hernan

Rand challenged her haters' fundamentals and pulled their moral high ground out from under them.

I agree with the article. I literally just read that article before logging on here.
 
Focusing on politics and who to vote for to me is a gross mis-allocations of one's time and effort. You are better off focusing on your interests. I plan to donate to people spreading good ideas like reason and self-interest.
 
Democracy is a farce. It's a show. Your vote is nearly worthless. If you do vote, you should vote for the person you actually want in, not the party you think 'has a chance' of winning. Your vote doesn't matter anyway. People actually have the fantastic delusion that their vote has more worth if they vote for one of the two major parties.
 
I cannot change the world. I cannot save people from their own irrationality and self-destructive path. I only focus on what I can do for myself, and I treat government like the weather, something outside of my control that I have to deal with, plan for and accept.
 
Suppose they held an election and nobody came.

So, if you like your politics, you can keep your politics. I’m not trying to take it away from you. I’m just saying that I wish good people wouldn’t pour their time and energy down that particular drain—I don’t think it benefits them.
 
Why I Stopped Spending My Time on Politics… And Why I Think You Should Too
 
Discuss.

In my experience, people hate Rand because they are too lazy to study her philosophy. For instance Atlas Shrugged is a large novel, parts of it are frankly hard work (Galt's speech, which if you have understood what comes before it, is repetitive and long winded). Most people who hate Rand couldn't read it so they turned to reviews instead.

From the reviews, they will quickly discover the following:

1. Intellectuals reject the philosophy because it is unsound
2. Objectivism is for dog-eat-dog
3. Worships big business
4. Worships money
5. Claims humans are rational when there is a body of proof that we rarely are, even when we think we are.
6. Is pro Israel, pro Imperialism, pro war
7. Rand was a hypocrit for receiving state healthcare
8. Rand hates poor people so hates the majority of human beings
9. Rand made poor decisions in her personal life so her judgment can't be trusted
10. In interviews she refused to address critics who posed questions in a manner Rand objected to, making her appear either evasive or overly sensitive to criticism
11. Rand was rude/harsh to people she met if they didn't accept her first answer to a question
12. Her characters were lacking in warmth or typical emotionality making them robotic
13. She's spawned a cult of religious followers.
14. She's pro unrestricted capitalism
15. She says all animals are stupid, only man can reason
16. She attacked the cause of environmentalism
17. Her views on small government scare dependents
18. She to an extent moved away from republicans, democrats and Christians. This puts her against 99.99999999% of Americans
19. She was against all forms of collectivism, putting her at odds with 99.99999999% of the rest of the world
20. She offended religious people by arguing they have psychological issues
21. She was a poor novelist
22. She was a poor philosopher
23. Her interest in skyscrapers is sexual
24. She admired a psychopath

The list goes on and on. People blindly accept these accusations. Or are scared by being confronted with a reality they never wanted to be shown.

I think Ayn Rand was a victim of her own genius when it came to introducing and conveying her ideas to the "normal" populace. She maybe didn't need some of the mental coaxing that most others need.

I love and appreciate her precise form of communicating. But most, it seems, need a lot of chocolate syrup mixed in there to even approach the medicine from 10 feet back.

I recently gave a talk on the existence of God and nine distinct points of view that I, an atheist, have identified. At one point during the lecture I quoted Ayn Rand, saying, "An error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error" and also "The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind." One member of my audience was a philosophy professor who was also a Baptist minister. Another was a criminal justice professor who recently received his doctorate of divinity. The philosopher asked for the source of my quotes. When I told him that they were from Atlas Shrugged, there was an audible gasp from the audience and then the philosopher leaned toward the doctor of divinity and said with a loud sneer, "Ayn Rand". I thought it was interesting that my quotes were accepted uncritically until their source was discovered. The doctor of divinity told me that he accepts the existence of God as a fact needing no further justification. Ayn Rand's philosophy challenges cherished beliefs of some individuals for which they have no rational justification. Short-circuit, indeed.
 
My mother and father-in-law are not particularly religious but try to denigrate Ayn Rand in the eyes of my son, claiming that her ideas are old, passé, no one of any academic repute gives her any credence, she didn't live according to her own philosophy, she was a bad person, etc. Ayn Rand's philosophy contradicts their left-wing ideology of causeless values obtained mystically through an all-good government. Having both worked for government and receiving fat pensions, governmental virtue is beyond question in their minds. They too have a certain faith, not in God but in government, that is equally pernicious.

"... Always you have been told that work is a curse and labour a misfortune.
But I say to you that when you work you fulfil a part of earth's furthest dream, assigned to you when that dream was born,
And in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life,
And to love life through labour is to be intimate with life's inmost secret... "
 
"... Work is love made visible..."
 
Kahlil Gibran, On Work
http://www.katsandogz.com/onwork.html

I haven't encountered that degree of animosity towards her.  What I have heard expressed most often by those who have read (or tried to read Atlas Shrugged) is that her philosophy is bleak.  Like you, I often will engage in discussing those aspects of her work that are being criticized in order to understand what is so offensive to them.  Here is some of what I've encountered:
 
1) Rejection of the idea that those in need are moochers/leaches/parasites.
2) Rejection of the apparent promotion of "Enron" types.
3) Rejection of an unnecessarily antagonistic view of religion and the values it promotes.
 
On the upside, those who get through Atlas Shrugged usually recognize and appreciate the warnings against the use of government to force people to participate in activities they don't agree with, and the overregulation of industries they depend on for work.
 
One interesting aspect to me is that those who really enjoy her work tend to be younger than those, like myself, who are older.  Obama's dismissive comment that Objectivism is for teens who are feeling misunderstood is typical of the kind of criticism I've encountered.

My family/friends who don't like Rand seem to think she is *against* emotions, not just very pro-reason.

I'd say in many ways including that. One thing I most appreciate about Rand is that she demonstrated a philosophical appreciation for practical things. That shines through in Atlas Shrugged. She made practical men and women heroes and those opposed to practical thinking vilians. 

Where did I say "sit down and shut up?" But, yes, I am questioning the utility of talking.





To whatever extent they do, yes, but my point is that the usual arguments for free markets imply the contrary, that we need free markets in order to do commerce.

http://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/full-blown-capitalism-shrugged-socialist-hybrids-1687446122

http://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/seven-pillars-saxo-banks-strength-714136861

http://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/broader-relevance-ayn-rand-society-710110757

Figuring out how to make this post is kind of tricky. Disagreement and misunderstanding here I think has to do with the Objectivist position on force.

Earlier, I was explaining two perspectives on force, neither of which is the Objectivist position. One is that any impediment against action is force, because you are "forced" to make a decision based on a new context. If a tree falls in the road, I no longer have the choice to drive straight on the road. Another viewpoint is that only the most extreme instances probably best left to the realm of science-fiction (mind control devices) would qualify as force, because your capacity to choose remains intact otherwise. If you point a gun at me, I can do some fancy martial arts to steal the gun from you to protect myself. Now, the issue with both is how choices are described in the first place, that is, with regards to the metaphysical and the man-made. You questioned the importance of this distinction earlier. Perhaps I'll provide a different angle for you to consider.

With the first one, a tree falling in the road would fall under the metaphysical side. That was something that just happens in a natural circumstance. To avoid complications, let's say a bolt of lightning hit the tree, then it fell. Suggesting a choice is forced here is like saying you're "forced" to ride a plane if you want to fly - you can't flap your arms and then start flying. Mainly, I find this viewpoint to be frustration directed at reality because one's mind doesn't decide how reality works. The world works with limitations due to identity of various entities in the world. Any choice to be made depends on limitations in the first place. Choosing to drive on the road is done by at least some comparison with what is possible and defined by the nature reality. Teleportation isn't going to happen, walking is dangerous during a thunderstorm. While these are all possible in any way in your imagination, a choice is made precisely because there are limitations.

From here, you'd probably say that is support for your ideas about force. "Why, yes, there are limitations, so why is pointing a gun force?" In other words, I'm arguing against the second viewpoint. Considering that people are able to make choices about the world in a manner that trees, ants, or rocks cannot, the man-made distinction becomes relevant. Events caused by person aren't caused by entities outside of them. Rocks can only act when force is applied, in a literal sense. Instead, they're caused from within, by whatever mechanisms the mind uses to operate. Shoving you can't cause you to suddenly believe that 2+2=5. Such an action cannot have the power to force a change. To that degree, Objectivism would say force is fruitless to change someone's mind (I'll return to this later - you probably see this as evidence of Objectivism being inherently disposed towards persuasion as a means to achieve an ideal world.) The mind, again, has to operate internally, by its own mechanisms. Still, it's stopping too short to then conclude with viewpoint two, ending the inquiry into force at that stage. The man-made distinction also suggests that since a choice is made internally, there are many things that people consider when making choices. As I was pointing out in the paragraph before, imagination is not infinite, and choices are made when considering the nature of reality.

Let's go back to the tree scenario again, except this time, I chopped down the tree, which according to my plan and intention, hit your car as you were driving to a friend's house for Thanksgiving. I'm changing the situation to the man-made side. By my own doing, and my internal choices, I caused that tree to fall on your car. Perhaps you'd see me as equivalent to a lightning strike, but how the tree fell is clearly different. Before the tree hit the car, you had long-range plans, perhaps even a business deal was planned, or any number of plans. Planning is a crucial element of choice, so how that is impacted can't be ignored. With nature, there is no use complaining - it is not anyone's fault. In this case, it is my fault. I am willfully preventing action in a way to interfere with your planning. To some extent, I am by personal power removing an option of your consideration, telling you that you can't drive on the road. I am a different type of entity than a lightning bolt, so it be said I am actually paralyzing your mind from making a certain choice *that is otherwise possible to make* with different consequences than is dictated by nature for other choices. Keep in mind the physical action on my part - I can't remove options for you unless I forcefully interact on your environment.

Certainly, I am not suggesting all possible choices have been eliminated. I've just constrained your decisions. But the constraint is in terms of how you are able to think rationally, not just constraint in general. The impact goes wide enough if pursued on a national scale that individuals aren't able to think rationally to their fullest, which is why socialism is seen as bad. For the most part, potential for blame is the difference between metaphysical in man-made for a discussion about the moral implications of force.

With that lengthy post on force in attempts to integrate many ideas discussed earlier, it will be easier to explain philosophical ideas of what one can do. This post is long already, so I'll stop here for now to see if there are any really big objections before I proceed.

As to "going Galt", the earlier point of seeing the valley being a resort, a place to withdraw from "getting one's hands dirty", I find this forum to be a place to one can go and interface with like-minded individuals, develop a deeper and broader understanding of reason, logic, morality, identification of fallacies and contradictions, etc. Unlike the valley, it also brings in people who don't hold Objectivism with the same esteem, giving rise to different advocates of Objectivism adressing and dealing with them conversationally in an arena that explicitly Objectivist in nature. I find this a good thing. It doesn't mean we all agree, or that the ideas put forth are explicitly objective even if we do agree.

John Galt is credited for stating: "When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit."

This is a place where we can look for and find those who make reality king and insist on granting it access to the throneroom of understanding via discourse, and help one another out in that process.

Establishing context, in other words? If so, I would put game theory in there, because its level of specificity may be too much for philosophical inquiry. The topic is specialized enough that while it pertains to social dynamics, you'd be seeking just consistency with Objectivism, rather than principles to devise from Objectivism. I'd leave that out entirely. Instead, adding history would be more appropriate, namely, the American Revolution and/or the Communists of Russia, and other examples of revolt throughout history. Most of the time, concretes are the means to abstract, how to find any principles to be developed. Unfortunately, I don't know much about that history. By principles, I mean a way to figure out what a proper course of action is, not a rule.

I noticed some underlying premises that you have, I'll try to address them in a day or so. I think you may overestimate importance placed on persuasion per se. That's not exactly something discussed much in any Objectivist literature I've seen, except one article Rand wrote about "What Can One Do?" with regard to spreading some Objectivist ideas. Even then, it was written as some ideas (as I recall, I read it a while ago), not as a philosophical statement on the level of what she wrote in "Virtue of Selfishness". Also, spreading ideas is different than resistance anyway, since spreading ideas is about people who can be persuaded. Not all people are willing to be persuaded.

"Who is providing the philosphical and moral guidence to them? What philosphy guides them? Is Objectivism capapable of that role? Or is it too preoccupied with debating utopia?"
Well, my first thought here is that there's a wide range of views that can lead to people disagreeing with various laws so all kinds of people could create lists and guides on minimizing the impact of these laws on your life. The most important part is just getting the information as far as most of us would be concerned, whatever else the site owner of other site participants may believe isn't much of a concern to us beyond the same level of concern we'd have for the ideas of the next random stranger. Maybe some times somebody will see some of the other people involved with these guides as a good potential audience to talk to about morality and politics more generally and if so, hey, great, go for it. If not, well, too bad, but we can pick out what we came for, disregard any advice we don't morally support and move on with our lives. I don't think it is especially necessary for us to create our own lists and guides, the function and therefore the content of them being basically the same regardless of many possible motives for creating them. If some of us are really passionate about the subject though, they can certainly set about making their own specific collection with only stuff they approve of on it and maybe some additional information available on why they support some things and not others. That additional information would probably be pretty straight forward aplications of Objectivism though so it wouldn't be all that important to make a new analysis dedicated to this specific topic.

You hear us talking a lot more about persuasive efforts though because ultimately getting rid of bad laws is preferred to having to try to dance around them to minimize their harm and this is the most feasible option we've got to do that, but it requires a whole lot of work over a long time and we're pretty much all capable of finding at least some small things we can fit into our lives well to this end. The large variety of ways to go about activism makes it easier to come up with something different people will be interested in too. Those kinds of legal guides you are interested in it seems, I think lawyers and accountants would be the most interested and capable of making such things if anybody among us was going to since they would tend to have the best, most up to date knowledge of details of the laws. I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to be making any kind of grand theory and whatnot on the subject at least. This is a much more specialized topic than the more general philosophy most of us here are familiar with. Most adults should have the necessary knowledge to understand and discuss general philosophy issues like rights, but most of us probably haven't picked up the legal technicalities that one would need to know to make a good guide on dealing with bad laws. Soooo . . . yeah, I'm not really so qualified to try to be the one forming any such "theory of resistance," you'll probably need to hunt down a lawyer among us to possibly get farther with that.

There are some kind of related things that I know of though. If you check out Noodlefood, Diana's got a lot of stuff about her thesis for grad school you can look up on there and there's some discussion about doing things when faced with force in there among other things.

"You've defended that view, which I appreciate, but I can't say I find your arguments persuasive."
I admit I wasn't really trying to be thorough there and so yeah, not shocked if you aren't convinced by what I said. I wasn't trying much there though because it seemed like that issue was kind of tangential to what you were really interested in which seems to be what kind of stuff Objectivism and Objectivists would suggest be done to operate in our day to day, especially on the short to medium term range time frames, lives while we've got all this collectivism surrounding and forced upon us.

A theory of resistence.
So, if I innoculate myself against bad ideas with good ones, this only allows me to resist bad ideas. As you stated earlier, you do not find the Objectivism persuasive at this point. So even though I've developed a resistence to socialist ideas, that does not prevent them from being implemented by the legal monopoly of the use of force which should only be used where an individual's rights have been violated.

What is the difference here? Why can I read up on Objectivism, look at reality and see that it is consistant, while you can view the same words, look at the same existence and not be persuaded the same?

Hernan, at first, I was really confused about the title of your thread. Usually people who speak badly of capitalism consider it to be unfair, which Spiral spoke of earlier. After reading the thread up to this point, I think I understand what you mean, so tell me if my understanding is flawed. I may approach further responses of mine in this thread as a devil's advocate, I'll say so if I do that, but this is how I understand you right now:

You say "sissies" in a sense of being weak and unsustainable. Capitalism may sound great, but the reality is, in the form of totally free markets as meant by Objectivism, it's simply not possible. Someone will overtake free markets, because its supporters believe in such a high degree of freedom that there is no barrier stopping collectivism - people are free to be collectivists! That is going to far, and not stopping with force some irrationalities (or even many) is simply weakness. Stand up for what you know to be rational, force if needed. Arrest communists like during the red scare. Take a hard-line attitude, that's the only way to make permanent any positive changes. Even if you don't suggest something like arrest communists, presumably you still mean something aggressive. Supporters of free markets may be too tolerant, by allowing blatant irrationalities. Ultimately, it's allowing others to grant you freedoms while being nice enough to respect that. Progressives, communists, fascists, etc, would easily overtake free markets the moment they decide to stop being nice. Communists took over Russia practically overnight - Russia wasn't a free market to be sure, but the communists were willing to take such a hard-line that they incited revolution.

Furthermore, even with some force, people still have the ability to think. A slave can contemplate escape, secretly learn to read, or any number of activities. Running away is an option. Sure the slave gets shot and killed while running, but that option to run was free to make. Objectivists seem (to you) to be essentially saying "I don't like getting shot, therefore that's not freedom!" To which I could respond: Tough cookies. I don't like losing my bishop, but sometimes I must lose a bishop in order to capture the king. I wasn't 'forced' to lose the bishop, that's simply the best option in terms of cost/benefit. Life is like that, too. Don't be scared to play the game!

Now, the problem with the sissies bit is that I think it's applicable only to anarchists. There is no official rule of law in anarchy. They wouldn't want to get "mean" because that'd infringe upon a person's right to do whatever the other person wants. Murder is bad... but there should be no ultimate arbiter to decide. But Objectivism is different, and involves force as retaliation, including by government. Murder is bad, and there is a law of the land to decide that. If you don't like that, boo hoo, you're going to jail anyway if you murder someone. That's a more obvious example. Then we can go towards military scale. If Iran is hellbent on nuking a government's jurisdiction, then a response you may expect from me is stop them with the necessary force, regardless of a 'right' of Iran to make nukes. Now, we can discuss what "necessary" is (war, bombs, espionage? etc), but it's certainly not a response of "well, maybe if we hold hands and talk about rational behavior, the threat will go away". My reasoning mostly involves a principle of how to respond to force because it stops freedom of thinking, a fundamental means of survival. Force can't be met with reason, so I'd retaliate with force. As an analogy, I can think of times a person (or me!) may seem to be a "lightweight" and seem even very tolerant, but if anyone keeps going far enough to cross the line, it's like a nuclear explosion went off.

What you seem to imply on force is problematic. One position on freedom is that *anything* in the way is the opposite of freedom. Tree fell on the road? I'm forced to drive around it. Another position is that unless you *completely* lose your ability to think, you are free. Except for being dead, you'll always be free. Held in a jail cell? You're free to think whatever you like. You seem to take this latter position. Objectivism isn't really either - I'm are free unless force is being used. If someone grabs my arm and twists it, they can force me arm to move regardless of what I think. The point is ultimately that it is impossible to plan long-range under such conditions, and is thus force. There are also arguments about how force in this way actually paralyzes a mind to some degree, but I'm not the person for that argument. "Moral Rights and Political Freedom" by Tara Smith discusses both points; it's a good read anyway.

The permanency of capitalism doesn't matter so much as a principle, there probably will always be historical movements, defeats, and so on. But trying to get things to last as long as possible is plenty fine. Anything else on that point has already been said.

"Instead, what I see and hear is a lot of wishful thinking and some small measure of activism. "
Personally, I see activism as a temporary measure at best. That is an interesting side-discussion.

Do you realize that something doesn't need to be permanent to be of value to a person? There's no need for collectivist politics to never, ever, ever make any kind of comeback. What matters as far as we're concerned is what we have to live with in our life time. If we can make our political and economic landscape better in our life time than it otherwise would be, that's enough to make it worth doing. It's ideal that we would get to full capitalism with a rights respecting and protecting government, but the closer to that we get the better off we are even if we don't make it all the way there. As for black markets, being able to operate openly and with government protection > having to act in secret with the potential for getting fines and imprisonment and what not forced upon you by the government.

I will state that by "Nuclear Family", I mean two parents, associated legally by contract, raising 1-4 kids together. There is typically a stay at home parent and a parent who works a full time job. This may change later in the childrens' life, where the parents will start sharing the burden of education with more specialized professionals, so finding part time jobs and then finally full time jobs to support this will be required. The point of this, I think, is to raise children. That is , while two people being married is an end in itself, I would state that they become a family once they have children. A family model helps organize the efforts required to educate children, which is the job of the parents.

The only respoonsibility a child has is to aid his parents in his education, as it is in his own self interest to make sure that the family can educate him. This means helping around this house and paying attention to his parents. If a child makes things difficult for his parents he makes things difficult for himself. If the family can not educate him or help him be successful t hat is a different story, because we are not talking about failed or abusive families.

I think it is important to note that this is a very good model.


1) The benefit of raising children with your spouse is that you actually trust your spouse and that your relationship provides an example of how people interact with one another when they care about one another. Teaching children to function in long term relationships is very important.

2) The standard division of labor can be a double edged sword, but it allows a mothers to conentrate on raising a young child while the father can concentrate earning enough money to support the values of the couple and the child.

3) Raising only a few children can ensure that parents aren't over burdened with responsibiliities of raising so many children. I haven' read anything about this, but I have known people with a lot of siblings and the common description is that oldest children end up becoming parents in their own right eventually due to the parents burdens. I am not sure how this affects the education of the eldest children.


Variations from this standard include single parents, any group in which there is no "stay-at-home-parent", parents who are not associated by contract but who live together, communes, polygamists, separated parents, people with large groups of children, and networks of stepparents and parents. I would judge these variations as good or bad by asking if they can provide the above benefits (or other new ones) and at how much cost.

tl;dr - The point of a family is to raise children, the nuclear family model seems to have good benefits to it. So when evaluating it I would have to ask what are the effects of specific deviations from this model, what are the costs and benefits to them. Some models probably suck in this era (communes, polygamists, giant families) where as other models would be at the very least workable (gays, dual income parents, single parents) .

If you mean a hair dresser or mechanic working for cash out of their home, outside if having a permit or some such in addition to being untaxable, then yes is can be very practical and neccessary. It is also alredy happeneing. "Going on strike" was of course a drama to essentialize the principles involved but it could also be pratical or moral. It depends on how far society has gone to the dark side. It is also worth noting that AS did make small references to that to in demonstrating that men of virtue would be forced to become criminals to live in such a State. When is using the "underground" moral? When is the point one should "opt out"? Interesting subjects indeed.

The underground economy can make sense in some professions within some countries. For instance, in the U.S. it would not be practical for the majority of skilled professions.

In today's Wall Street Journal article "America and the Value of 'Earned Success'", Arthur Brooks contrasts the American ideal of defining your own future and achieving success on the basis of your own merit and hard work with the Spanish (and, generally, European) democratic socialist ideal of unearned benefits. Earned success, he argues, leads to life satisfaction while unearned benefits leads to learned helplessness because people learn that rewards and punishments are not tied to merit and effort. In such a situation, "people simply give up and stop trying to succeed." But there are alternatives.

One alternative is to nominally comply with the law while avoiding the worst consequences of it. In the New York Times article, "How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes", Apple is accused of tax avoidance, as for example moving income from high-tax California to no-tax Nevada. While the mobs are grabbing their pitchforks and blaming Apple (and companies like it) for California's chronic budget problems, there is nothing illegal in it's tax avoidance strategy. Nor is it immoral, the state is not a charity. But nominal compliance can only go so far.
Another alternative is revolution. To be sure, this is the alternative that many instinctively reach to when times are hard. But the problem is that revolutions often replace one dictatorship with another or devolve into civil wars largely because there is almost always a large segment of the population, if not a majority, dependent upon the status quo, no matter how bad it may seem to those pursuing success. Worse, revolutions seldom benefit those fighting for change. And the democratic version of this, throwing the bums out of office, rarely has any discernible effect on systemic dysfunction.

Which leaves us with, perhaps, the single best alternative: going underground. The underground economy (the "shadow economy", or "black market") is a market in goods and services that operates outside of formal social and political structures. It's what results when people ignore the law.

According to the IMF report "Hiding in the Shadows: The Growth of the Underground Economy", "shadow economic activities have long been a fact of life—and are now increasing around the world." Of course, measuring the underground economy is difficult but, as of the date of the 2002 report, the underground economy constituted 35–44% of economic activity in the developing world and 14–16% in the developed countries, Greece and Italy lead with 30% and 27%, respectively. Other economists have estimated as much as half the Greek and Italian economy was already underground before the sovereign debt crisis erupted. And these numbers have probably only increased in southern Europe since.

Operating in an underground economy brings many risks. Not only are those who deal outside the law at risk of prosecution but they are also, as a practical matter, deprived of the protection of the law and, thus, can become targets of crime.

However, in practice, because thriving underground economies sap resources from the state and provide alternative opportunities, there is often little or no effective enforcement and legal protection of legitimate activity (absent political connections) is, in any case, scant.

In any case, the risks associated with operating in the underground economy can easily outweigh the costs.
So next time someone suggests doing business under the table, remember, they are not just defying the law, they are escaping the trap of learned helplessness. So support your local underground economy.

http://www.conquistador.org/newsletterissue?newsletterIssueEntityId=102076651290

I consider intuitions to be a type of emotion because they are fast and quick, while not being a conscious decision. They're not unreliable per se, but you cannot rely on intuition to make decisions. An intuition only provides a reaction, not a means to say something is true or not.

This sort of reaction can be useful when you don't have *time* to deliberate, perhaps if you lived in a warzone. Certainly, though, "moral" intuitions come about in particular ways, most often regarding an "ick" factor, a reaction which leads some people to say some behavior is immoral because they hate the feeling so much. I hesitate to call any intuition a moral intuition, since you cannot choose an intuition directly, but some people do throw such feelings into determining what is moral or not by using emotion as a means of cognition. Or it could go the other way, with a moral conclusion becoming automatized and then turned into an emotion.

I'm sure that feeling of "well, it's just WRONG" prior to any deliberation can be influenced by conscious choices, so it would be incorrect to say that all people have the same intuitions about the same actions. For instance, a lot of people say incest is just wrong, but for me, I don't have that reaction, since I've reasoned out that it's not inherently immoral, just like any relationship.

People's "intuitions" aren't basless. What I find strange about irrationalists is that their treatment of emotional responses is so mystical. Hume was writing as though desires had no precedent in earlier experience.

There may be the occasional case when someone's desires may be based in a hormonal response. This kind of stuff though is mostly important to psychiatrists who study things like puberty, pregnancy, or even the chemical factors of addiction.

However a moral responses are developed. We know that there aren't "natural" moral responses due to the variety of moral responses that have existed in cultures around the world. Some people are perfectly fine with what we feel to be morally reperehensible. I think it is reasonable to assume that people develope morals though a combination of experience, reflection and upbringing.