making the world into the way you want the world to be.
If your $100 goes to the tribe in the form of food and/or clothing, and enables them to stay alive for a short while longer, but doesn't encourage them or help them to become more productive and more able to stand on their own feet, well - you might as well buy a few bottles of liquor for the local wino for all the good it will do - you'll just be enabling bad behavior, and that, in the long term, is against your own self interest - you've helped create a world of mooches who will look to you more and more for their own sustenance.
On the other hand, if that $100 goes to the tribe in the form of a pair of sheep and the education needed on how to raise them and produce wool, and the tribe becomes a productive shepherding tribe producing some of the finest wool in the world, you've helped to create a world of producers - of equals - of peers - of people with whom you can live together and be free of dependency except those which you choose.
In other words, your $100 charitable gift can be moral or immoral - and it is up to you to determine which it will be and the moral course of action is to ensure that the gift is given with moral intent.
-
That's funny. I wonder why? Is it just because of the shape?
The robot's name is Atlas, and he's shrugging... it's an action you can buy for multiplayer mode.
-
I do hope you aren't suggesting that, when someone puts forth what (presumably) is their best effort, and it isn't as good as what we think someone else can achieve, we cannot like and respect the effort for its own sake.
-
Welcome!
If you wish to understand O'ism from the ground up, you may want to read "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (OPAR) by Leonard Peikoff, Ms. Rand's intellectual heir. It presents a concise view of Objectivism from first principles (the three axioms) through ethics, economics, politics and aesthetics.
-
Maybe I do not want to.
There are plenty of people who don't.
Well then, you won't see the poll.
Fudai's Seawall
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Even if Government DOES limit itself only to the explicit three functions, they still have to determine how to apply resources - your argument could equally be used as justification to not provide police because there isn't enough money for police AND the military.
Thus - it was and is a non sequitur exactly for the reason I gave - the same question of how to allocate resources applies to everything any entity does.
I am not Grames, and I do not agree with his rejection. If I give money to an organization, I am free to earmark its use - and if they refuse to accept the earmark, I'm free not to give - same is as true of the Red Cross as it is the United Oist Government.
As for why they ought to - I have not said they ought to, I have said they can. Since I *don't* think they ought to, I'm hardly going to argue against that point.
But just because you and I agree that the WISER course of action is to keep Government out of the seawall building business doesn't mean that we have any right to prevent a people from choosing to task Gov't with the job except by way of voting on the issue, and of course, arguing against it.