StrictlyLogical

Slight aside, I note Rand was quite good at wide integrations, and her seeing through false dichotomies, more than one of them in fact, was always breathtaking. Many criticized Marxist Utopias by assuming their failure and evil outcomes was rooted in human failings to implement the system faithfully, Rand rightly noted their fundamental ideas were themselves evil. A modern Objectivist cannot but help to notice that our mixed economy, bloated paternalistic government, increasingly socialist and authoritarian, wasteful, and corrupt institutions are a failure to meet the founding fathers explicit vision of the republic, which no matter how far short of an Objectivist utopia, is revelatory, true and Good. Rand noted America had not ever met her full potential, never ripened to what she could and should be, but nonetheless she paid homage and great respect for her founders vision, adjudging that Republic as the greatest system ever conceived and executed heretofore. She did bemoan her fall and criticized both parties contemporary to her time, the so-called left and right parties which she rightly saw as being little different and in fact is the main reason she lambasted the right, for all its posturing towards individual freedom revealed all the more, its hypocrisy and dishonesty. So she blasted one false dichotomy, of theory versus practicality in the context of utopian politics, out of the water, as well as another false dichotomy (of policy) between the so called left and right. What is more impressive for her revelations is that she did this in spite of common and widely held beliefs in the culture, in academia, portrayed and disseminated by the “authorities” and the media. In her time she was what modern spin doctors would call a conspiracy theorist, and to give them their due, those doctors have identified that indeed sometimes reality and human nature, incentive structures, imbalance and control of information can “conspire” to present a picture which is misleading. They err in prescribing blind obedience and acceptance rather than further close inspection of reality. She was truly a rebel and yes a radical like no other. I wonder why so many modern Objectivists, seem not to have taken on her approach of seeing through the false dichotomies, of making wider integrations than what the predominant culture is feeding us, of seeing beyond the narratives of theory versus practicality, left versus right, of seeing where real and complex forces of human nature and power lead institutions and nations, of being brave in the face of those who attack bold unpopular ideas. I think it has to do with the statistically predominant life experience the type of person who becomes a philosopher comes from. Not all but most are sheltered, insular, academic and the same kind of errors (albeit of different content) which afflicted the Marxist Utopians, afflicts the Objectivist philosophers, it is as if “all we need is a globe of perfect rational humans then our institutions, laws, and systems, nations, trade, agreements, industries, local and global infrastructure, shipping, energy and food will all work…” and perhaps it would, but it wont. It cannot succeed, the systems that will succeed must take into account the global and human realities as well as the current state of things… it must be formed to take us from here, not to assume we are somewhere we are not or never will be… and it must be focused on the Republic itself not a universal utopia which lies centuries if not millennia forward. I wonder what Rand would say if she had lived through all the years since her death, observing, thinking, integrating, in her non naive rebellious way, what she would have to say about the best way forward given all the threats, in all their forms, throughout the world and from within. She certainly would find any fault, any little error, with the remedial cures being put in place but for sure she would be fully cognizant of the complex situation of the present moment and have a good view of the path forward.

“A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin

How are “relations of quantity” as subject to study different and distinguishable from “quantity”? What do you mean by foundational? And of “what”? In what sphere? Is mechanical structure and function foundational of experience? Is a relation of mere causal connection even complete causal dependency foundational as between incommensurate spheres… shall we say the electromagnetic forces are one of the fundamentals of literary romantic poetry? Is the strong force (without which all nuclei would not exist) foundational to a persons edifice of knowledge and experience? Certainly from a third person physical analysis … indeed causation is fundamental to the physical results… but within the sphere of first person experience, fundamentality in that structure is of a kind in that structure. The foundation and pillars are some kind of first or base experience … and yes but of course the whole things sits on the ground of physicality and causation but they are externals. Are the foundations of Objectivity qua mental activity within that sphere or do they lie in the external ground of all things in existence?

“cut payouts to the citizens and raise taxes on them.” Ha, besides cutting the payouts, you almost sound like a mixed economy type…. Why not take a view through an Objectivist lens? If what is moral and proper is a government wielding its monopoly on the use of force solely to protect individual rights, the broad category of “corruption and waste” properly defined includes any and all violation of the individual by imposition of force exceeding the metes and bounds of proper government fulfilling its proper role. With that in mind, and keeping in mind America, even at her founding never met the high standard of an ideal laissez-faire capitalism, one could look at various aspects of America’s past, and conclude it should be better, i.e. greatly reduced or eliminated. Countless departments, regulatory agencies, licensing bodies, every part of the welfare state, none of which are proper branches of government should be eliminated. All funding and government grants to any cause or NGO should be eliminated. I have no stats but a proper government in broad strokes, should be much smaller than a tenth of what it is now, and in a free and prosperous productive nation such would be able to shrink even smaller. It’s not a question of reducing corruption and waste “in” government, but excising whole portions of so-called government because they themselves constitute corruption and waste. Afuero! That moral and proper exercise is the “real solution” to the problem.

It appears to me that this blog is being foisted upon us as though it were the official position of this site. At the very least, it seems that what it says is given special sanction and endorsement by virtue of its special treatment, as no other blogs are automatically posted to the forum. I suggest either the inclusion of other blog posters to balance the views of this single man… whether purported Objectivist or otherwise… and if not, I urge complete removal of any automatic blog posts.

You do realize an Objectivist forum (and America historically) are not gathering grounds for Socialists or Marxists, right?

A mathematician eventually changed careers to study this, James Lindsay, https://newdiscourses.com/author/jameslindsay/ Woke is a form of Marxism.

We never had a proper government... one consequence of which is the "ping-pong" diplomacy with China which evolved over time into a freer economic and trade arrangement. That strategy was fueled by the hope that economic ties would spill over into ideology and social change... but things changed drastically with the the current regime.. dashing those hopes for the foreseeable future. So given we are where we are, even if we had a proper government (which we don't) we are so in bed with the world and China, change must be strategic, and gradual, so as not to shock the domestic economy, banking systems, supply chains etc. I do agree, had we never become dependent upon and intertwined in globalization, we could take such steps as you posit, but I think only baby steps in the right direction are possible, even if we know the correct destination.

I do not think a proper government can wage an economic war simply for the sake of staying on top or any particular economic indicator such as "the economic size of America's industrial base", certainly not with rights respecting free countries which pose no long term existential threat. But just like a real war, sometimes, we don't start an economic war, but we have to "finish" it, especially when it is part of a cold war, an ideological war, with a communist dictatorship. There does come a point when a proper government limits the rights of its own citizens from having commerce with a communist dictatorship, its "companies" or "citizens". Moreover, when it is necessary to do so, it must be done strategically in view of the kind of war and adversary. Protecting the rights of all citizens of a free country includes international diplomacy and rules of engagement with foreigners, especially those who are a long term potential threat.

Yeah… So Objectivists stand for free trade with communist dictatorships?

Not so. The two slits do not serve to measure the presence of the electron at either slit, however the interference pattern confirms the electron passing through both.

This is not a fact of the observable universe. Countless experiments have been done, one does not measure two dots on the screen, not if a dot measures the presence of a single indivisible electron, whose indivisibility is quite well measured. Philosophy depends upon a strong understanding of what one knows from perception and what one can conclude from what one knows and just as importantly accepting and identifying the boundaries of what one does not know from perception and what cannot be concluded from what one knows.

This does not lead to your claim and cannot form its basis. When you say "two detection" events what exactly do you mean? I suggest that only ever one election is detected at the screen and always at localized singular places, but the pattern again is some variant of K3 no matter what the distance.

On what basis do you make that claim?

PA The electron doesn't pass only through slit1 (otherwise K1 would be formed) PB The electron doesn't pass only through slit2 (otherwise K2 would be formed) PC There is nothing in the barrier through which the electron may pass to form K3 except the two slits CA: The electron must pass through "both slits"to make K3