Mixon
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mixon
-
-
A nation is comprised of individuals, some of whom I am proud of, some of whom I am not, and the vast majority of whom I have never even met. It feels wrong to lump the heros in with rotters and strangers by passing collective judgement. I have never been given to outbursts of patriotism but I do admire the political principles on which my country is founded. Though I have never personally travelled outside the United States, many of my friends have. I've read a fair amount of books on the history and culture of other nations. To date, I have yet to hear or read about any nation in which I would rather have been born in than my own. The reason is that here in the US, more so than anywhere else in the world, I am largely the architect of my own life. I am largely free to choose my profession, my values, and my love.
-
On this last point, we can generalize your claim to reach the following conclusion -- since one can imagine that some individual (law enforcement or otherwise) can always manufacture false evidence including fake forensic data and invented testimony, then it is impossible to have knowledge with certainty about any legally-relevant event. That is, we must be epistemological skeptics w.r.t. law.Your rationale would in fact lead to the conclusion that you cannot be certain about laws of nature. The validation of any empirical claim requires some kind of observational proof, and you can always imagine that the evidence has been forged (in some cases such as AGW you can even prove it).
As for the idea of "being absolutely certain of the laws of logic", I can't imagine what you mean by that. I think you're confusing the objective concept of a claim being certain with the subjective concept of a person being certain, and applying the latter concept to logic. If you're hoping to apply the former, you should first enumerate "the laws of logic" and give the definition of "certainty", where you will see that you've simply stated an arbitrary tautology.
Again, I must confess my lack of knowledge regarding philosophy. Maybe there is an easier way. Answer this for me. If I execute an convicted criminal who is innocent, is it a sacrifice? or have I committed an immoral act by initiating the use of force?
-
And the Objectivist position is "yes we can". I recommend "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", if you are interested in the philosophical issues of knowledge and certainty.
Past event: I was born in 1979. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.
Future event: The sun will rise tomorrow morning. I am absolutely 100% sure of that.
I appreciate the recommendation and should add that I have no background in philosophy. Let me clarify again though, I am not saying one can be certain of no past or future events. I am skeptical that one can be absolutely certain of all past and future events. In other words, there exist some past and future events of which we cannot be 100% certain.
Past Event: I was born in 1981. I am absolutely certain of that. Can you be absolutely certain of that?
Future Event: I am 99.9999999% certain the sun will rise tomorrow as well. Unless I were in certain parts of Alaska:) I'm certainly banking on it. It's definitely on the lowest of the low in order of probablity of non-occurence.
-
But I won't be worse off--and that's my starting point. Again, as I said earlier, my primary reason for taking this first step, from cash to metal commodities, is wealth protection given the standard nonoptimistic view on the world economic situation.
Again, one of my assumptions is that I'm keeping things simple; understanding the value of a business or the performance of a stock would take me into territory much more complex than that of a simple commodity. So let me ask you a few questions for clarification of your position:
1) In which businesses or stocks do you invest?
2) How do you research and track these companies? Do you read their monthly cashflow statements and their CEOs' letters to shareholders?
All investments carry with them an inherent risk of loss in value. If the price of gold declined from its current levels, you would be worse off. I commend you for shying away from investments you don't understand, but don't be lulled into thinking that commodities are simple. The factors affecting commodity prices are every bit as sophisticated as those effecting a large business. Beware of getting caught up emotional investing driven by irrational exuburence or excessive pessimism. It often pays to be greedy when others are fearful, and fearful when others are greedy. Benjamin Graham's Mr. Market analogy did a great job of explaining this.
1) If you want to take a more passive approach to investing check out Vanguard's Index funds. Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffett's company) is also great to own.
2) If you want to get serious about research. The first step would be to learn how to read and interpret all four financial statements. Focus first on learning to read the Balance Sheet & Income Statement. All publically traded companies are required to file quarterly financial statements with the SEC. You can look them up here: http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml
Pay close attention to fees you pay to own any investment. Include transaction fees, commissions, storage costs (for gold/silver). Make sure to include them when calculating return on investment.
-
Let's approach this from the opposite angle and assert that it is possible to know everything with absolute certainty, even events that occured in the past. Yet we still do make errors of knowledge right?
Now in the course of convicting criminals and sentencing them to death, over time it reasonable to assume errors of knowledge still occur, yes? Eyewitnesses can make mistakes, Lab technicians make errors, and occasionally overzealous law enforcement personnel plant evidence because they "feel" an individual is guilty. So in the course of executing convicted men, it's reasonable to assume you're going to kill a few innocents along with the guilty, right? Just like in the course of lending money, they're a few who end up not paying. You try to use credit models to minimize this but it still occurs because you can't know the course of future events. Is that a sacrifice? Wouldn't we be sacrificing innocent lives to execute the guilty?
My argument is that we cannot be absolutely certain about past and future events in the same way we can be absolutely certain about the laws of nature or logic. This is due to the problem of errors of knowledge. Hence, no legal system can exist in which knowledge of guilt or innocence would be absolute. But these errors of knowledge are correctable to some degree, provided you don't use capital punishment.
-
http://www.mcall.com/business/all-a20_over...0,4363369.story
This is beyond ridiculous. I mean, really? I keep waiting for someone, ANYONE, in Washington to stand up, point a finger at me, laugh, and say "Ah, we we're just screwin' with you, we know that's insane."
I feel like it would be sacrilegious to economics to explain why this is so wrong. Can anyone tell me why on earth - economically - anyone would even being to consider something like giving the government the power to dismantle a fine company? There's got to be more of this I don't know (PS: I saw this on Cavuto the other day, it's not just publicly traded companies even, it's any company). Please, let me know there's something else going on here, some evil scheme to destroy the US, some big joke I'm left out on, but please don't tell me people actually think this is sound, right, moral, etc. etc.
Please?...
Anyone?...
I have read about this proposal as well and find it equally alarming. Everyday I come across an overwhelming number of men and women my age or younger who regard corporations, profit, and human activity of any kind that doesn't involve sacrifice as morally wrong. It's truely terrifying to behold.
-
Thanks. Here are two of my premises, which I lay out for checking:
1) The only alternative I've set up for myself is cash
2) Gold and silver are going to do better than cash in the long run, and even in the moderately-short run. (Why wouldn't they? dot dot dot) Thus even if we're in a bubble and, say, yesterday's sharp decline continues, I can just wait until their perceived value relative to the USD bounces back.
Why is your only alternative cash? It's a good idea to keep 3-6 months of cash in a savings account to handle emergency expenses (car breaks down, illness, job loss, etc.) However, each dollar you keep in cash has an opportunity cost. You might find it difficult to exhange gold and silver at present, even coins, as cash. I understand all to well how frustrating it is to see your cash eroding in value everyday by an inflationary monetary policy.
Consider the merits of owning equities instead of commodities like gold, silver, & oil. It is true that owning commodities can offer you a hedge against inflation. As each dollar becomes worth less it takes more of them to buy the same quantity of commodity but from a wealth standpoint you aren't any better off than when you started. It is true that these commodities can genuinely increase in value as they are production inputs for other products, but seperating those price changes from purely inflationary price changes is nearly impossible from a practical standpoint. On the other hand, if you own shares of a business making inflationary determinations is not necessary because, genreally speaking, businesses are able to raise prices in response to inflation. This is why stocks have outperformed all other asset classes on average over time.
-
Have you read OPAR ch. 5? If so, re-read it, and notice that Peikoff does not frame the question in terms of subjective emotion, he frames it in terms of a conclusion being (objectively) certain. He answers your questions, in fact you don't even have to read the whole chapter. Read from p. 171 onwards.
What is OPAR? I'm currently reading "For the New Intellectual" and von Mises "Human Action."
-
I don't know what the push for capital punishment is driven by, in general. I'm in favor of it because I consider death to be a greater punishment (and therefor deterrent), than life in prison. I would back up that opinion with a list containing any number of things a person can do, during a life spent in prison, which are of value to him, as well as with the low percentage of people who choose suicide when they experience prison.
Do you have anything to counter my argument, or do you intend to instead just go for an ad hominem, and speculate that I'm emotional and irrational?
1. If you are certain that he's guilty, then your argument (about the irreversibility of the penalty) doesn't apply, and you have provided no reason against the death penalty (except for the speculation on people's feelings, which is not a valid argument).
2. Yes.
3. Reason.
On a sidenote, your argument, if that argument is that one cannot be absolutely certain, is an obvious contradiction: You cannot hold the statement "One cannot be absolutely certain." to be a true statement. After all, it is a statement that expresses your absolute certainty about the non-existence of absolute certainty.
The statement "One cannot be absolutely certain" is indeed a meaningless contradiction without putting in the context of "what." We can be absolutely certain of the nature of gravity or the boiling point of water under given conditions because they are repeatable. Reason allows us to observe natural phenomenon and repeat experiments. Reason does not allow me to look into the past and observe a crime with that same degree of absolute certainty. You can be reasonable certain of past events based on evidence, but is that a sufficent standard for executing a convicted criminal? I don't doubt that execution is a greater deterrent than imprisonment, but that does not alter the injustice of sacrificing even one innocent wrongly convicted man to get at the guilty.
-
Before studying Objectivism, my argument against capital punishment went something like this. A man wrongfully imprisoned may be set free, a man wrongfully accused cannot be resurrected. I question how justice is better served by using capital punishment over life imprisonment. I see only an increased risk of committing irrepairable injustice if the man convicted and put to death is innocent. The push for capital punishment seems driven more by an emotional desire for vengence than reason.
What if you are absolutely certain he is guilty? Can you be absolutely certain he is guilty? What is the standard of absolute certainty? Eyewitness accounts? Video footage? DNA evidence?
-
To the OP:
Be cautious in financial speculation, regardless of the commodity. Also, I would urge you to consider carefully the objective value of gold as money vs. the objective value of gold as an investment. Its value as the former: fungiblity, high store of value, scarcity are not necessarily the qualities one seeks in sound investment. I would highly recommend a book by Benjamin Graham called The Intelligent Investor. Warren Buffett has also written a bit on the value of gold as an investment.
Keep in mind you can learn just as easily from a $500 mistake as you can from a $50,000 mistake.
-
I don't doubt the economist's claim that a socialized health care system will lower the cost of healthcare for the average person. If the government taxes Bill Gates an extra $100 per month and uses those funds to pay for my insurance, it would be cheaper for me. However, the total cost of healthcare didn't change. The government just changed who did the paying by using coercion against those who had forced no one. The only way the goverment can make healthcare cheaper is by dictating how much health care providers can charge for services. Obviously, the government would set prices below current market rates otherwise it would have no effect. In the short run, the average person would feel much better about their healthcare coverage in much the same way a cancer patient feels better when ceasing chemotherapy permaturely. In the long run, less capital would be devoted to developing new drugs and treatments. Salaries for healthcare workers would invariably fall. Fewer bright young minds would choose to pursue a career in medicine. The combined departure of capital and talent would lead to stagnation in the industry. Patients would begin to complain about waiting lines and rationed care. At which point the next generation of politicians will begin looking for fresh victims to subsidize an industry now made legally incapable of solving its own problems and start talking about how additional regulations will be needed to solve problems caused by *blank out*
-
Probably now is the turning point, I see few reasons why not; but I need to understand Objectivism as most probably Ayn Rand herself did, as an achievement, not a natural state of humankind. In other words, I need to state that just as Ayn Rand taught us, we must never revert cause and consequence, for that would be like wanting to have the cake and eat it too. This means that we as humankind, can't have Philosophy, not even to speak of a Rational Philosophy, before we had 1) Superstition 2) Magic 3) Religion 4) Theology as in advanced religion 5) finally Free Philosophy.
Superstition, magic, religion, & theology are all forms of irrationality and reflect the notion that knowledge comes from faith. Rational philosophy, indeed all rational thought, is based on objective facts. The two are diametrically opposed. Rationality did not evolve from irrationality. Historically, it is true that the Dark Ages preceded the Age of Reason. However, you have taken this and falsely ascribed the latter as a consequence of the former. The fact that one event occurs after another does not necessarily mean it is a consequence of former. By the same token, the fact that one event precedes another does not necessarily mean it is a cause of the latter. To assert that humanity needed superstition as a pre-requisite for rational philosophy is as like saying that freedom evolved from slavery.
From my humble studies of history I find that specially in the early civilizations, collectivism was not only the norm, but the tool that allowed them to grow to population sizes that allow for SPECIALISTS. That is, for people who don't have to either hunt and gather, or plow the land until they die.Again, you have made the same error. Collectivism did not permit or set the stage for a specialized division of labor, capital accumulation and free trade did. Free market capitalism promotes both.
-
Hi, I am new to this forum, and not an expert on either Rand or Objectivism by any stretch, but I have read her 3 most popular books (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and Anthem), and read a bit of the forums. I think the biggest 'loophole' in objectivism from what I have seen so far is that while it gives a clear description of how to act at a high level, it seems to give little guidance in gray areas, and in fact can be construed to be encouraging what many people would consider bad behavior. I can think of a few examples where this can be pointed out.
One example is the CEO of a drug company has a cure for a deadly disease....does he release the drug at an etremely low profit margin to everyone, thus saving thousands of lives, or does he use his business and marketing skills to extract as much money from the marketplace as possbile, allowing many to die (it's important to remember in this example that the highest return from the marketplace will be selling less of the drug at a much higher price...if everyone can afford it then you have not priced it correctly!).
Now if your answer to that is that a follower of objectivism would always choose the path that preserves human life, OK, all we have to do is lower the sights of the example slightly....say that instead of a deadly disease, the drug company has a cure for some basic allergies....nothing that will kill anyone, but certainly something that is the cause of some not-insignificant suffering to many people....again, what should the actions of the CEO be in that case. If he is always thinking of his own interests, how could he choose anything other than to raise the price of the drug and limit it's distribution?
And you can also bring the example waaaay down to the level that we all deal with every day...the owner of a small business is about to set pay guidelines for his company. If he knows that the economy is bad, and many people are out of work, should he lower pay across the board to his employees, knowing that they will be afraid to quit in the current economic climate, and keep all the extra money for himself? You might argue that if he is thinking rationally, he would realize that the 'bad will' he will generate from lowering salaries will have more value than the immediate gain of cash he would receive, but what if his intention is to sell the business in a few years, before that equation could tip?
Anyway, its these gray areas that are the biggest problem with objectivism, that and the fact that it seems to imply an inherent trust in individuals with great power to do the right thing, when in fact it seems that the more power someone has the less likely they are to do the right thing....
First, welcome to the forum. From reading your post, I understand the source of your confusion. Think about how you are defining "right" and "wrong." Objectivism does not define right and wrong based on majority opinion. Reality is not determined by majority opinion. Gravity exists whether you acknowledge it or not. The earth is not flat, regardless of how many people know it or not. Reality is mind independent. The good is also not defined in terms of how much you sacrifice. In Altruism, it is. Different versions of that moral code have ruled over much of the earth during recorded history, with disasterous results. Let's examine your example of the CEO and the drug company.
Everything we have is the product of a human's mind. Drugs are developed by individuals or corporations. No one can exist without the right to the product of his/her labor. Drugs cost resources to produce and are valued commodity. That is why they are produced in the first place. A life saving drug is more valuable to you than your iPod, that is why you would be willing to pay more for it than you would for an iPod. Price is an objective quantitative measure of how much a product is valued. However, value is subjective on an individual basis. You might be willing to pay more for a drug than I am, that is why you would get it before I would. A rational CEO will seek to maximize his firm's total profit, not necessarily his profit margin. Profit Margin = Profit / Revenue (simplified). Profit = Revenue - Cost (again simplified). Observe that a high profit margin does not neccessarly equal maximum profit. There exists an inverse relationship between price and quantity demanded which must also be taken into account. Also, consider how you characterized the CEO depending whether he was earning a low profit margin vs. a high profit margin. You use the phrase "saving lives" in the former vs. "allowed to die" in the latter. Regardless of how much a drug company, doctor, or nurse charges for life saving treatment, more lives are saved with treatment than without. If 20 out of 100 people are treated, 20 lives were saved. To say that the doctor, nurse, or drug company "allowed 80 people to die" implies that they were in responsible for the illness in the first place, which is not the case.
Don't take this analysis as a personal attack
-
That's the problem though, how specific should you be about what a "product" is? If defined too narrowly, everything is a monopoly. If defined too broadly, nothing is a monopoly. My use of "barrier of entry" was more to suggest that the only thing preventing a person from starting a business is their initial resources. "I don't have enough money" would not be a good enough excuse to claim someone has a monopoly. The monopoly in question wouldn't have much of a command of a product supply if anyone *can* compete. Anyway, the dictionary definition comes across as too broad for me. Which of course means I have to do some detailed research to be able to get a really good definition.
Definition of product:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/product
2 a (1) : something produced; especially : commodity 1 (2) : something (as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity b : something resulting from or necessarily following from a set of conditions <a product of his environment>
Microsoft has exclusive control of the sale of the Windows operating system, but it does not have exclusive control over the sale of all operating systems. Microsoft still faces competition. Again, a monopoly is tied to a specific product. So if you claim a business is a monopoly, that means it has exclusive control over a specific product. Monopolies still face competition.
I think your confusion stems from the use of an arbitrary definition for the word monopoly rather than an objective one. Ask yourself, what is the purpose of a definition? To define something is to identify it. If you define a term so broadly that identification becomes impossible, of what use is the definition? None. If you define the word monopoly as a business that has no competitors, then there are no monopolies. You are attempting to identify a thing which does not exist. That definition is a contradiction. There is no reality free from the threat of competition. Your definition is too broad to serve any function other than to confuse you. Do you still think that it would be impossible for a business to have a monopoly in a lassez faire capitalist system?
-
Greebo,
I did a little searching and found that some areas have passed or are considering Section 8 discrimination laws. Have you heard anything about this in your area? Be cautious of making any overt statements, oral or written, to the effect that you don't rent to Section 8 recipients.
-
After doing a bit of research, there are quite a few definition of what "monopoly" is, I may be too literal about it. I'll have to read up on it. My reasoning was that if a company *could* enter a particular market, then no company in that market is a monopoly. More specifically, the barrier of entry is no more than what is normally expected (to have a logging company, you'd need land or permission to use land with trees). Of course, how specific you define a market matters a whole lot. No company can go into the market for Windows, so Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows. But any company can go into the market of operating systems if they take the time and effort.
Here is Webster-Merriam's definition of Monopoly:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Monopoly
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
A business is defined as a monopoly based on its exclusive control of a product. It is defined neither based on barriers to entry, nor with regard to its potential competitors. If you defined a business as a non-monopoly provided it could experience competition, then no monopolies would be possible. Even a monopoly that utilizes coercion may experience competition. For example, a railroad monopoly may still face competition from alternate forms of transportation. Do you still think that it would be impossible for a business to have a monopoly in a lassez faire capitalist system?
-
But if something actually were a monopoly, "inviting competitors" wouldn't even occur. I really don't think it's possible for a monopoly to arise in any LFC system, so it doesn't matter if it could be legitimate. Force is really the only way to maintain being the -only- competitor in an *entire* market (government privilege is the easiest way).
Let me restate the concept in my earlier post to make it more concrete. If a monopoly attempted to raise its prices because it had no competition, that would increase its profits. In a free market system this would signal to producers that attractive returns are available for their capital in that industry. This would invite competition to enter the market. In a free market, a business may become a monopoly only by using resources more efficiently than its competitors. It could not maintain that monopoly by becoming inefficient. Why don't you think it's possible for a monopoly to arise in any laissez faire capitalist system?
-
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/0...ng.homework.cnn
I've never understood why people cheat themselves.
-
So, here's the case:
The goal of businessmen is to expand their business and to increase efficiency as much as possible. The end result of perfection in business must then be a monopoly. If I am wrong here, please enlighten me. But, assuming that what I said is true, I will proceed. Ayn Rand has said that in a rational society, a monopoly would be impossible. Wouldn't there then be a lot of unhappy and unsatisfied businessmen? Thanks.
Even in a completely lazzez-faire capitalist system, a legitmate monopoly could arise. However, it would be far more difficult to create and maintain due to the constant spectre of competition. Those businessmen who had been accustomed to maintaining their empires by means of political coercion would certainly be upset by this, but legitimate competitors would welcome it. Moreover, allowing markets to function more freely increases the incentive for individuals to create wealth and promotes a more efficient allocation of resources. This causes a long term sustainable increase in a peoples' standard of living.
When I was in grade school, one of my teachers gave a horribly flawed explanation as to why monopolies were "bad" and the Sherman anti-trust Act was "good." The argument was based on the premise that a monopoly has the ability to set prices since it has no competition. This is simply not true for two reasons. First, a company cannot set a price that customers are unable to pay. If companies that sell gasoline tried to charge $1,000 per gallon tomorrow, very few could afford it. The quantity of gas demanded would fall, along with the companies revenue and profits. It would be irrational for a company to pursue this course of action since its goal, even as a monopoly, is to maximize profit. Second, a business with high profit margins tends to invite competitors which undermine its ability to maintain a monopoly status.
-
I came across this article today. Does anyone remember when MSFT was investigated by the DOJ for alleged anti trust violations in the early 90s when it was the upstart in the tech industry? How ironic that its managers would now resort to these tactics.
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...e-rest-of-tech/
-
"You have sacrificed justice to mercy.."
-John Galt
-
Yes, I think the same. An owner possesses an old car is because it is still of value to him. If he sells it in the market (or for scrap), the little money he would make would be of less value to him than his "clunker". Cometh "Cash for Clunkers". The government offers him rebate on a new car if he sells his old car. In effect, he is offered more money on his old car than it is worth (to him). Whose money? The money extorted from the citizens of a country, especially those who have "too much". (Even if it is printed or borrowed money, it still amounts to real wealth being redistributed).
Net results on the whole economy:
1. Money extorted from everyone to unjustly reward someone.
2. Wealth/products of mind being destroyed.
3. Incentive for intentionally destroying working cars.
4. An artificially created "bubble" in the industry.
Above happens in some form or the other for every economic sector touched by the government.
An astute analysis. I must concur. Each day the government prints money not backed by value brings it one step closer to the day it finds its account marked overdrawn. Frankly, I'm surprised the Chinese/Japanese haven't switched to buying more of our equity and less of our debt. I wonder whose wealth the government will expropriate when it needs a "bailout." Holders of dollars through inflating the money supply or perhaps a massive net asset tax on the top 10%?
-
What I meant to convey was that the fetus is basically just as developed as a 1 minute old baby.
There is no way whatsoever to determine whether a fetus or infant is rational, simply because they are not capable of it.
I am not proposing that an 8 month old fetus possesses the faculty of reason. Our rights come from our mind and its amazing abilities. Why are then rights endowed upon infants that do not posses rationality?
Mixon, I wasn't trying to equate abortion with infanticide. I'm sorry if it sounded like that.
No need to apologize. I do not seek to put words in your mouth or misrepresent you. I agree with you that a fetus just prior to birth and a neonate just after birth are basically the same developmentally. Again though the term "rights" needs to be defined. Several posters are arguing that a fetus/infant possesses a special right to life at the expense of the mother. From this they proceed to demand that the use of force is authorized against a mother to coerce her into caring for an unwanted child. Objectivism holds that no one may initiate the use of force against another. Whether we use a fetus, infant, or adult in the example does not matter. Whether we use a rational human being or an irrational human being does not matter. The prohibition against initiating force applies to irrational adults just as it applies to a fetus/infant/child. Age or the ability to reason do not matter.
In an unrelated note, has anyone else noticed that Objectivism isn't in the spell checker and that Collectivism is listed as one of the replacements?
Critics Attempt to Keep Atheist Councilman from Taking Office
in Current Events
Posted
I am pleasantly surprised that a fellow atheist was able to win public office in an area with so many religious conservatives.