TheAllotrope

Describing Friedman as value-free is quite a misinterpretation of his writing. His writing is FULL of value judgments. It's just that he does not proclaim that some undesirable things should be illegal, which is quite different. And saying he's "dust in the wind" because he doesn't have "philosophical moorings" is nonsense - people can be very influential in the long term without subscribing to an explicit philosophical orthodoxy. Case in point, Friedman was dead before I ever even heard of him. Regardless, this isn't the place for a defense of Friedman, so I think we ought to put that away or move it to another thread.

By definition they wouldn't be religious Right. There is such a thing as the religious Left - just look at Obama and his "the Bible tells me to be my brother's keep, my sister's keeper" (paraphrasing, not a true quote here). I think we are currently suffering under such Left-theists. I do like Thomas' observation that faith is not of this world while capitalism is, though.

I disagree strongly, Grames. Allan Gotthelf even identified Rand as providing a philosophical defense of classic liberalism (I believe it was Gotthelf anyway, I might be thinking of another philosopher). The key point is that classic liberalism is a political movement whereas Objectivism is philosophical. Objectivism encompasses classic liberalism, and is therefore a bit more complete, but I've seen very little in liberalism that contradicts Rand. Government provision of things like roads comes to mind as one difference, but liberalism would tend to support it by saying that government provision of the service is equivalent to a private company providing it, as long as that service is one that is demanded by the population (and one that they themselves are willing to pay for, as opposed to one for which they want to pass the cost off to others). That description I think still falls loosely in the area of voluntary taxation, even though it isn't quite. Liberal literally means "free". Thus, the ultimate (political) objective of a liberal is freedom. Because it contrasts so starkly with the European tradition of conservatism, it connotes a dynamic society as opposed to a rigid one. Liberalism in Europe is still identified this way, which occasionally leads to some confusion when Americans and Europeans discuss politics. In the late nineteenth century, socialism was openly advocated in politics, liberalism was mainstream and generally considered good, and conservatism has never really gotten off the ground because it is (or at least appears to be) very static. The Russian revolution, however, cemented the association of socialism with violence and oppression, so it became a stigma in American politics. As is typical of the Left, it co-opted the word "liberal" to conceal its real agenda and latch on to the powerful positive associations liberalism had at the time (around the 1920-30's, which is why FDR is a "liberal" that defined the "liberal Left" as tax-and-spend, Nanny State, etc). Similar things have happened with words such as "plan", "reform", "progress", etc - I'm sure you've heard the Left's watchwords before. If classic liberalism is "dead end, static and boring", how is it that Milton Friedman, liberalism's modern poster boy, is cited as the single most influential economist of at least the latter half of the 20th century, and arguably of human history? He may not have been working explicitly within the Objectivist framework, but he carries an extremely large proportion of its premises and insights into his political discourse. On re-reading portions of Capitalism and Freedom (1962) and Free to Choose (1980), both of which are contemporary with Rand, I found extremely little that conflicts with Objectivism. He even went so far as to say his own plan for educational freedom was insufficient and that for the record he preferred a 100% voluntary system of both educating children and financing that education. The difference is that he does not make the perfect the enemy of the good and will strive to improve a bad system as much as possible, even if that gets him less than he originally sought. As far as originality is concerned, no one ever is. Everyone draws to some extent from the knowledge and work of others, that's the whole point of man's ability to transmit information across generations through speech, text, and so on. Rand read Aristotle - does that make her contributions to philosophy somehow less?

We are not talking about someone refraining from shoplifting because he's rational. We're talking about someone stealing because he is an amoralist, and someone not stealing because he has a religious code of morality rather than a secular one. No one said "making it the purpose of your life to obey God" is a virtue - in fact, everyone said the opposite. It also occurred to me this guy is not even amoralist, because he recognizes that theft is wrong but won't let it stand in his way. If we consider as virtuous pride, rationality, justice, and integrity, how on Earth can anyone consider this inconsistency in any way virtue? And from the description, it sounds like he believed in God and only just acted consistently with that belief. It's still better to be a religious moralist than a religious amoralist. And of all the things to disagree with, why make religion the single biggest issue? Religion has done a lot of harm, but it has also done a lot of good. I think there are bigger problems in this world than to pick religion as the one thing that is always and everywhere absolute evil. Going back to the person who has religion, if you want to change someone's opinion on a firmly held religious doctrine, I think the most effective approach would be to start by teaching his proper epistemology. Once he develops a more solid understanding, he may be willing to reconsider his beliefs. Flat out telling him the biggest thing in his life is wrong won't be effective, if he doesn't have the means to understand why it's wrong. Telling someone they're wrong without them understanding why is just asking them to accept your judgment on faith - the same faith that makes you disagree with religion. So try to get him to channel some of his lust for knowledge to epistemology.

Heh, whoever said you'll always have Paul's support in robbing Peter for Paul's benefit never met an Objectivist. There are a lot of reasons why leftists would be at the extremes of incomes. The very wealthy might feel very guilty and want to dispose of their "ill gotten" wealth, and have no qualms about having the government do the legwork. By extension other "rich people" would have to pony up as well. But a lot of wealthy leftists may also have obtained their wealth immorally, even by objective standards. I can imagine the less scrupulous trial lawyers & environmentalists obtaining massive fortunes from destruction of good products and effort of others - after all, we did have certain Presidential/VP candidates in 2000 and 2004. And let's face it, most people operate under the premise that true capitalism has never been tried, therefore never can/should/will be tried, and therefore is inherently a rigged system favoring "the rich". With such an (anti-) intellectual climate it can be hard to escape that view, especially with educators (nearly all subsidized by the government, of course) propagating these "truths".

I admit I am proposing scenarios that do not apply very well to what most folks actually do. What I was trying to get at is the fact that partial birth abortion is still a form of surgery - why undergo the procedure rather than induce a delivery or get a c-section, then give the child up for adoption? Is one procedure significantly more expensive or dangerous than the other? I concede that I'm not the best informed on the technical details here, and I'm not trying to continue the endless abortion debate here, just trying to expand my own knowledge of the issue with these questions.

I wouldn't say his moral compass is necessarily pointing in the wrong direction, since after all he is coming to the same conclusion. But like his take on the legitimacy of theft for "knowledge" he's trying to divorce the ends from the means, coming to the same conclusion without a proper, objective basis for doing so. I'll take a bible-thumping moralist over a secular amoralist any day, but it's still far from ideal. Maybe your friend ought to look into some epistemology? Heck, I think St. Thomas Aquinas said something about "eternal and natural law" (metaphysics and I believe ethics) that would help him identify some principles without demanding he chuck his religion, if he's that set on believing in something divine.

Music and movies do not qualify as knowledge. They perhaps qualify as "culture", but not knowledge. Documentaries may involve knowledge, but the knowledge issue is rather irrelevant anyway. The point is that he is trying to gain a value without paying for it. I think your question is hilarious. I would be inclined to say that neither knowledge nor morality exists in a vacuum. The purpose of both is to help man's existence on Earth. Without knowledge, we can produce nothing; without morality, we cannot keep what we produce (nor understand even why we produce). If knowledge is to come at the expense of morality, rather than complimenting it, he really hasn't come out ahead at all. We pay for things for a number of reasons. One is justice - the producer of a value should benefit from it. I suppose I would point out to him that his "expediency" can be used against him; the next time someone mugs him, taxes him, or steals from him, he cannot object, without contradiction, since he clearly does not identify the principle that producers should be paid for their work. Also, his stance that his money shouldn't limit his satisfaction of his desires could just as well rationalize anything else he wanted to do. Want to drive a car? Your inability to pay shouldn't prevent you from driving, so stealing your neighbors' keys and going joyriding is ok, right? Ask him where his reasoning goes. Does he want to live in a society that does not recognize anyone's right to exist, to benefit from their labor, to own property? The purpose of rights is facilitation of human social existence, and the society you get is the one you earn by your actions. I have a friend who justifies stealing on the grounds that it's just convenient. Why buy, when you can bittorrent? I've argued with him quite a bit, but some people just won't accept any argument that doesn't conform to their rather limited and myopic view of their self interest. If that happens to be the case with your friend, I'd have to ask whether you value the friend more than you value his righteousness. If you do, I wouldn't press the issue terribly hard. Don't try to teach a pig to sing, you'll just waste your time and annoy the pig.

Since we ARE talking abortion here, and partial birth abortion specifically given the stage of pregnancy this refers to, what exactly is the difference between delivering the baby and giving it up for adoption and just ripping it apart in place, then removing it? Seems to me like the former would be healthier for the woman at the very least, and I can't imagine it being hugely more expensive for the woman, especially since the adoptive parents would presumably be willing to pick up the tab. Whose rights are violated in such a situation? Also the Lexicon has, under abortion, The first clause clearly indicates that the issue is debatable regarding later pregnancies, quite possibly due to the recurring viability issue. The state of medical science was far more primitive when the Lexicon entry was written (1968) than today's, so I think this issue deserves more than a "birth is the border between birth and nothingness, next topic!" I mean, what about the partial birth abortion, which involves half delivering a viable baby and then vacuuming out its brain? By the time someone is getting a partial birth abortion, they've had plenty of time to consider whether it's wanted or not, and its perfectly viable.

The whole thing is rooted in evasion - some people just want to pretend that gays don't exist (at least not in their group). I can't see how refusal to acknowledge reality can do anyone any benefit. If there was a unit-cohesion issue, I imagine the gays (or homophobes) could just be transferred to another group without too much difficulty.

I think application of the virtues pride and independence would be enough. Follow the dictates of your own mind, and don't let anyone stand in the way, especially when you know they're wrong.

Castle, I believe I affirmed your thought process in my earlier post. I said the prostitution is *not* because depravity is a mutual value, it is the means to another end. The affair, in contrast, is simply an expression of depravity, and hatred of the good is not a value, it is a dis-value. "Value" implies more than something you pursue, it also has to be something that somehow benefits you. Destruction can never be a legitimate value. I can imagine cases in which theft or prostitution might be acceptable as a last resort. Clearly, they are not situations that apply in the normal developed world, and so do not apply, so we can judge prostitution and theft as immoral in a developed and civil society. But to say they are always, everywhere wrong, regardless of context, is a bit much for me.

But morality is only relevant when there is a choice. If someone is destitute and unable to find non-sacrificial assistance (charity) then it may be that the only option is prostitution (or possibly theft, which is clearly worse since it is an initiation of force). In such a case, prostitution is not even in the realm of morality, and the question is moot. Of course, there is also the person buying the sexual services; since that person is clearly not destitute, by his ability to purchase sex, he is clearly being immoral. Also I don't think Castle's thought applies at all to James and Lillian. Lillian wanted the sex simply to prove her depravity to the world. Presumably, a prostitute is thinking more on the lines of the buyer as a means to values than as a means to expression of an anti-value. Both the buyer and prostitute are depraved, but it is not depravity, as such, that they seek.

In a court case there is the actual amount contested, plus court fees, plus legal fees. In any case, the amount awarded will be the amount contested (or not, if the plaintiff loses). But the plaintiff is still on the hook for court and legal fees. If a person has to spend $10 million to defend against a $20 million suit, he loses no matter what the outcome is. The price of rightfully defending himself from a false charge is exorbitant, and the price of not doing so is even worse. The loser pays principle makes it so the person who committed the wrong (a false accusation or a tort) has to bear the responsibility for it. It encourages a proper defense of the wrongfully accused because they can gather evidence regardless of cost, and a proper offense for those who have been wronged. Those who are rightfully accused should not bother to waste resources collecting bad evidence, because they'll have to pay for it. The same goes for the wrongfully accusing. This cost shifting mechanism puts the full cost of a court case on the side of the injustice, and encourages people first not to commit wrongs against others, and second not to over-litigate. A big problem with medicine is malpractice insurance though, because it puts the resources of the insurance company at stake instead of the resources of doctors. Lawyers can hunt down the "deep pockets" (insurance companies) via a few doctors, and since the insurance companies have socialized costs the net cost of the litigation can increase tremendously. The extent of this problem is debatable, and maybe we'd be better off focusing elsewhere. But to the extent it is a problem, the only solution I can see is to somehow put insurance out of reach of tort lawyers, either by limiting the award (which I think would be wholly inconsistent with a rational political philosophy) or by simply prohibiting doctors from getting insurance for their incompetence. Out of court settling is outside the scope of this issue. The purpose is to limit economic losses due to litigation and to reduce malpractice premiums, which are related. A settlement implies that the plaintiff was right and that formal arbitration is unnecessary. True, it could mean that someone simply didn't have the resources (money or time) to fight it effectively, but this is what the loser-pays principle attempts to take out of the equation. There is of course also the issue of how courts implement the cases. A "hanging jury" (ie, a categorically pro-plaintiff jury, not a "hung jury") would certainly increase malpractice costs. Open ended question: what standard/method is applied to arbitrate medical torts? I'm lost.

Prostitution and pornography, as mentioned above, are not "evil" - but they do reflect a rather twisted sense of life and degrade the value of sex. I believe the Playboy interview addressed the question: Pornography itself was not discussed but I have read something to the effect that while it ought not to be illegal (if consensual) it is at best in conflict with proper human relationships. Masturbation by itself I suppose could not be condemned as evil, since humans have real physical and psychological needs. If one has not found someone worthy of a sexual relationship, or cannot have such a relationship with someone (s)he has found (say, the person is married or just plain not interested), masturbation may be considered acceptable.

They're both pretty irrational in my book. The young socialist has a warped view of the world in which material values are metaphysically given rather than man made (therefore, to be "redistributed" based on "need" because need is the only systematic way of dividing such wealth). That's not rational, though it may be consistent. It's consistent to say, without fail, that war is peace and slavery is freedom, but that doesn't make it right, and especially not "intellectually honest" (for the simple reason that honesty demands at least application of logic to experience, as fully as possible, for each person...the only way it could be honest is with a painfully limited experience or with absurdly limited logical ability). The young (right-wing - many Christians are not -) Christian will agree on some political implications (free markets, for example) but for very different reasons. They still embrace the altruist collectivist ethics; free markets are just the best means to their end (maximized prosperity overall). Both have a somewhat "pragmatic" view on politics...just do "what works" (however defined). And I agree, the target audience is whoever is worthy of the ideas, whoever is interested enough to learn, understand, and think about them, whoever uses them to either propagate them further or produce something practical as a result (I consider political influence practical, at least given the modern context). Appealing to children presents something of a problem. It may have a tendency to produce people who don't actually think independently but simply spit back whatever has been put into their ears. Saying something does not necessarily mean either understanding or agreeing with it. And frankly, most children are not capable of fully understanding Objectivism. Let's also not forget that "appealing to children" would require circumventing parents' right to raise their children and indoctrinating them with ideas that others find objectionable. If it's not tolerable when they do it to your kids, it's not tolerable when you do it to theirs. Unless of course we're saying that "being right" gives a moral license to do anything we want, which is hardly the case. I think the course ARI and other groups have been on is the appropriate one. Promote Objectivism in late high school and early college. People are often still in the discovery phase, they're receptive and impartial, intelligent and experienced enough to understand, but not so rigidly defined as most older folks. They're also far more independent, so exposing them to new ideas is harder to portray as "corrupting the young" or violating parental rights. Besides, universities are cultural centers, and they will be promoting some cultural/philosophical values whether we like what they promote or not. Might as well make it something we consider valuable.

I think the "loser pays" principle is one that ought to be applied to torts generally, nevermind malpractice suits. What I'm trying to address is more than just "what should be done with tort law?", though I do find that fascinating and would like a discussion on it. I'm trying to figure out exactly how specifically malpractice torts ought to be handled. Thus far all I can think of is loser pays (including opportunity cost). I had another idea which seems on the surface to be horribly inconsistent, and that's just prevent doctors from insuring against malpractice suits. Insurance is about risk spreading, and gross incompetence isn't a risk, it's just incompetence. The sticky issue is, is it appropriate to violate freedom of contract when the contract is causing great harm to others (in economic damage & increased health care costs)? Would it even be effective, or just marginalize a small group of doctors hit by "ambulance chasers"?

In the whole health care reform debacle the AMA strongly disapproved of Obama's refusal to touch malpractice law, which doctors consider hugely problematic. But I got to thinking...how exactly would government write a law that would allow for prosecution of gross negligence/incompetence as a tort while keeping costs manageable, or should it address the issue at all? I'm not clear on the details of specific malpractice reform plans, but a lot of what I've heard involves directly controlling the maximum payout for such torts. While that certainly reduces the amount of money contested in any given trial, it bothers me quite a bit that we should think it proper to dictate to people who have been injured that they can be compensated only for $XX, and to tell lawyers that they cannot earn more than so much money despite any real trial costs, difficulty in collecting evidence/prosecuting, etc. So: what is an appropriate, consistent vision of malpractice reform, if any? Edit for clarity

The magazine is UC Berkeley's California Patriot. Because the writers are all students and do not necessarily subscribe to any particular philosophy it can be somewhat hit-or-miss. This article hasn't been published yet, so the only copy of this is on my computer. Once the article gets published I'll try to get a link up for the online version.

Keep in mind there are also those on the religious right who believe that capitalism should be supported "because it works". They do not see a contradiction between altruist ethics and capitalism. Someone in another thread described it as parasites who try to keep the host as healthy as possible to maximize their long term gain. The concept of justice is conspicuously absent in this discussion. The person who benefits from an action must be the actor - collectivism does not acknowledge this principle, and instead defines justice as everyone getting the same of everything.

What makes military jobs different from any other type of job? Every gain in an economy can be traced back to unemployment - mechanization, specialization of labor, improved materials, etc all temporarily reduce employment. What's important is that 1) the net amount of wealth has gone up and 2) the people displaced have alternatives. If we stop wasting resources, we have economic gains regardless of temporary unemployment of soldiers. Plus, soldiers have lots of jobs available. The engineers can go into construction, the medics can go to hospitals, the hardware technicians can go do their thing at countless firms. If the downsizing was big enough, it might put some military contractors out of business, but it's important to consider what they're doing - a tank that isn't used is a waste of steel, and more importantly, engineers' time. Those engineers could be designing other things. The key point is that each person's time would be put to a more valuable use. (Not that military is pure waste...we're presumably only talking about the "surplus" personnel here) On a more fundamental level, soldiers have no right to taxpayer money than the local mom-and-pop store. They get their money by providing a service on mutually agreeable terms; when the payer stops agreeing, the trade stops. Government doesn't need to do anything to support them. I do find it somewhat amusing that he equates free markets with the "military industrial complex" holding government in its pocket. And the fact that he packages all Republicans as 100% pro-military-spending. The line about Democrats getting blamed I'm more sympathetic to, just because military needs are something you can't chronically or substantially underestimate, but it still sounds like a terrible justification. Does this guy seriously believe that in times of economic trouble there is a benefit to having some segment of the population idle/unproductive? I think that claim (and its twin, about soldiers needing something to do) can be dismissed out of hand. Or maybe he thinks the New Deal was just wonderful and took us out of the Depression, in which case you'd have quite an uphill battle convincing him that the Depression was caused by, and remedied by, monetary (not fiscal) factors.

This is an excerpt from a magazine I write for, addressing the claim that medical providers are evil for "acting like a business" and "making profits off sickness". I think it gives a nice, brief riposte to the "reformers". Common understanding has it that doctors, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies make “excessive profits”, and “money off other people's misfortune, misery, and sickness”. These claims are totally unjustified. “Making money off people's misery” implies that medical care is making people sick, when they are in fact improving people's health. This claim is the logical equivalent of a farmer “making a profit off someone's hunger” or an architect “making a profit off someone's homelessness”. The fact is that all of these people are giving us longer, happier, and more fulfilling lives. Fundamentally, profits indicate value added, the contribution made to human life. A person who makes no profits would be producing wealth and consuming it at the same rate; not only would his standard of living stagnate, he would lose permanently his time and effort. The truth is that human beings cannot exist without profiting on their capital and labor. As George Will stated on This Week regarding pharmaceutical companies making profits, “Good! They should be!”

The "of course" was in reference to fair use practices, which are standard as far as I know. The fact that music isn't sold with a license agreement was part of what I was thinking of...there's nothing that legally prohibits people from doing copying music then selling it. Do I have it right that there would need to be some kind of DRM package applied to the music? Wouldn't that significantly decrease the value of the music? I know people who go out of their way to get pirated music instead of legitimate versions simply because wading through the hassle of DRM isn't worth it. My brother (not a music pirate) had a sizeable iTunes collection lost due to the DRM controls when his computer crashed because iTunes could not verify that his computer was the legitimate owner. Also, how would you allow for things like backups or transfers to new computers, without creating a system that enables piracy? Finally, would this mean government ought to promote DRM, or merely enforce it when a business adopts it? My thought is the latter.

There already are blanket prohibitions on certain actions. That's what the 9th and 10th Amendments say: if we didn't specifically tell you it's in the Constitution, it isn't. Similarly, there are already rules requiring Congress to identify their Constitutional basis. What it always comes down to is "elastic clause" and "commerce clause". The solution there is not to try to make legislators more accountable by citing their charter at every step, but by writing the charter so that it cannot be cited improperly. Which brings me to an amusing (in a depressing way) point: the phrase "regulate commerce" meant "to keep regular". How the mighty have fallen...

I was skimming through some posts about (potentially) stolen video and audio, and a few things occurred to me: When you borrow a CD from a friend, you are authorized to listen to the music under "Fair Use", but you do not own the material itself, so you cannot rip it. But when you own a CD, you may of course rip it so you can have it available on a computer, mp3 player, etc. What about second-hand CDs? For example, someone buys a CD, then rips the music, then eBays it. The buyer is only buying a CD, and has no way of knowing whether the other party has copied it. 1) Is it unethical to keep the music after selling the CD? I would tend to think it would be, for the simple reason that you were only licensing the music, not buying it - you don't have the right to the music itself, just the right to play it. When you sell the CD, you transfer your rights to listen to the music. But politically, how is this enforceable? And if nothing else, erasing a hard drive like this is simply destroying a value - it detracts from the quality of life of the individual erasing it, without any benefit to anyone else. I suppose it technically isn't his by right anymore, but I cannot see how the artist or original user would be helped by destroying the copies, nor can I see how any government - whose job it is to protect rights - could enforce such rules. 2) Is it unethical to purchase such a CD, on the grounds that it probably was abused in the above manner? I would tend not to think so, since one person's moral stature doesn't depend on another's. But at the same time, isn't it an evasion to not consider who the seller is? 3) If it is acceptable to keep the music, couldn't one simply buy a CD, rip the music, sell it to another person, who rips it, and so on? Assuming a long time scale and no transportation or information costs, everyone could conceivably access the data on one CD. How is that different in principle from something like ThePirateBay? Some discussion to capture the essence of the issue would be appreciated.