Brent Rolfe

I wasn't putting words in Peikoff's mouth. I have caused confusion by using quotation marks around rare when in fact I was not attributing that word to Peikoff, and for this I apologise. On the other hand, I don't see very much difference between "rare" and "not nearly so common". You are right, you didn't use quote marks, but since you were criticising my loose "quoting" I think you might have had the decency to be accurate yourself! I won't argue with you either, you apparently like to give it, but can't take it. Goodbye

I believe in intellectual property, it is an existent.....there is nothing to "believe".... it just exists. It is the protection of it vs. absolute, free, unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism that I find contradictory. In capitalism, monopolies will rarely exist without government intervention, yet patent rights are a government protected monopoly and therefore an economic distortion. We can have patent protection or capitalism, not both. Capitalism is a fundamental of Objectivism in the economic world.....is patent protection?

Why drag me into this? I wasn't contradicting myself, I was pointing out a contradiction.

And perhaps I should spell should correctly before I criticise your criticism of me?

I wasn't criticising Peikoff, I was disagreeing with him. He actually wrote "not nearly so common as some people wish to think"....in my view this makes the occurence of such errors an order of magnitude less frequent than a plain "not as common". Perhaps before you correct me you sholud get the quote right yourself?

Mr. West I generally enjoy your posts, so I was both surprised and annoyed to read this one. I was not impuning anyone's honesty, but if you are sensitive about the frequency with which honest errors of knowledge occur, you may have taken an innocently added smiley face as an affront. . That is not my problem and I do not accept unearned guilt. . I will continue to add smiley faces wherever I feel they are appropriate. . [qoute=A.West]Furthermore, why would an Objectivist care who Kelley endorsed? I think it's well established that Objectivists consider Kelley to have committed enough dishonest errors that any particular new one would be of no interest whatsoever, other than for the purpose of keeping detailed statistical records. I am neither a TOCist nor a Kelleyite. If you interpret my posts in this thread to label me as one then that is your prerogative. But I will continue to treat honest errors wherever I find them with a modicum of toleration (gasp horror!). Though not the topic of the thread specifically, during its course I did give a lot of thought to the F&V quote about honest errors of knowledge being "rare" and came to the conclusion that such errors are, in fact, quite common when debating many issues especially political ones. But, since I am quite sure that Dr. Peikoff's error on this point was an honest error I will continue to read his books and learn from them. And since I will take the pomposity of your post as an honest error I will continue to read them too. Enjoy your detailed statistical record keeping, won't you?

The mysterious "someone" with the brilliant insight, whom I couldn't identify in my last post, was GoodOrigamiMan, my apologies, I was not trying to steal your intellectual property !

I have only just joined this thread (that was a lot of reading!). Two problems that I have that have not been answered re patent protection: 1) Patent protection is basically monopoly protection. But in a capitalist system (a fundamental economic concept for all Objectivists) a monopoly can only exist where a government has interferred with the free market. So we have a major contradiction: patent protection (the protection of the right of a man to his intellectual property) vs. laissez-faire capitalism (the right of every man to live by the trader principle unfettered by government interference). If government interference is allowed re patent protection, then why not for any other conceivable form of protection? This latter idea is obviously abhorent to any capitalist. 2) Ayn Rand stated that patent protection should only be available for a product, not for the idea itself. Therefore, she does not seem to view the purely intellectual acheivement of a man as property. (I suppose while the idea is still inside the man's head complete, but unnanounced to the world, it is pure "intellectual " property?). Someone earlier raised the point (I apologise, I can't remember who) that the (production and marketing) "lead time" that a person creates by being the first to invent a product might be the only justifiable economic advantage that they can expect. I have always thought this was logical and it seems to me to overcome the contradiction in point one above. For a major product this lead time can be long.....idea, drawings, manufacturing method, tooling, raw material suppliers and other logistics, etc., etc., etc.,......and should give the original manufacturer a considerable commercial advantage without any need to impair the freedom of the market. If at that time they cannot manufacture the product more efficiently than their inevitable competition....so be it. PS A patent, in effect, legislates against the freedom of the second or anysubsequent independent originator of any idea and must therefore be a breach of that person's right to the product of his own mind. So yes, intellectual property exists for the period it is inside the originators brain, once it is put out on the table it is no longer his property, it is "in the public domain". The astute inventor will have sold the idea to the manufacturer for a handsome profit and his intellectual work is therefore rewarded.....just as an author sells her idea (the book) to the publisher (the taker of the commercial risks).

Using introspection you answered your own question! You value the concept of justice and the concept of justice is an existent, therefore you can value more than entities you can value any existent. QED....trust in your own thoughts Grasshopper. It is better for you if what you value is valued rationally.....and you are safe with justice on that score too!

Yes, congratulations! It was a great story and now it has a happy ending!

During the course of the thread I have been hypothesising privately on what might have happened if LP and HB had concluded for, say Bush and Kelley had been the one endorsing Kerry? One wonders if it still would have been an example of honest error?

Absolutely. And your points on investment time horizons are well taken too. But given the same investment objectives, the same starting data and the same time horizon two investment managers will almost certainly choose two different stock portfolios. And in reality only time will tell which one was right. I think we are all agreed that the same starting data, the same principles and a rational decision making process will not necessarily mean the same predictions of the future. So let me let this thread go where it seems to want to go and say that given this agreement then there must be something wrong with Dr. P's statement about "honest errors" being rare occurences. Honest errors are not at all rare occurences because of the nature and complexity of human life and man-made choices. I understand the Bush/Kerry difference of opinion, and I can see value in both analyses and I can see where both men are coming from. I am not a TOCist, honest! Perhaps I am mis-interpreting Dr. P's comment about the frequency of honest errors of knowledge? Just think yourself lucky you don't pay income taxes in Canada! The top marginal rate of income tax starts at just over $60,000 and in Ontario the combined Fed/Prov, rate on the marginal dollar is 47%.

Well the obvious difference is that they came to different conclusions and therefore different recommendations. And that was the only difference I was commenting upon. Also, for the umpteenth time (though not to you personally), the thread was NOT meant to be about the difference of opinion re Bush or Kerry. That was one example of a difference. The others I gave are just as, probably more, valid starting points for the discussion I was hoping to have.....one about the same reality and rational/logical thought processes leading to different conclusions. I will give up on this thread and assume for the moment that I have asked a poor question, certainly one that has been misconstrued beyong my wildest imaginings ! Isn't DIM the subject of Dr. P's next book? I am looking forward to this. Brent

First of all I apologise for taking the post personally if it was not meant that way, I in turn had thought that you had taken my post too personally ! In response to the quote above, I would not have taken HB or LP to be issuing directives. I took their "endorsements" to be considered opinions meant to influence their audience. As considered opinions from men who make their livings giving considered opinions I think they are offering comments on the truth or falsity of something i.e. the ability of either of two men to lead the U.S. You have taken me out of context again you naughty man! Put back in context I was saying that a contradiction would be evident if HB and LP had done thorough analyses of the candidates, arrived at different conclusions AND if honest errors of judgement are as rare as Fact and Value asserts. Brent

Thanks very much! That is interesting. Actually, my wife is a biologist turned high school teacher. And her Masters is in "Biological Computation" from the University of York in the U.K. She did this in 1979-1980 (a one year taught Masters in math and computer programming for biologists) when biologists who could multiply and divide were a rarity and most of them wore garlands of garlic and carried sharpened oak staves if they had to pass through the computer room !

Bowzer, have you been following the thread, or did you just jump in in the middle? Where do you get the imporession that I think the application of principles is a matter of "simple deduction"? Where am I faulting you, or anyone else? The purpose of the thread was to ask how, on questions of "moral" or "ethical" judgement in general (not specifically the U.S. election), Objectivists in general (not specifically LP or HB) could differ so widely in their opinions. I gave examples of the threads about the war in Iraq, homosexuality and abortion. I say again that in my opinion if we start out with the same reality and apply rational thought processes to a problem, we should arrive at the same conclusions. Or there should be a logical reason why we don't, which would generally be that there was an error of logic in one thought process along the way. If this is not the case, then I think we should all be able to agree that "honest errors of judgement" are a lot more common than Dr. Peikoff states! Now, my intention in the thread was not to criticise the content or conclusions of Fact and Value either, unfortunately it appears that (indirectly at least) that is the way the thread has gone. So, if you can reconcile LPs assertion about honest errors being rare with your assertion about the complexity of social and political issues leading to differing conclusions even among rational observers I would value the clarification. In my opinion both assertions cannot be right, that would be a contradiction. Brent

Bowzer, I am sure you are right, but if you put the sentance you quoted back in context I would value your opinion on the correct conclusion. Brent

The quote from Ayn Rand was very interesting to me and as usual very perceptive of her. Thanks. You are right, I did assume that LP and HB hold the same basic principles. I assume they both hold the basic principles of Objectivism. Are you saying that their disagreement over Bush/Kerry is evidence that they do not? This would certainly be one answer to my original question, and perehaps the only rational one? But it would have the great disadvantage that, if it were proven to be true, then not even two of the leading ARI intellectuals are in agreement over the basic principles of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

Hmm. That is well put, thank you. I am relieved to hear this, I thought I was just slow witted! Within the limits of my current understanding of the context of Fact and Value, and my lack of knowledge of Dr. Peikoff as a person, I currently tend to agree with you on this......how's that for equivocation! It seems to me that one either has to give a large degree of leeway for honest error in many topics related to (the complexities) of real life; or, one has to take the great risk of dogmatising Objectivism. Brent

Most of it, honest! But not yet from cover to cover. I am currently going through it chapter by chapter and analysing it as i go.

I agree that axioms are not the starting point for most discussions. But they are the basis for the "virtues" and the virtues, the morality of Objectivism. If we take life experience as the basis of discussions (and I assume action) then I (as an ex-working class, ex-Englishman) could make a very strong case for Russian peasants supporting the revolution and communism as being (at least in their lifetimes) beneficial to peasants. But communism, in Objectivist terms is a great evil. Were Russian peasants, therefore evil? (And here we I go back to the quote from Fact and Value)? Brent

But, in that case, couldn't the process just as well be called logic....or rational judgement? Is Objectivism a process or a body of philosophical thought?

I only want to distance this thread from that particular example lest it appear that I am criticising either LP or HB or Objectivism itself for the inability to objectively agree . Yes, I understand. As I said earlier had the choice been Bush/Lenin or Kerry/Lenin I assume both (LP and HB) would have endorsed the non-Lenin option. You make this point very well and I agree with you again. Using the axioms and a rational mind to arrive at values enables a logical choice to be made. One can then challenge one's own assumptions or logical process, or be challenged by others, with a view to refining a position. However, now to give a more contentious example of my original point and reason for starting this thread. If you look at the various threads on Iraq, you will see diametrically opposed views on the war and how it is being pursued. I have read some articles by Yarron Brook (another respected Objectivist) who advocates an extremely "Wolfowitzian" approach to the situation in Iraq and I have read other posts here which are much more diplomacy oriented. So, both raze Fallujah and excercise military restraint are options put forward by Objectivists. These options are diametrical opposites, both suggested by Objectivists who, no doubt, think they are operating from the same philosophical axioms and excercising their own rational thinking. In this situation (which is only one example) there is no fine line to draw between the approaches or solutions. Yet both are advocated by people who would consider themselves Objectivists. This seems to me to be a puzzle. (I realise that there is no official Objectivist position on Iraq). Brent

stephen, I am curious.....what exactly do you do? i.e. I know you are a "research scientist", but e.g. are you a member of a university faculty?, do you do any teaching?, or are you a researcher in a private or government facility? As I say, I am just curious and will not be offended if you tell me this is none of my business. But as one reader in awe of the science thread (and your science posts in particular ) I think there may be others who are curious too! Brent

I understand why, on the election issue, two leading (and influential) Objectivist thinkers can disagree on their respective choice of candidates, at least given the choices available in this election. And I agree that this disagreement alone is one in the face for those who think that Objectivism is dogmatic. I am actually regreting using the example of the LP/HB difference of opinion to try to make my point. So.....leaving aside any reference to the election.....I am still confused over the large differences of opinion (and conclusion) that can be derived by rational minds making decisions based on the same set of existential facts. Especially when I try to bring this fact into line with LP's quote about honest differences of opinion being much rarer in reality then is supposed. So yes, any clarification would be appreciated . Brent