Ivan Raszl
-
Posts
25 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ivan Raszl
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pVvpv2Peu4
After watching this show I must say I'm pretty surprised by the shallow arguments against objectivism presented by these otherwise intelligent folks. On this show they demonstrate lack of knowledge about objectivism because they ask quite basic questions about it. And this lack of knowledge is the source of their arguments. To me the way they patronisingly joke around as if they had superior knowledge makes them look a bit silly.
Let me address the arguments one by one and please correct me wherever I'm wrong.
1. - 2. They agree on these points.
3. Russell reads a statement about "man being an end in himself..." then he complains that he mainly have a problem with the way this is presented. He objects that this idea is put forward as a basic undeniable fact. He then concludes that most of stuff that people value are in our heads and it is not part of objective reality. Matt says that the whole statement is not true at all and goes on to defend his argument by making a parallel between Christian doctrines and Objectivist statements both presented as unquestionable truths. Russell takes over and says the his problem is that Ayn Rand's statements about what man must do and what not do are mixing in values into objective reality. Matt takes over saying this almost dogmatic assertion is a huge flaw. Also, they point out a supposed logical contradiction saying what if an objectivist wants to sacrifice himself. They go on complaining and chuckling about who is Ayn Rand to tell people what to do.
The argument is very hard to make out, but I think what they are basically saying is that Ayn Rand should not tell other people what to do and she should not be so certain about her values. I think they don't understand that her statement is a protection against the very thing they are afraid of. Ayn Rand with her statement says that each man should have the right to pursue his own self interests whatever they may be. She doesn't force her ideas on anyone, quite the contrary.Self interests can include self sacrifice if somebody decides so. She didn't assert that a man can not self sacrifice himself, she said he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to be sacrificed. There is no logical contradiction to chuckle about, but only lack of understanding from Russell's and Matt's part.4. Russell reads a statement about "capitalism being the ideal system..." Here he again objects that this is asserted as absolute fact. And questions who is this system ideal for? They make extreme examples saying somebody could equally well state that communism or monarchy is the ideal system depending whose perspective we're taking and what the goal is. And they also argue that the goal should be discussed way before what is the ideal system is. Then they say there is no proof for capitalism being the best system because there is no control group or demonstration. Then Russell chuckles that Ayn Rand could only provide a fictional demonstration in support of capitalism. Matt brings up that Ayn Rand ignores the necessity of a cooperative and structured society and the benefits to the individual and the group that come from this.
They seem to act as if there was no support to substantiate the statement about capitalism being the ideal system. In fact Ayn Rand explains it in detail why is it the ideal system. I won't reiterate it here as it would be too long. They obviously ignorant about this and thus bring it up as an argument against the statement.It is true other people could state that monarchy is the best, but they would not be able to substantiate it. In case of capitalism it can done without any logical fallacies and all based in reality. That's what makes it a valid claim and not a revelation Ayn Rand had from somewhere that we must accept as they assert.Regarding the goals not being discussed, it's untrue. The goals are stated in point 3 and point 4 is the means to achieve them.Finally I want to address the part of Ayn Rand not having experimental evidence. Well of course not, she's a philosopher. How do they expect her to prove her theories on a country wide level? It's stupid to bring this up as an argument against the idea regardless if we have or have no experimental evidence. But in fact we do have very good experiments. Most notable are East and West Germany or North and South Korea. In both cases collectivism and capitalism is tested on the same type of people and after several decades we can see the collectivists going down in quality of life, while the capitalists steadily growing. It must be said that true capitalism has not yet been tried anywhere in the world, but even partial capitalism proved to be more efficient in making individuals happy within the society. -
I don't think Greenspan was alluding to Objectivism as being the fundamental ideology in which he found a flaw. My guess is that he is talking about the "ideology" that holds markets are always right at any particular point in time. I believe he gave up Objectivism as an ethical and political philosophy quite a while back. However, he held on to a false doctrine in Economics. This is the doctrine that markets can see ahead and predict things, and that any current state is the best possible state (a.k.a. the Efficient Market Hypothesis).
For example, before the economic downturn, some commentators were saying that the housing market had become a bubble. Greenspan would say that a bubble is impossible to predict, that the market as a whole has digested all the factors and that one ought to respect the wisdom of that market-derived consensus. Of course Objectivism would agree that the Fed should not impose its will on the market, but not because the market was right and the Fed was wrong.
As an analogy, consider a federal Food Czar who is clearly statist. He assumes that we "little people" don't know what to eat, and so he prescribes what grocers may and may not sell. Now, think of Greenspan as the food czar, and imagine that he has this weird assumption that people always act in their best interests and left free to choose will eat the healthiest diet ever. He uses that assumption and refuses to impose too many restrictions on people's diets. Then one day he says that he is shocked, and that his fundamental ideology of free and rational food choice has been shattered.
Wait though... isn't it good if the food czar refuses to imposes restrictions on our purchase choices, even if he does so for the wrong reason? Why is it a problem? The answer: it is only a problem if the food czar has also underwritten all health-care costs arising out of poor food choices, and if those costs -- when they arise -- are borne by the people who chose wisely, and are still healthy!
Greenspan was operating in an environment where the government had explicitly underwritten certain risks taken by banks, had implicitly underwritten certain risks assumed by the GSE's and where it was reasonable to assume that the government would step in and retroactively assume losses in other areas as well. In this context, part of Greenspan's job was to protect the government against having to pay in the face of such failures. he failed at it pretty miserably.
Clearly, it is not just philosophy that he does not understand; he's a pretty poor economist as well.
Thanks, I will have to re-read this with a clear head in the morning.
-
What is there to think about it?
Greenspan has never been a friend to laissez-faire capitalism.
He gave a bit of lip sevrice to it for a time, all the while actively promoting a form of mixed economics that even a fool could only see would lead deepeer and deeper into statism.
Capitalism has never been disproven in real application because it has never truly been practiced.
Thanks mate!
-
No, he found a flaw in himself. When he went to the Fed, he was flawed.
He has never explained what does not work in the free market.
Good point.
-
This came up on Facebook with my friends. Seems like an interesting interview. Did Greenspan found a flaw in Objectivism?
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: The question I have for you is, you had an ideology, you had a belief that free, competitive — and this is your statement — “I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We’ve tried regulation. None meaningfully worked.” That was your quote.
You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying its price.
Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?
ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to — to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.
And what I’m saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality…
ALAN GREENSPAN: Flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working?
ALAN GREENSPAN: That is — precisely. No, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
-
Thank you so much. My questions are answered.
-
Thanks for the replies. Let me focus the questions more:
- Is there anything that will prevent us running out of oil in our current market based economy?
- Are we going to reach peak oil?
- If yes, is this not a grave danger that everyone will suffer from?
- Is there anything that will prevent us running out of oil in our current market based economy?
-
I'm an objectivist and I have a question that is not totally clear to me. Anyone seen the Zeigeist movies? What do you think about the idea that the current monetary system is killing our planet because there is no incentive in the capitalist system to protect non-renewable resources and nature in general.
You guys helped me with the issues of the ocean pollutions saying that if the oceans would owned by individuals there would be a good reason to protect them by those who own them and governments would protect these private properties as well. But this doesn't really work with non-renewable resources, does it? If somebody owns a land like Saudi Arabia it's in their interest to extract all the oil, sell it and let it burn. They are not really interested in keeping it in the ground for future generations.
Any guidance on how to think about these issues would be helpful!
-
I'm confused about whether he's doing the right or wrong thing? If it was private stolen info it would be clearly wrong to publish right? But this is government info which is supposed to be owned by Americans or something... Please help!
-
Thanks all. Much appreciated.
-
I have another issue that bugs me.
If a democratic government through an election decides to give a certain free social service for example healthcare. An let's say 75% voted for it. Is it immoral to do this government based healthcare because the rest 25% didn't want it, yet they will be forced to pay for the 75% as well?
If that's the case, what if in a hypothetical situation 100% would vote for such a free social service? It can happen in a small community with only a few hundred people. They may decide to have free ER care or other service. Is it moral to do such a service for free (payed with tax)? And if somebody grows into the age of voting does he have to agree as well in order for the free service to continue?
Am I misunderstanding any part of this issue?
-
Ivan,
I know that this very much off-topic, but I've read my initial response over and over and I am not sure why you took it to be hostile. One of the reasons I have enjoyed this board is that for the most part, there is little to no molly-coddling through unnecessary prefacing, an overarching assumption of the benevolence of posters (unless they demonstrate otherwise), and thereby a lot of ground covered in discussion. I wrote in the manner that I did because that is how I express myself with words. You do not have the benefit of my body language and vocal intonation to let you know that I am not a jerk, but like anyone else, I would prefer to be assumed kind unless I exhibit clear evidence that I am not.
If I asked a question that was so simplistic as to be absurd (and I have, many times), being informed of this wouldn't translate into an assumption of hostility, but rather, I would (and have) take it to indicate that I jumped into the deep end before I could tread water; then I'd purpose to learn enough to know what questions to ask. It only makes sense to learn the vocabulary and at least cursory content of a topic before opening a discussion with a can of worms.
So, there wasn't and still isn't any hostility from me to you; I hope that you will take my word on that. Incidentally, discussing this particular topic in depth requires thick skin, or growing some if you don't yet have it.
Thanks for your full answer. I fully agree with you and the other members. And I now have a clearer understanding of how such an issue should be broken down.
I thought you're hostile because you didn't specifically answer the question, but prompted me to think my own question over. I now realize that this wasn't meant to be a rude, retrospectively it makes sense. At the time however it didn't answer any questions I had, it posed even more. Sorry for saying that.
Thanks for your help guys.
-
Women had children in the home for milennia before there were hospitals. Of course, women used to die in childbirth on a regular basis, too. I don't think anyone should be forced to give birth in a hospital (although I'm sure Obama may feel otherwise), but it's probably a wise idea.
I agree. What if the child dies because they can't provide emergency care at home. Is the woman responsible for the death as negligence?
-
I've read that environmental issues can be solved by privatising all available land and oceans. Therefore giving each area an owner who will protect because it's in his own interest. I think this may actually work. Presumably this is a good solution how can this be accomplished? How can we decide who gets what?
Also, in a related question. What if I own a huge piece of rain forest that gives air not just to me but many other property owners in the world and I decided to cut it all off because I want to spend the money. Does that mean I violate other people's property rights as I remove natural flow of oxygen, therefore I should not be allowed to cut off the forest?
-
(As an aside, these kinds of questions would go really well on the new Objectivist Answers website. Hint hint.)
What's the hint here? Is this not the place to ask such questions? Tx
-
Question: Does this have to do with the fact that in the vast majority of hospital births the mother is drugged up for it? I know I have heard fairly regularly that some women prefer to go "natural" for that because of (sometimes religious) medical reasons, since apparently those drugs can sometimes increase the rate of complications etc.
I don't thin this question has been settled yet. There are several studies pro and contra. And whatever the outcome it only applies to an average, individual cases can deviate significantly. There are some homes and hospitals with very bad and very good conditions.
-
Given that every study done clearly demonstrates either equal or better neonate and maternal outcomes for midwife-assisted homebirth in western countries, your hypothetical seems a bit trivial to contemplate. Much like, "if green were blue, would it be okay to call blue 'green'?"
Please also consider what a "right to healthcare" means. Also consider your idea that 'we' may 'allow' women to give birth at home. Also check your premise that the hospital offers what each individual woman wants and is valuable/life enhancing for herself and child in a birth scenario.
You have a lot of work ahead of you to parse the issues of a woman's rights, her responsibilities to her children, society's place in deciding how she ought to act toward herself and children, what constitutes safety, what the real issues surrounding birth are, and the rights of children.
When you know what the real questions are, you can begin to figure out the answers.
I've studied these issues intensely for seven years. My opinion is that your question is too simplistic, which renders it absurd.
You are very hostile and condescending, why is that? You're telling me I have to do a lot of learning? That's exactly why I asked the question. Honestly, I find your answer unhelpful and unreasonable.
In eastern europe you do get better chances of survival in a hospital compared to mid-wife assisted delivery at home. Green is green. And, the very first study I found with google doesn't prove you correct even in the western world. So the question is legitimate green=green.
A recent study by Canadian researchers compared the outcomes of home birth vs. hospital birth in British Columbia. The study consisted of:2889 home births attended by certified midwives
4752 planned hospital births attended by the same midwives
5331 hospital births attended by doctors
The researchers reported that women who planned a home birth had less maternity-related interventions but also less adverse outcomes. The interventions associated with hospital childbirth are induction of, electronic fetal monitoring, epidural anesthesia, assisted vaginal delivery, and cesarean section. The adverse outcomes reported were infection and hemorrhage. The risk of newborn mortality was similar for both home and hospital births.
So why are there fewer complications in home birth than in hospital birth? The researchers think it might have something to do with self-selection.
You suggest there is no "we" when it comes to allowing certain things to women. Yet, there is a "we". We as a society create laws that we through the state do not allow to be broken, right? There is a we who doesn't allow taking another person's life, right? If the baby dies of negligence that will that be the women's fault? Or does she own the baby and therefore she can do whatever with it? Where do you draw the line? Or do you even have to draw the line? Again, I'm asking, I would appreciate an answer.
Is the question too simplistic? I don't think it's over simplified. It's a question from the real world with real conditions. What's simplistic about it? Maybe it's too simple for you but it's a very real question to me.
-
On one hand you have to respect the rights of the women to her own body, on the other hand we have a newborn with rights for proper healthcare. What is the right policy here? Shall we allow women to give birth at home even if it means there is a higher risk of infant and mother death compared to giving birth in the hospital?
-
I'm familiar enough with Objectivism to know that any healthcare including inoculation is a personal choice and none of government's business. However there is a special case with vaccinations, which can be best explained with an example.
Let's say person A decides against vaccines and therefore takes a risk of getting the disease. Person B vaccinated himself and wants to have his newborn vaccinated too, but the vaccination can only be done at a certain age. Until then the baby is vulnerable to catching the disease from person A. If the baby catches the disease and dies person A is not responsible because he didn't do it on purpose. Person A doesn't have to sacrifice himself for the baby. Yet this is fucked up, because we have a dead baby and it could've been avoided by forcing person A to get vaccinated.
Do we accept the baby death as a negative side-effect of higher values or am I missing something?
-
Is this a good law? What's the objectivist view on such legislation please?
Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.From 1 July every Finn will have the right to access to a 1Mbps (megabit per second) broadband connection. Finland has vowed to connect everyone to a 100Mbps connection by 2015. In the UK the government has promised a minimum connection of at least 2Mbps to all homes by 2012 but has stopped short of enshrining this as a right in law. The Finnish deal means that from 1 July all telecommunications companies will be obliged to provide all residents with broadband lines that can run at a minimum 1Mbps speed.
Broadband commitment
Speaking to the BBC, Finland's communication minister Suvi Linden explained the thinking behind the legislation: "We considered the role of the internet in Finns everyday life. Internet services are no longer just for entertainment. "Finland has worked hard to develop an information society and a couple of years ago we realised not everyone had access," she said. It is believed up to 96% of the population are already online and that only about 4,000 homes still need connecting to comply with the law. In the UK internet penetration stands at 73%. The British government has agreed to provide everyone with a minimum 2Mbps broadband connection by 2012 but it is a commitment rather than a legally binding ruling. "The UK has a universal service obligation which means virtually all communities will have broadband," said a spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Making broadband a legal right could have implications for countries that plan tough action on illegal file-sharing. Both the UK and France have said they may cut off or limit the internet connections of people who persistently download music or films for free. The Finnish government has adopted a more gentle approach. "We will have a policy where operators will send letters to illegal file-sharers but we are not planning on cutting off access," said Ms Linden. A poll conducted for the BBC World Service earlier this year found that almost four in five people around the world believed that access to the internet is a fundamental right.
-
Found it: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1222...ee_Society.aspx
Thanks!
Basically Ayn didn't provide a specific method, because she thought it's a technical issue. And provided one example. Contractors could pay the government a contract enforcement fee if they wanted to.
-
I've read all available literature on Objectivism and I have a very specific question. I've read in one of the topics that in an objectivist system the government would be set up in a way that it pays for itself and there is no need for taxes. How would this work? Or if it's too complicated to explain in this thread, where can I read about it? Thanks a lot!
-
Thank you All! I understand now.
-
Ayn says:
Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.Everybody experiences reality slightly differently thanks to our biological differences. So our view of reality is subjective, nobody can perceive it objectively. How can we be sure there is an objective reality?
Thanks!
"Atlas Shrugged" Movie
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
I just watched part 1 and loved it. I think they made a great decision to place it in 2016. Well done. They made the best of the book I can imagine. I recommend it to all my friends.