Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

JeffS

Regulars
  • Posts

    512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by JeffS

  1. I'm surprised to read this. I know one doctor personally and he is not in the least interested in being altruistic. He informs me his opinion is not the minority. In addition, I've read several op-eds from doctors which lead me to believe the medical field will be the first to "shrug." On what do you base your belief that the medical field is becoming "overwhelmingly altruistic?"
  2. @logicalpath - I'm not sure why you keep quoting me since you're not disagreeing with me. In fact, you're not really adding anything more to what I've already written. Is there something I'm missing?
  3. Banks, and other businesses, issue their own money all the time in the form of credit cards and checks. Money is simply that which easily facilitates the exchange of value. As sN pointed out, no one would want to issue something that doesn't facilitate that exchange. US dollars must be accepted, but (as evidenced by the businesses which do not accept credit cards and/or checks) other forms of payment can be.
  4. All legal tender means is that a business can't refuse payment in it. So, a business couldn't refuse to be paid in dollars. However, you can pay with whatever form of money you wish as long as the business agrees to accept it. So, you can use gold as currency.
  5. "On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt ordered all gold coins and gold certificates in denominations of more than $100 turned in for other money. It required all persons to deliver all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve by May 1 for the set price of $20.67 per ounce." " In 1974, President Gerald Ford signed legislation that permitted Americans again to own gold bullion." http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-takes-united-states-off-gold-standard (Google's an amazing thing.)
  6. DancingBear, the exceedingly important concept you're dancing through is that one must prove their rights have been violated. If I am accused of murdering someone, it must be proved that I did before you put me in jail. If you accuse me of causing the climate above your property to change, then you must prove I've changed the climate (or that my actions have changed the climate) before you demand recompense. Now, you might be tempted to argue that proving my actions have changed the climate would be nearly prohibitively difficult to do. Well, "difficult to do" is not a valid justification for pre-emptively initiating force against me. A tenuous link between CO2 and rising temperatures is not going to be enough when you're dealing with the incredibly vast and chaotic system that is planetary climate. If you can prove that someone's actions have caused you harm (e.g. the BP oil spill), then the government has the obligation and the authority to impose punishment and restitution. There's no justification in pre-emptively regulating oil companies who have done no harm to you.
  7. We're missing some context here, so I'll have to make a pretty important assumption: You and your employer are rational individuals who have freely negotiated a contract (even if only implied) for employment. Maternity leave is a benefit, as such it is part of your total compensation - part of what your employer has agreed to voluntarily give up in order to convince you to work with him/her. Presumably your employer has had to reduce certain parts of your total compensation in order to provide you with his benefit (e.g. perhaps a slightly lower salary than a man's). So, in essence, you've been paying for this benefit from day one of your employment. As such, future considerations are not really germane to the issue - you've paid for the benefit, and your employer voluntarily agreed to provide the benefit regardless of when it happened or what you decided to do after the birth. Degree of the benefit is not germane to the issue - your employer agreed to the amount of the benefit. You're not using force against anyone, nor are you demanding that someone else initiate force in order to satisfy your contract. It would be as immoral to refuse the benefit as it would be if you were to refuse your paycheck. *edit - silly mistake
  8. Seems you're putting rationality on hold. You clearly recognize your actions as irrational after the outburst. The trick is to recognize your actions as irrational while you're considering an outburst. Here's how I deal with stress: see how much I can take before cracking - and, of course, I very rarely crack (perhaps once every decade) because I'm always trying to push my stress level. When you feel the anger coming on, recognize that you're angry and try to determine why you're angry. What stimulus is causing you to be angry? Usually, that will do the trick - it's the one moment you need to gain control of your emotions again. It's like taking a deep breath. If that's not enough, try to see how much more stress you can take before cracking. Make a game of it. "Yeah, you *#!@, you've pissed me off. Bet you can't do anything else to piss me off even more." Laugh at it. Walk away. The point is to give yourself time to allow the hold you're putting on rationality to end and for thinking to come back on-line.
  9. Cool, thanks, Brian. A much easier and clearer way of looking at the data.
  10. I wonder what country went from an average life span of over 50 years to below the x-axis in a matter of years. (around 2:09-2:12)
  11. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    Why can't I get an answer to that question? If it's not "contextually equivalent," then you can shoot me down for that if I ever use it in a context where it doesn't apply. I just want to know if it's moral to accept money from someone who steals money from me if I know that money is stolen. Why won't you answer that question? Should I start a new thread and see if you'll answer it there? I don't want to know if it's moral to accept money from a thief when I don't know where his money comes from. You're evading, RB. EDIT: Have a great Thanksgiving!
  12. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    Why should that matter? I know he stole money from me. I know he has no money now. I know the only way for him to get money is to steal it from someone else (i.e. no one is going to give it to him willingly, and he produces nothing so can not earn money). That is the context. Is it moral for me to accept money from him when I know he stole it from someone else? It's a simple morality question. To say that something is beside the point is also to say that it is extraneous, incidental, off the subject, or not at issue, which is clearly my meaning.
  13. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    When the government is running a deficit, then one thing is certain: the total of money collected in taxes is greater than the total money spent on services. That's the definition of deficit, RB. We don't need to determine exactly when specific funds are collected or spent, and any attempt to do so, and use that as some sort of justification, is just rationalizaton. The simple fact is: money coming in is less than money going out. Any addition to the latter merely widens the gap. And I'll deny it yet again. You have no evidence for either of these claims, and it's irrational for you to believe them, especially since I've specifically denied them countless times and provided arguments why I deny them. I agree completely, and have stated that all along. When my writing has implied that I do not believe this, and this was pointed out to me, I corrected it and made it clear that it is the government initiating force. Can you just answer a simple moral question for me? If someone stole my money, would it be moral of me to accept a return of the value of the money stolen if I know that the robber has to steal the money from someone else in order to return it to me? No, it isn't.
  14. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    Given that the government currently runs a deficit, where will the money come from to provide the OP with food stamps? Of course I have. What's the point? That I'm a hypocrite? When have I stated that I live a moral life? I haven't, and I don't. Hypocritical would be claiming that I'm living a moral life while ignoring all the principles upon which morality is based. I didn't argue that actions are immaterial, I argued that the question of their materiality is beside the point. Shouldn't actions properly follow from principles? One must first form their principles, then apply them before any evaluation of their efficacy can be made. If the principle is flawed, and properly followed, then the action is flawed. But if the action is correct, the principle may still be flawed. We must begin with principles.
  15. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    Unreal. So, the OP can't demand food stamps from the government, right? The government has the guns, remember? This is reality: we live in a nation of some 300 million people. Of those, somewhere around 170 million pay federal income taxes totaling around $5 trillion. Some pay willingly, some do not. Of that $5T, the federal government spends all of it, then it borrows money and spends more. If you asked for your money back you could not get it, the government could not give it to you, your property does not exist, it has already been consumed. The only way the government could return your property to you is if it went out and collected more revenue - i.e. it must get money from someone. Even if the government borrows money to return your property to you, that only delays the inevitable - the governmnt must get money from someone who has produced something of value. If you go from paying federal income taxes to not paying federal income taxes, then federal revenue goes down. If you then accept welfare of any sort, federal expenses go up. Net result: the gap between what the federal government receives and what it spends gets even wider. This doesn't change the fact that the government spends all of the revenue it receives and that any money you personally have had taken from you has already been consumed. The question is: Where does the government get the money to provide you with welfare when all the money it took from you has already been consumed? It has to get that money from someone who produced something of value, Marc. It can't reach into its bag of surplus money because there is no surplus money! So, where does the government get that money? You want to rationalize that the government will just go to those who agree with wealth distribution to obtain the money to give to you. "Oh, the government won't take the money from those who agree with me that the government shouldn't steal. In order to pay me back, the government will just take money from the socialists." That's fine. Rationalize away. I'm done with you, Marc. Your continued insulting tone, dishonesty, obfuscation and intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation of my argument has already wasted far too much of my time. I don't see how that is relevant to the current topic. Yes, the government will continue to rob from us at least until everyone understands the proper function of government. Are you arguing that since the crime is going to occur anyway, being party to its perpetuation isn't such a big deal? If so, then I disagree. Whether or not your actions are immaterial is somewhat beside the point. The important thing is not the effect - the important thing is the principle upon which the action taken is based. Certainly not, and I don't know how many times, or how many different ways I need to say so. I can't subscribe to such a defeatist attitude. The robber will get "caught" when the majority of the population has a rational philosophy, or at least understands the importance of principles and living by them. We can't get there if those who purport to hold a rational philosophy try to rationalize away those principles. Sure, but that's just another rationalization: "The government's going to take it anyway, I might as well get in on the action." If we keep disregarding the principles that would stop governments from taking as much as they can, then we'll never escape it.
  16. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    It's so disappointing to see such massive intellectual dishonesty from a self-professed Objectivist. I offered to use your "closer to reality" analogy, Marc, and you still evade the question. If rational people can't step away from dogma long enough to actually evaluate arguments, then what hope is there? If self-professed Objectivists must rely upon obfuscation, misinterpretation, and dishonesty in order to convince themselves they've won an argument, then the odds of a rational philosophy gaining wide acceptance are greatly reduced.
  17. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    Very well, I was trying to make a simple analogy. I suppose we need to make it more complicated. Let's use your analogy then. What principle makes it moral for Ms. C to demand that Rob the Robber take money from Ms. D in order to pay Ms. C? On the question of when you asked me how you should retaliate, I was wrong. You did ask me. A month ago. I apologize for not catching that. As I pointed out in the post immediately after your question, it was getting to the point where I had to reply to many different posters who were contesting the same things. It was at that point that I tried to simplify everything. I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to imply that I intentionally neglected your question, especially since you had ample opportunity to ask again in the several posts after mine. But, you're right; you did ask, I did not answer. I apologize. For the third time, then what would you call it? None of the quotes you provided explicity state, or imply that Ms. C would be initiating force against A and/or B. Read themadkat's post if this is still unclear. This is a false dichotomy. You're arguing that if don't accept your sweeping generalization that "the moral is the practical," then I must think the moral is the impractical. There is another option - the option Ms. Rand wrote about: the moral does not need to contradict the practical, as long as both are supported by solid principles. No, we can't drop the debt issue regardless of how confusing it is. The reality of the situation is that this country is in debt. If we're going to ignore it, then what other parts of reality do we get to ignore? Absolutely, and I've already stated as much. If the country were running a surplus then it certainly could return your property to you without finding more victims (or taking more from its existing victims). Yes, the food stamps were still provided by taxation, but that was a crime which has already occured. If the government doesn't need to commit another crime in order to return your property to you, then it is moral to get your property back. When the government runs a deficit, in order to return your property to you it has no course of action but to find more victims, or take more property from its existing victims because it doesn't have any property to return to you. That is a crime which would not have occurred (all things being equal) had you not demanded your property back (in the form of food stamps). Once again, you are being disingenuous. I don't mind if you parse my posts, I certainly do enough of it. However, when I do it I try to make sure I'm getting the central point the other poster is trying to make. Had you even read a little further into the quote you cut up, you would have realized that "That is not what I'm arguing" referred to your erroneous supposition that I'm arguing you could get your bike back. You can't. Your bike no longer exists. It has been converted to cash and the cash has been spent on something already consumed. I even used your analogy to make it clear. So, either you didn't read the rest of the post, or you simply want to be dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I understand why you want to keep avoiding the question posed in the rest of that quote, but it really doesn't help your argument to do so. culpable - deserving blame If you demand Rob the Robber returns your property, knowing full well he will have to go out and rob someone else in order to do so, then you are culpable - you are deserving of blame. Well, my bad. Since Ayn Rand didn't say taxation was an emergency situation, it must not be. Let's ignore the principles upon which the concept of emergencies are based and just go with what she said. Ayn Rand said taxation and government financing were the last issues to deal with because people need to understand the principles of a proper government long before they demand a different way. In fact, they need to understand a great deal more of her objective philosophy long before they can even understand the principles of a proper government. She was arguing that one can't simply force a conclusion on people without them having an understanding of the objective evidence the conclusion is based on. In fact, I bet she would argue that once people understood the premises, the immorality of forced taxation would be a foregone conclusion. Every year, on a particular day, of a particular month, a man accosts you in the street. He puts a gun to your head and says, "Give me your money, or I will confine you in my basement until you do." Would you consider that an emergency scenario? What? How am I a hypocrite? You keep ignoring my questions, and misinterpreting my argument, so it's hard for me to imagine how my argument has been defeated. I think you do it because you're experiencing cognitive dissonance. You know your argument is flawed, I've punctured a big hole in what you believed to be true without really analyzing it, so now you're lashing out. You've been insulting from the beginning. So, now what? Alter your principles? Tacitly compromise on them? Ahhh, so it's to be compromise. The socialists are benefitting at your expense, and have been increasingly benefitting at your expense your entire life (assuming you're under 80 years old). So, who is it that's calling for sacrifice?
  18. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    I suggest you re-read the passage. Rand is not arguing that the moral is the practical. She's arguing that the practical and the moral need not contradict. However, let's assume you and Marc are correct, and morality is simply what is practical; the good is what "works." Nearly three generations of Americans have lived their lives based on what "works." They've gone from cradle to grave sucking off the government teat - that has "worked" for them. It was practical for them to live like that. These people lived moral lives? To make this more germane to our discussion, since it's practical to use the roads to get to work, it's moral to use the roads. No reference to principles, no reference to Man's only means of survival. It works, it's the best we can do in the situation, so it's moral. I think you're both doing a dis-service to Rand and Objectivism. I'm by no means an expert on Objectivism, and I probably know significantly less than either of you. But I find it very hard to believe she would agree with your sweeping generalization. Thanks. I particularly like this passage from the page on principles: Or, if we search in "Pragmatism," we find: Now, I would agree that with the caveat "all things considered" in place "Whatever works to further your own life" is a true statement. However, that was not the claim made. The claim made was that "the moral is the practical." What are you talking about?
  19. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    Hmmm, yet here you are. I find arguments devoid of logic are the easiest to dispense with. Don't you? And yet the only difference (aside from attributing positions to me that I did not make, which I will address) between what you consider "closer to reality" and my analogy is the thief's name is now Rob instead of "government." Really, quite laughable. When did you ask me how one would retaliate? I, however, can pinpoint where I asked you what you would call it when one passively goes along with a robbery. It was in post #65. As am I. Please, also provide the post where I argued Ms. C would be initiating force against A and/or B. How could the robber actually give Ms. C's money back? Where would that money come from? This is the question you keep avoiding, Marc, because you realize it's the Achilles Heel of your argument. You don't want to admit that Rob (aka "government") would have to take that money from Mr. D. I'll even let you use your "closer to reality" scenario: where would the money that Ms. C receives have to come from? Do you believe it will come from A, B, or D? Or, perhaps it is just the magic of high-level accounting which will provide Ms. C with funds? Really? "The moral is the practical?" I would love to see the Rand quote on that. My searching of the Lexicon didn't bring anything up. Do you have something else that's not in the lexicon? Which facts do I have wrong? Is it not true that the government currently runs a fiscal deficit? Is it not true that the government is in debt? That is not what I'm arguing, and I suppose the simple logic of my argument hasn't hit you. Perhaps using your own analogy will help you understand. If the robber had converted and spent all of the stolen property, should the robber go out and find new victims in order to buy you a new bike? And what evidence do you have that I do not? Let me see if I can make an unfounded accusation of my own: you have no idea what the current state of government financing is. Ahh, here's where you ask me how I would retaliate - after you accuse me of not answering a question that, by your own admission, had not been put to me yet. Perhaps the simple logic of which should come first hasn't hit you yet? By firing the thieves. If that doesn't work, pick up a gun and protect your property (and your principles). I realize there's some danger in that, and that you "retain some freedoms and some level of happiness is possible." I guess that's enough to justify ignoring your principles. After all - morality is all about practicality. Whatever works is the good, eh? Just an interesting aside for me, are you getting insulting because you know your argument is flawed, or are you simply always this insulting?
  20. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    I have never argued otherwise. My argument all along has been that accepting welfare is to legitimize theft. You're not committing the crime yourself, but you're using the government as your agent to do it. Is a welfare recipient any less culpable for the government's use of force to provide their benefits? Is that culpability eliminated, or even mitigated if the recipient says, with outstretched hands, "Oh, but I completely and unequivocably disagree with the way in which you obtained the funds to provide me these benefits. You are evil, evil, evil. Gimme' my money." In the first case, the crime is committed and over; the emergency situation has come and passed. You have the opportunity then to reason a way to avoid it happening in the future. Your reasoning mind is released from the stultifying effects of force, and you can return to normalcy. In the latter case, the crime continues; the emergency situation becomes the normal. If you remain in that situation, without attempting to escape it, then you're just accepting the morality of the looter. You're sanctioning the acts and morality of the thief and denying your rational mind. Then what are you doing? Is that sort of veiled ad hominem really necessary? Marc, you became reticent when presented with a logical argument, complicated or no, which ended in questions you could not answer. Care to answer them now?
  21. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    That puts a big sign on everything Rand has ever written that says, "Maybe." I understand your point, Dante, and that everything is contextual. However, when someone writes "... do you hear me? no man may start..." it seems to me they're really trying to make it clear that the initiation of force is anathema. She didn't write, "No man may intiate, unless conditions preclude him from not initiating, or certain contextual situations force him to initiate...." Rand concluded no person should initiate force upon another from her conclusions that reason is Man's only means of survival and that reason is impossible in the face of force, which she arrived at from the objective facts of the kind of organism Man is and the natures of force and reason. A context which denies the conclusion on force initiation would either need to destroy the relationship between force and reason, deny the nature of Man, or both. You've constructed an emergency situation. As such, it is no longer a situation in which ethics apply; it is no longer a question to be answered with an appeal to morality. What you "should" do cannot be answered. As pointed out above, you've taken away the relationship between force and reason and supplied an example where reason is not possible. In regard to the non-initiation of force principle, Objectivism doesn't apply in this situation; no ethical system does. Therefore, this is not a context where it is moral for someone to initiate force against someone else. In regards to the present question, is the situation the same? Have Ms. C, or the OP, been forced to abandon reason? Can no answer of what they "should" do be given? So, impossible to live a moral life. Or nearly so impossible. Dante, you're arguing that it is impossible (in a Communist state), or nearly impossible (depending upon how far away the state is from the ideal) to live a moral life. You're proposing we live in a world where emergency scenarios are considerably more common-place than natural laws would require. I don't think we do. Yes, government interference does create conflict among rational men. But the rational response is not to perpetuate the conflict, or pass it on down. The proper response is to return to normal life as quickly as possible. Perpetuating the victimization is not the path toward solving the emergency. It is just as valid for me to argue that Ms. C receiving money, and your continued usage of the roads is sanctioning sacrifice if indeed these are emergency scenarios since the question is not a question morality can answer. However, I don't agree that either are emergencies. Neither of you are being forced to abandon reason in your decisions. You were forced to abandon reason when the government put a gun to your heads and took your money. In Ms. C's case, that emergency has passed. She has no more money to take and the government applies no force in her decision to accept welfare or refuse it. In the case of roads, if the state took your money, then built a road, there's no reason why you should not use that road. If the state continues to take your money to repair and improve the road, then allowing the state to keep robbing you is sanctioning sacrifice - not because you continue to use the road, but because you continue to accept the emergency situation of a state continually holding you up at gun point. If someday you run out of money, and need a new road to find a new job, should you use any new road built from the government's theft of others' money? If so, how is this different from the argument that the government should tax the rich in order to provide services to those who can't afford it? Would it matter if those others who can't afford services now had paid something into the system in the past?
  22. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    That sounds pretty absolute to me. She seems very emphatic about it. Can you provide a scenario where it would be moral for someone to initiate force against someone else? It seems like you're arguing it's impossible (or nearly so) to live a moral life (unless the "ideal form of human society and interaction" you mention above exists). Is that what you're arguing? Ms. C does not sacrifice herself by refusing welfare; you do not sacrifice yourself by refusing to drive on roads - both of you have simply been victimized. You can either choose to perpetuate the victimization by visiting force upon the next guy in line, a force initiation Ponzi scheme, or you can choose to live a moral life by accepting the fact that you got robbed, and making yourself whole at the expense of some unrelated third party is not justified.
  23. JeffS

    Food Stamps?

    Yes, I would go to a charity rather than a government run program. However, I disagree with your premise. Charity is not always indicative of altruism. In fact, I would venture to argue that charity is rarely indicative of altruism. I give to charity because it makes me feel good, and I know the charities I give to provide goods and services that genuinely help people become productive. It is in my rational self-interests to live in a society where people are productive. I give to charity because it's good for me.
  24. RB, I can't disagree with anything you've written. Is it your position that not admitting to a crime is not evasion?
×
×
  • Create New...