Spano

I happened to read an article just now about an event in Sydney where people shut off lights to protest global warming. The article has a few disturbing quotes about this being a "celebration" and children chanting "shut them off, shut them off." Yet another pieice of evidence that the danger of people willingly and actively trying to make their lives worse is far greater than anything global warming could ever do. Link From the article:

I think the following section from Galt's speech is relevant (p. 939): Notice the formulation - "non-contradictory joy". To me, this is the key to understanding how "seemingly happy" people fail to meet the criteria for true happiness. The ideal is not to be happy most of the time, and to push the bad thoughts, guilt, etc out of your mind most of the time -- it's to experience pure happiness that derives from *true* identifications of reality. Consider as an example the "happy" nun. She professes that given her relationship with God, she feels happy all the time. But this simply can't be the case, because it is false. That faux happiness is mixed with doubts every time something happens that doesn't seem to be consistent with God's Plan, or guilt every time she feels a temptation to do something God forbids (e.g., sex), or dread of indepedent thought and action stemming from epistemological dependence on faith. With Galt, on the other hand, there is no tainting of his happiness, which stems from his achievement of values and basic efficacy, all of which is actually true, not faked. The nun may experience contradictory joy, but only the rational man can achieve noncontradictory joy. Hope that helps.

I'm not sure what you mean by "self-absorbed", which seems like an anti-concept, but I can't say I share your experience of O'ist women being callous. I can't recall meeting a single one who gave me that impression -- quite the opposite, actually. Perhaps you've run into a bad bunch (I'm hoping you didn't come to this conclusion based on one or two encounters). As far as dating Objectivists, I think it's important to keep in mind that the label may or may not be accurate. The fact that a person professes admiration of Ayn Rand or even identifies themself explicitly as an Objectivist in no way guarantees they actually have a solid understanding of the philosophy, or even that they're fully rational. But it's certainly a good sign.

Do you mean that in terms of learning the entire system, or of the philosophy itself? If the latter, it's the equivalent of saying that reason isn't for everyone, as if this is just a minor choice that's perfectly open to one's personal preferences. I take it you don't view Objectivism as fully validated by the facts of reality, since you imply that it's just one of many possible legitimate (i.e. true) choices. Are you suggesting that you're willing to tolerate some degree of irrationality in a romantic partner, or that it's possible to be completely rational and simultaneously reject Objectivism?

Here's another.

If you're looking for examples of AR's influence on popular culture, you could search for examples of politicians, businessmen, and other well-known people who have professed to be influenced by her ideas.

Umm...faith, I'm guessing.

Sounds to me like somebody is fishing for homework answers.

Heh, I thought the same thing, but I wasn't going to be the one to say it. I'm far too young and bereft of wisdom to be making such judgements.

I was thinking the same thing at 17, that I wanted to make computer games. Having just graduated with a degree in computer engineering, I can offer some perspective. Firstly, take a programming class or buy some books and see if you actually like it. Some people have an idealized image of what programming actually consists of, and when they start actually doing it they find it tedious or even tortuous. This wasn't the case for me, but it happens. Second, there is nothing about programming games as such that is so different from programming other things that warrants getting an "early start" towards it. The important part is to learn the fundamentals of how computer languages and systems work. Once you get a solid grounding in that, going into a particular application of programming will be relatively easy. Thirdly, one's interests change over time as one learns more. When I was 17, I thought programming games was definitely what I wanted to do. After I learned more, I found there are a lot of other interesting problems and applications besides games, and at some point I lost interest in that particular pursuit. You'll have plenty of time in college to get a better idea of what you actually want to do when the time comes to get a job. Don't sweat it at this point. Lastly, I don't know first hand, but I'm pretty sure that the making of modern computer games involves much more than a bunch of programmers coming up with an idea for a game then hammering out code. I'm betting that even if you do write code, you write only for a particular component of what are now huge programs, e.g. you might work on sound, or video driver compatbility, or lighting effects, or the installer, or something similarly narrow. I'm guessing the people who come up with the game concepts, stoylines, etc do only that, and no actual programming at all. Basically, understand that there is much more to making games (or anything else in the computer industry) than programming. So you could easily make a career in the field without ever writing a line of code. Hope that helps.

I certainly agree that bankruptcy doesn't necessarily entail moral failure, and that's not a premise in my statement. What I'm saying is that when you take on a debt, you'll do whatever is in your power (quadriplegic or not) to pay it back if you're moral. Again, there is no need to *cancel* debt (coercively, by the government) in any case, only sometimes the need to recognize that the original form of repayment isn't feasible and for the next best form to be used instead. Even if I became a quadriplegic and could only earn enough to make payments of $100 a month for the remainder of my lifetime, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't owe what I did before. It just happens that I won't ever be able to repay what I owe. But the obligation is still there, and doesn't vanish when the means to repay it vanish. In other words, it could be legitimate in some cases to say "Sorry, I can't pay you back", but I don't see when it would ever be legitimate to say "I don't owe you any more."

But restructuring doesn't necessarily cancel debt, if we're talking about temporary payment plans or somesuch. Just because the judge orders me to make reduced payments on my total debt (until such time as I can handle higher payments, at which time the plan should be changed to reflect that), doesn't mean the total debt is decreased in any way. I may be paying half of what I was supposed to be paying per month, but I still owe the full amount, no matter how long it takes me to come up with it. You seem to be equating payment rate with total debt, but changing the rate need have no impact on the total debt obligation. You can argue this, but you'll also have to argue that acting on principle is morally unnecessary and that it has no bearing on a person's rational self-interest. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but this bit seems very similar to the moral position of the pragmatists, that prinicples of morality don't matter, only "what works". This seems to be the upshot of your saying that the moment paying back my obligations doesn't seem to be making me rich, I ought to abandon the idea that integrity, honesty, and productiveness should guide my actions because they "don't work" anymore. But if you agree with the Objectivist ethics that acting on moral prinicples is *necessary* to achieving one's values long term, then the act of meeting one's obligations, as an application of the virtues, is moral and therefore practical, i.e. in my rational self-interest. The converse is that abandoning at any time moral principles that support paying back one's debts is contrary to one's long term interest. Can you imagine Hank Rearden refusing to work any longer because it would take him awhile to repay his debts first? Again, to repay one's debts is to recognize the facts of reality and to place importance on virtues like integrity and honesty. It may be true that earning money isn't in one's rational self-interest in some contexts -- but abandoning moral principles is wrong in every context. Would you say that as a person who walks into a dark alley at night and gets mugged, I am "partially to blame" for the violation of my rights, and should therefore receive a commensurate partial protection thereof?

"Enrich"? I think you're mischaracterizing the creditor/debtor relationship as some kind of power struggle or hegemony, when in fact it is a trader relationship like any other. You are not "enriching" your creditor at your peril by paying back your loan; you're fulfilling an obligation you made and keeping a promise. Stripped of all the legal and economic trappings, we're talking about simple applied morality: you made a promise, and if you're rational and moral you'll do everything in your power to keep it. Making a promise has nothing to do with "selling yourself into slavery". The answer to the above question is not "none", it's "because it's in your rational self-interest".

I think I'm a little clearer about what you're getting at with the "moral hazard" idea, which seems to be that the more information a creditor has, the more he is responsible for acting on that information. The converse would be that an early creditor didn't have the information to know that a bankruptcy was coming, and is therefore more of a "victim" than the later creditors. Is that close? If it is, there seems to be something off about the idea that obligations should be more or less enforced depending on the "you oughtta have known better" principle, e.g. "you oughtta have known better than to loan that guy money when he already had that much debt." I certainly agree that it would be irrational and immoral for a creditor to make blatantly sketchy loans such that all his debtors go broke and can't pay him back. Obviously a bad business practice. But does bad business practice make him less of a victim? (Let us assume for the sake of argument that the bankruptcy is legitimately the fault of the debtor, i.e. he didn't get robbed etc.) The question can be generalized: is a person entitled to protection of his rights when he "oughtta have known better?" For example, say I walk down a dark forboding alley alone at night and get mugged, while you walk down a nice clean alley in daylight and get mugged. I suppose one could say that I should've known better -- but does that make me less of a victim than you, since you had no reason to see it coming and I perhaps should have? Along the same lines, should my mugger get a lighter sentence than yours, because I should've stayed out of his alley? While I don't think the answer is yes, I'm open to argument here. Coming back to bankruptcy, the implication is that the last creditor should have his contract enforced just the same as the others, despite the fact that one could say he should've known better than to make that loan. The fact is that he made the loan, and the debtor agreed to pay him back. The promise was made, the obligation taken on voluntarily. When the debtor goes bust, he shouldn't get let off the hook because some of the creditors should've known better. I can't answer the question, because I don't accept your given. I'm still of the mind that no debt should be cancelled, period {edit: coercively, by the government. Voluntary cancellation by the creditor is clearly his perogative}. If that means living on beans and rice indefinitely, so be it. But supposing that a payment plan of some kind were to be directed by the judge, I'd say off the top of my head that it could be apportioned proportionately such that the more you owe to each creditor, the larger share of your payment they get. If I owe $1000 to one creditor and $19000 to another, my total monthly payment of $100 should be split $5/$95. I'm sure there are other aspects that would be relevant here such as how past due you are etc, but in general I see no reason why permanent debt cancellation is necessary or proper.

You probably didn't mean to imply this, but let's be clear in our use of words -- there is no "force" involved here. No creditor "forces" anyone into debt. What happens, as we know, is that a person agrees to put himself into debt by taking a loan and thereby becoming a debtor. With that in mind, I don't see why any creditor is deserving of moral blame because he happened to be the nth person to loan money to a debtor rather than the first. All creditors are interested in having their contracts fulfilled. I'm still not understanding on what basis you want to distinguish creditors in terms of their right to get their money back. They all have the same rights (unless the terms state otherwise, of course ). This is a good point and goes with what I was saying about a payment plan not necessarily being a cancellation of debt. Making payments at a lesser rate than the original contract required doesn't mean a debtor is off the hook for the rest. Consider the case where somebody goes bankrupt and his debt is structured into payments by the judge, but who later gets back on his feet and becomes wealthy enough to repay all his previous debt. What argument can be made that he shouldn't have to repay his old debts in full now that he has new means to do so? Under current bankruptcy law, he wouldn't have to because he got a "fresh start". I have to agree with Seeker that current law, putting aside legal details, is fairly easily seen as a moral wrong.

I'd never heard of force majeure before, so I looked it up on wikipedia, which says that If I understand correctly, this is a type of clause that two parties agree to in a contract. If two parties agree that they will forgive the obligation in the event of such and such a scenario, then it is perfectly legitimate for the government to apply the clause in the case where the parties have a dispute. In forgiving the debt on the basis of the force majeure clause, the government would be doing exactly what it's supposed to -- enforcing the terms of the contract, one of which says that catastrophes cancel the obligations. Bankruptcy law, as I understand it, is different in that the government negates a contract without the consent of the creditor, and that's what I see as illegitimate. I'm not understanding your argument here. Isn't an agreement an agreement? If I contract with you to loan you $100 at 10% interest, how does that contract have any different moral or legal standing if I was the fourth person to loan you money rather than the first? You agreed to repay me, and that's that. Is it not? Obligation and ability to meet obligation are two seperate things, and the lack of the latter does not negate the former. If you agreed to repay me $100 plus interest, then you owe me $100 plus interest. Period. If you go broke and don't have the means to repay me, you still owe me $100 plus interest. If I take you to court to get my money back and the judge directs some sort of payment method, that is only valid insofar as it is a means of enforcing the contract. He cannot say "pay 5 payments of $10 and you're off the hook." That would be contract negation, not enforcement.

I agree that this is a complex issue, which is why I suggested asking the fundamental moral question about contractual obligations before getting into the various aspects of what proper bankruptcy law would look like. As far as an intent to be legally bound, this doesn't seem quite right. I think it's the same sort of mistake that is made with respect to zoning, where people say that the government owes them zoning protection because when they moved in they did so with the "intent" that the neighbors wouldn't do such and such with their land. Or that the slave holders built their plantations with the assumption that the government would continue to uphold their "right" to slave labor. Or that taxation is fine and good as long as people know ahead of time that they're going to be taxed and plan accordlingly. But those aren't valid functions of government, and neither is negating contracts. It makes no difference that going into a contract agreement, the creditor knows his money *might* be forever lost by government decree later on. It's still wrong, even if the creditor was aware of the risk he would be wronged.

Not only is it an argument from intimidation, it's just plain false. I know of at least one "older Objectivist" who is an advocate of open borders. Maybe he just hasn't gained enough "wisdom" to see those Mexicans for the "ferocious animals" they truly are, eh mweiss?

Kendall, I've got the impression that you know quite a bit about Objectivism, which is why I'm baffled that you're using this argument about the government doing something because the result is the "de facto" result in a "free" market. Law is normative and based on ethics, not about de facto anything -- if anything, it's about being against what would happen absent government. Absent government, thieves rob a person, dispose of the property, and get away while the victim never gets his property back. That's the de facto result. What you're advocating is that the government step in and tell the victim not to bother, since he needs to recognize the "reality" of the situation. In a contract, the debtor is *forever* legally and morally responsible for repayment unless the creditor willingly forgives the debt. Perhaps it is often rational (cost-effective) on a business level to give up on somebody, forgive their debt, and move on. But this must be done voluntarily. In bankruptcy, it is the government *forcing* the creditor to forgive the debt. There is no equating the two scenarios -- in a free market, creditors and only creditors choose whether to forgive debt, while under current bankruptcy law, they are forced to do so. There's no need to bring in issues about external costs or economics or anything else. The issue is fundamentally a moral one: can or cannot the government legitimately negate a contractual obligation. There are plenty of interesting facets about *how* the government should protect a creditor's rights by facilitating optimal repayment in a bankruptcy situation, but no question about whether those rights cease to exist because of a debtor's need.

But what does that have to do with one's moral and legal obligation to fulfill his contracts? The reality is that person A borrowed money from B with the promise and obligation to pay it back on terms mutually agreed upon. Nothing can wipe this fact out of existence, including the fact that A finds himself unable to pay at some later date. One fact doesn't erase the other, it simply adds. Now we have two facts: 1) A has an obligation to repay his debt and 2) A doesn't have the money to do that. How A deals with those facts is up to him, but it is illegitimate for the government to decree that fact (1) is no longer so. I do see a place for the law to direct how facts (1) and (2) should be dealt with, in the case that B decides to sue for breach of contract. Perhaps that involves payment schemes, property seizures, or other means. But it can't include, as is currently the case, a government-decreed permanent erasure of debt, i.e voiding of a contract. The government exists to enforce contracts, not void them.

I've been using a modified version of Mentzer's HIT "ideal workout" for a couple years now, and it's worked pretty well for me. I get stronger with every workout, keep in shape, and spend less than an hour a week in the gym -- can't beat that. My routine consists of the following: Torso workout Rest 3-4 days Legs workout Rest 3-4 days Arms/Shoulders workout Rest 3-4 days Repeat.

Here's a study idea. Take two random groups of high school students and have one learn Objectivist epistemology, the other pragmatism/progressive education. I have a hunch about the results...

I wouldn't draw too much from a segment on the Colbert Report. Sure, there are people who reject Objectivism outright. But most have only a basic or superficial understanding if at all, and the audience is there to laugh at jokes. I doubt that more than a few are laughing because they've gained a deep understanding of the philosophy and have chosen to reject it. Cheer up, Meta.

Even given the sneering quality of most of Colbert's political humor, that was pretty amusing. I liked the nursery rhyme . It was interesting that quite a few people in the audience understood enough about Objectivism to laugh at the jokes. Free publicity, I suppose.

You have to be careful about how you use the numbers. The size of the revenue is relatively small and admin costs will therefore make up a higher percentage compared to other large charities. For example, the American Red Cross is listed as having a 5% administrative cost, but that's on almost $4 billion in revenue. ARI has ~0.1% of that revenue, so the administrative cost would represent a greater share of a smaller pie. Whether or not the operations at ARI are less efficient than they could be, I have no basis for analysis, other than that every person I've met from ARI has been very competent and focused on their mission of expanding ARI's reach as much as possible. Given that, it would take substantial evidence to convince me that they are negligently wasting money. As for Yaron Brook's salary, I can say that having met him and seen him "in action" at OCON this summer, he brings a tremendous value to ARI. If you support ARI's mission, then he deserves every penny and more.