Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

TheAllotrope's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. "Businesses would prefer to discuss the consequences of the increases — new regulations and higher costs, which they say are hampering economic growth — rather than suggest that the government has overstated the value of life." Gotta love how they ignore the fact that freedom and prosperity add to the value of life. And that their "value of life" is value to the government, not value to the person himself.
  2. I don't think anyone has here clearly defined the concept of efficiency as a technical economic term, though sNerd kind of got at it a bit. There's a bit of a difference between technical efficiency (how well you make spoons) and economic efficiency. Efficiency, as presented in economics, refers to how market transactions apply to people's costs of production and value-judgments. The point of an economy is to maximize value, which comes generally from maximizing wealth (if you want to maximize value, that also means getting that wealth into the hands of people who are willing and able to pay for it, ie trading). Everyone is out to maximize value: the producer wishes to get the most money for his goods, and the buyer the most goods for his money. The efficient case is where the last good traded was done so at a point where both parties are indifferent, meaning the marginal cost was equal to the marginal price (ie, the supply and demand curves intersect). This point is value-maximizing. It is simply not true that there is no profit in such a situation, just that the producer made no profit on the last good sold. Even this is misleading, because economic analysis of "profit" breaks into two categories, "normal" and "economic". A normal profit means it covers opportunity cost. If you're earning $1 million a year in salary, and your next best job is also $1 million, that salary is considered "normal" profit, despite being quite high relative to other economic actors. "Economic profit" refers to when people earn more than their opportunity cost. Your friend is somewhat correct in pointing out that a "perfectly competitive" market has no economic profit, but that doesn't mean no profit. The value-maximizing solution is also profit maximizing. But good luck finding a perfectly competitive market. Economists such as Milton Friedman are quick to point out that no market is "perfectly competitive", just that their decisions can often be modeled as if they were. Besides, expectations of economic profits lead to investments and therefore economic growth. An economy limited by opportunity cost is stagnant. Economists have a tendency to presume a world in which a non-gain is a loss. Conflating the two creates some problems. Obviously, the most fundamental alternative to something isn't "the idealized case", it's nothing. A producer may be generating more profit than an economist's model might say they "ought to", but the fact remains they are creating a lot of wealth, without coercion. Now try having an "efficient" outcome where people's rights (namely, property rights) are not respected, and tell me how far that system gets.
  3. Legitimacy of government spending aside, they may very well come back for it. I have relatives (long since dead) who were given Social Security checks, but were morally opposed to any kind of government payments to them or anyone else, so they just put it away in a secure account distinct from their other assets. A number of years later, the Feds sent them a letter indicating that their checks had been too much by some amount, and would they please give it back? So, they did. Of course, the matter being resolved, they also pocketed the interest... I think that's probably your best bet. Just tuck it away, give them a notice that you have the money and will return it to the proper agency. If they reply, great, give it back and they shouldn't bother you. If not, let it grow in something productive - better that it go into capital formation of some kind than down the drain called the Treasury's ledgers. "Sit on it" can often be a good policy until you get more or better information.
  4. I think his answer would likely be that it would only matter in his subjective opinion if he were to live or not. His deadness is objective and based in reality...but his caring isn't. I'd perhaps question him on what his "subjective" standard of value is in his "subjective" value judgments. If he has no standard, I doubt you'll get very far because his modus operandi is emotional reaction, not thoughtful response, to the world around him. If he can pick any standard at all (for himself as a "subjective" judgment), why that standard in particular, or even any standard at all? If he can find a standard of any kind, even an improper or false one, he's ultimately admitted the fact that man does need values and value judgments, and therefore morality.
  5. Not having read The Jungle I cannot speak for its accuracy. The question no one ever seems to ask is what were the alternatives to the "abuses" (I use quotes because we're interpreting abuse from a modern context without any reference to the real, general living conditions of the 19th century). Any politico-economic system that is a significant departure from its predecessors will be inheriting the problems of that predecessor for some time. It is rather telling how fast the economy and population increased during the 19th century, and provides good indication that they were doing at least something right. Citing things like the dust bowl to condemn profitability is silly, though - if people were truly looking out for themselves they'd be trying to use farming practices that didn't overwhelm the land; the dust bowl could have either been a result of widespread myopia (a definite possibility). Or some people could have been looking into better agricultural techniques, and were not successful immediately. To the extent it was the first, people learn from crises like that; to the extent it was the second, not much of an alternative existed when farmers are trying to feed people as their most immediate concern.
  6. 1. A book's text can be good or bad: good if the reader thinks critically, accepting good ideas and rejecting bad ones, or bad if the reader accepts false ideas. I think the appropriate thing to do is give the buyer the benefit of doubt and presume that person is rational. They might be studying it for a course or just to learn - I myself have been planning to read some theology (Aquinas) to see it according to its proponents. Selling the books is an appropriate course of action. 2. Giving the books away would be appropriate if you don't wish to spend the time or effort selling them, but since there's probably a willing buyer I'd just try to sell it. Leaves you with a few more bucks, and displaces a transaction with the publisher (as sNerd indicated). 3. The right to property means the right to your own property. A totalitarian government's censorship is claiming the right to destroy someone else's property. Respect for truth demands rejection of falsehood, and that means not acknowledging falsehoods as legitimate. The ideas in such books cannot justify your protection of them. If you really want that text out of the world, by all means burn it - it's your exclusive right, and in the cause of truth. 4. I wouldn't consider it a "slap in the face" to Objectivism. An observation: your questions are all framed in terms of "being worse than (some form of evil)". Life is about creation of values and achievement...the pursuit of good, not avoidance of evil. And certainly don't accept unearned guilt.
  7. How about the technical issue of how principles are refined or expanded? Let's not put ourselves in the problem of a 100% entrenched philosophy that leaves no room whatsoever for improvement. Even setting aside the issue of principles, we'd need a system of laws, as opposed to principles. No computer is going to decide that the appropriate punishment for Crime X is prison/fine/something-else Y. Laws have to come with the consent of the governed, and people are not (and ought not to be) convinced by "the computer said so".
  8. Huh, I had never thought of benevolence in terms of temporarily suspended judgment due to incomplete evidence... Here are some points worth considering though: Why on Earth not? Rationality is "one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours." (Lexicon) Having more limited knowledge or ability does not make you less rational. My understanding of O'ism is that moral perfection is considered normal and expected; since rationality is a virtue rather than a term describing someone's ability, it should be something fully achievable for everyone (and ought to be fully achieved, by everyone). Actions and premises can be considered evil only when they are volitionally chosen; if someone is so "confused", provided they have an active mind and are willing to listen to why those things are evil, there's still hope and such beliefs might be considered more minor. If two premises are contradictory, though, chances are they do not have an active mind, and are not committed to rationality nor pride. That's evil in my book, if they don't change course almost immediately when it's pointed out. And yes, one judges a man in proportion to vice. Condemning your socialist neighbor to the same extent as Pol Pot is either going too far or nowhere near far enough.
  9. I had to laugh at this one. I don't think anyone on this forum will ever object to anyone's sale of his own organs, when such a sale 1) does not harm him (humans can work with 1 kidney no problem) 2) he benefits from it and 3) there is a willing buyer for that value. Definitely one of the tragedies of the modern world that Iran allows the sale of organs (and has no waiting list) yet the US doesn't (and does have a waiting list).
  10. I think the distinction between "good" and "bad" "pride" is one of pride versus vanity. By my understanding of O'ism, pride is taken to mean striving for moral perfection. It can be characterized as identifying the good and then working for it ("I'm good because I do good things"). Vanity, on the other hand, is the identification of the self as good, without a justification in reality ("What I do is good because I do it"). There's no such thing as "bad pride", if pride is to be taken as O'ists normally do.
  11. I do not disagree with what you've said, except for your claims on what my argument is. I think we're getting stuck on how we're defining our terms, specifically ethics. Let us agree on your description of ethics as the science identifying principles for man's life qua man. What term do we use to identify the altruist (or other ethical systems') codes for how man should live? Do we simply announce that their use of the words "ethics" and "virtue" are fundamentally irrational and therefore cannot be used to identify their concepts defining "how man should live" and "what is good"? If so, what words can they use? I'm just trying to get us on the same page here, so we don't waste time and emotional energy talking past each other. What's important is the concept, not the word. The word is only good insofar as it allows us to communicate the concepts to each other. I agree very much that irrational "ethics" (I use the quotes to refer to what people call ethical systems, as distinguished from a real, valid system of ethics) use an improper standard of value, and that as a science ethics must properly apply logic to reality. It is properly a science defining how man should live qua man. But the word "ethics" existed long before Ayn Rand. There's a reason why we use the terms "altruist ethics" as opposed to "Objectivist ethics". The descriptors altruist and Objectivist specify the kind of ethics we're talking about. Are you saying that we should dispense with that, call Objectivist ethics "ethics", and call everything else "(something) else"? "Virtue" is an implicit concept within the concept "ethics". That's not to say virtue is ethics, but merely that one cannot have "ethics" without "virtue" - even if the concepts "virtue" "value" and "good" have been stolen or otherwise corrupted. I'd say there's more to both than their relationship to each other. But again, I'd like to be very clear on how we are defining our concepts for virtue, value, and good, and how we are defining the concept altruists are talking about when they say virtue, value, and good.
  12. Well, getting a vaccine doesn't even really help anyone except the person getting the one vaccinated. If enough people get it, sure it can help block an outbreak, but for the most part it only benefits the vaccinated person. If getting a vaccine prevents you from contracting a disease, for a vaccination to be a moral obligation (to not spread the disease), someone else must not have fulfilled their own moral obligation (if everyone is vaccinated, the point is moot because you can't spread the disease to anyone anyway).
  13. But at the same time that section on fair use referenced above said that some purposes (such as commentary, education, etc) are not copyright infringements, even if copies are made without explicit permission. Home use, without friends involved in lending/sharing music, seems to me to be one of the acceptable cases insofar as you take a CD, add the music to your hard drive (ie, copy it without explicit permission), and listen to it from there, retaining the original CD on a shelf or something like that. There is no monetary gain or transfer of the music, it's simply being put in a more convenient form. Despite the haziness of the RIAA's official statement and the law in question, I'd give the benefit of doubt to the consumer, who has every expectation that he can listen to the same music in a more convenient form (ie, mp3 as opposed to audio CD). If something like that is instead a major property rights violation, why has the RIAA not sued Microsoft and Apple for writing software that can rip music from CDs and even burn new CDs? Why do the license agreements of those programs (which I do read, by the way) not mention that ripping music is a prohibited activity? I can accept that one should not infer permission, because it has not been explicitly granted. But the question in my mind then becomes, "What is the extent to which permission is a factor in copyright laws?" I submit that obtaining permission for copying is not an absolute, but that it depends on the intent (and actual actions) of the person doing the copying. How it depends, we identify from a reading of the (vague) law, which offers a positive indication that some uses are acceptable justifications for copying (with an incomplete selection of activities enumerated), and others are not (with very few examples enumerated).
  14. The validity of the ethical system isn't what I was getting at. Any system of ethics, valid or not, must have a definition of "the good" (valid or not). Virtue is the means to "the good". Even altruist ethics has a statement of what is good, and what a "good person" (ie, a virtuous person) is. Even if the formulation of good and virtue are flawed or incomplete, the ethical system still necessary concerns itself with virtue. It's redundant in the same way "electric lightbulb" is redundant: it's technically true, but the descriptor is 100% unnecessary because there is no lightbulb which is not electric. If ethics is broadly a science identifying principles for how man should live life, that concept subsumes both rational and irrational systems of ethics. One could (improperly) say that man should live qua animal, pillaging, plundering, consuming without regard to future, to rights, to anything. Sure he won't survive long, and that school of the science of ethics is wrong, but I think it can still be fairly placed within the broader concept, ethics. Otherwise, we'd have to come up with 2 additional concepts - one which subsumes both correct and incorrect formulations of how man should live, and one for the incorrect formulations themselves.
  15. I think this guy is not totally inconsistent with what you're saying. If you know you're carrying a terrible disease, you do have an obligation not to threaten other people's lives. Unfortunately, this guy is saying you're deliberately performing the act...of not acting to get a vaccine. Grammatical failings aside, there is such a thing as a sin of omission, and if by going about your daily business as if nothing was wrong when you are infected you get someone sick, I'd say you're at fault. But what he doesn't appreciate is that in such a case the primary beneficiary of a vaccine is the person getting it, not "society". There's an externality involved, since if enough people got the vaccine it'd stop the disease among the general public, but the primary benefit is still individual, and no one has a right to force the vaccine on someone who doesn't want it. That would be saying "you have a moral obligation to pay, for my benefit". Now, on a technical level, the virus in question (to my knowledge) is not exceptionally more harmful or prevalent than other viruses of its class (influenza), and the attention it has been getting borders on paranoia, like just about everything else nowadays. Remember SARS? Yeah, no one hears about that one too much anymore, but it was a real threat in the week that the news was parading it around as the next manifestation of doom and destruction. I'd probably have responded to the statement that "morality is commonly defined as altruism" that the commonality of the definition says nothing about its validity.
  • Create New...