brianleepainter

There are ideals one cultivates in their mind overtime, those passions and interests that grow with knowledge and experience, but then there is, also, of course, what is, the current state of Society.

If the State will take away a certain percentage of one's income, then why even try to obtain profit? Isn't it all or nothing, black or white, choose the ideal or don't even bother, go big or go home? Destroy one's creation rather than letting a secondhander have a say in it?
 
We all have to choose between Rand's, "Don't let your spark go out spark by irreplaceable spark" and "the question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." It's too simple and easy to say the State will stop one, but it may and may not. Some people lose their spark  and some are able to keep it.
 
I'm still trying to figure it out myself.

It should be noted that the horribly flawed rollout of the Affordable Care Act exchanges only makes this 'worst-case scenario' more likely.  Again, the fundamental concern is that too few young and healthy people will sign up for the exchange.  Because the exchanges are designed to use healthier people to subsidize the cost of sick people, if too few healthy people sign up the exchanges will not be able to offer cheaper insurance to people trying to sign up with preexisting conditions.  As I mentioned before, the individual mandate is an attempt to get more healthy people to sign up, by fining them if they do not, but the low penalty is likely to be ineffective, especially if insurance in the marketplaces is very expensive.
 
Now we are seeing a disastrous rollout of the ACA's central website, which goes far beyond a few small glitches.  Millions of people have tried to sign up, and nearly all of them have been unable to, even with hours and hours of effort.  President Obama gave a speech on it in the rose garden, where he trotted out someone from Delaware who managed to sign up for the exchanges after only 7 hours (!) on the computer and on the phone, and she was undoubtedly one of the luckier ones.
 
So what does this mean for the ACA system as a whole?  Well, it should first be noted that this is a much bigger deal than simply a malfunctioning website.  For the majority of people, the website is the only way that they have to get on the exchanges and sign up for insurance.  To draw some comparisons to private businesses, the ACA exchanges are designed more like Amazon than Barnes & Noble.  If Barnes & Noble's website goes down, that hurts their business for sure, but people can still come into the physical stores and buy books, coffee, etc.  B&N's website is nice, but it isn't synonymous with their entire company.  Amazon, on the other hand, is its website in a very real sense.  That is really the only way that consumers have to purchase things from the company, and if it is down, the company is down.  That seems to be the current status of the ACA exchanges.  Furthermore, it looks like the fixes are going to be a long time in coming.  Even if the interface between consumers and the exchanges is fixed relatively quickly, it looks like the communication between the exchanges and the insurance companies themselves is also a disaster, and this problem is likely to get worse, not better, as the customer interface improves and more people successfully sign up.  The scope of the problems is detailed here; here is a key excerpt:
 

The final result of all this is that the cost of signing up for insurance in terms of time and frustration is much higher than anyone expected, and will be quite high for quite some time.  The people most willing to pay that cost will, of course, be people who really need the insurance, while people who are most likely to give up in frustration will be healthier people who will just decide to wait until the exchanges are working properly.  Many of these people will also probably assume that the individual mandate penalty will be delayed for at least a year; after all, how can the government charge you a penalty for not buying insurance when you can't buy insurance from their malfunctioning website?
 
The result will be that, once the exchanges get up and running normally, and insurers have sorted out everyone that's signed up so far and their expected cost, they will have to set very high premiums, because the people that waded through the site headaches to buy insurance were mainly the high-cost, sicker individuals.  These high premiums will prevent many healthier people, who decided to wait, from signing up at this point, and many of the people needed to subsidize the system simply will not sign up at all.  Thus, all of this makes the negative outcome that I talked about above more likely to occur.

Optional among people is an acknowledgement that values can objectively vary due to any number of reasons, from genetics to general aesthetic preferences. Not all people will benefit from mountain climbing, while for others it is in line with their productivity and trained skills. Mountain climbing is the optional value here. This type of valuing does not reject objective values because all people have required values in order to pursue life on a more abstract level, with reason being one such value. I believe you agree on this, but optional still remains a valid distinction, since a person *can* forego mountain climbing and lead a moral life.

For that mountain climber, supposing they're using a hierarchy of values, mountain climbing is morally obligatory in the sense that it's a better option than another. You are saying this as well: when a standard is involved, anyone can figure out with effort what the best choice is for their unique context. When a standard is involved, surely that provides a measure which makes one choice correct, and another wrong. We could stop here and say "optional for people" is subjective, since that would mean a standard is failing to indicate the one right choice to make. If our standard fails, then there is no way to even decide if values like reason are really better than others.

Absolutely, standards indicate a right choice. Where, though, does that mean there is only *one* right choice? Smith herself is already saying that if a value will not advance one's life, that value ought to be rejected. Mountain climbing would not advance my life, so I reject that as a value. At the same time, does that mean there is only *one* right choice. Life is not a game of chess where there is *always* a one best move to make by the very nature of its deductive mechanics. In actuality, especially if we consider context of knowledge, there are at times multiple right values and choices. There isn't always a need (or possibility) of a precise utilitarian calculus. Some options may literally be the same, as in the trivial example of picking chocolate or vanilla ice cream when you like both equally. For me, these values are optional, but I may still have to choose in a particular moment in time which flavor I want, and decide to have chocolate today, vanilla next week. Personally, I usually pick both and combine them. Neither flavor is higher on my value hierarchy, even though in terms of a *temporal* hierarchy, the choice I make now comes first. If I choose to eat chocolate today, it doesn't mean I like vanilla less than chocolate.

I think your disagreement comes down to if any two values can be equal on a value hierarchy. I point out a temporal hierarchy because that's what you seem to be using to reject Smith's "optional for people" idea. There is a distinction to be made from an conceptual hierarchy, though. It is an option to pick any of the values in a set, like among your however-many best friends you want to see. There may be no reason to pick Harry over Sarah this weekend, because you just need to see them both anytime this month. But you pick Harry for this weekend since the new movie that you know Sarah wants to see badly with you comes out next week. Or just invite both Harry and Sarah to the Thai restaurant you all like. The values (your best friends) aren't optional, but the particular value you pick at the time is completely optional. I do not think Smith is arguing that optional values qua values can be ignored completely.

Perhaps you may find this excerpt helpful, from Ayn Rand's "Philosophy:Who Needs it" in regards to "Responsibility/Obligation":

"Causality Versus Duty"

I think in this hypothetical the mother had chosen a long range goal of having a child, and that goal subsumes necessary action of taking care of her value, her child.

That quote is an example of an assumption with new evidence. It is a generalization and an accusation, Rands claim that she knows what all people are thinking but I do not believe in your your false dichotomy. You do not see that your philisophy would crumble without selflessness. You need it to promote selfishness. Your ideas are incompatible with scientif evidence found in the physicical world. I do not deal in dichotomy. You selfish archetype will always point to its other because that is the only way it can prove its validity. You need your altruist to be the whipping Boy in order to validate you "philosophy," you depend on contrast.

A except the valdity of both. I am selfishly selfless..meet the new breed. Science is currently studying biological evidence of the ALTRUISM COEFFICIENT of VARIATION in EVOLUTION, you will not grasp this concept because you will only recognize it in Randian terms. You buy the definitions that Rand changed for her own ends, so your belif system is incompatible with this scientific concept, much like Mormonism. The above state of progressive evolution, regarding a rejection of homogeny is why scientists and the academic world scoff at objectivism. You will have a hard time accepting this. It has already out-dated you.

"ExxonMobil, the world’s largest energy company, filed a lawsuit against the federal government for canceling an oil-drilling lease in the Gulf of Mexico that held “billions of barrels of oil,” according to the company."

ExxonMobil Sues Obama Administration

"ExxonMobil, the world’s largest energy company, filed a lawsuit against the federal government for canceling an oil-drilling lease in the Gulf of Mexico that held “billions of barrels of oil,” according to the company."

ExxonMobil Sues Obama Administration

Did you plan on commenting, or just rehashing the news cycle?

Well, I do feel bad for them.

By what standard of justice do they deserve ten years in prison, or even the two years they've already served?

Perhaps they were stupid and naive, but that doesn't mean that they deserve what a theocratic, totalitarian government has done to them. Faulting them, suggesting that they have gotten what they deserve, is like faulting a young woman who gets raped because she was in the wrong area at the wrong time.

Although I have not been active on this forum for a couple of months or so, I thought I would announce that I have started a blog to show some of my artwork: My "blog."

My name is John Shepard ("Trebor" is my middle name, Robert, spelled backwards.); I'm 57, and I live in Austin, Texas. I became interested in philosophy, explicitly, when my father handed me a copy of the Socratic Dialogs back when I was in high school, suggesting that I might enjoy reading it. I did not agree with the conclusions, but I saw how important and productive thinking could be. I already enjoyed drawing at the time. I was introduced and hooked on Miss Rand's fiction as well as her philosophy back in the Summer of 1976 when a girl, who I had barely known in a drawing class at Lamar University, went out of her way to visit me (I was then living in Rockport, Texas) and handed me a copy of The Fountainhead, saying that she thought that it was based on the life of Frank Lloyd Wright.

Anyway, if you take a look, I hope that you enjoy at least some of my works, mostly what I consider to be studies.

Some General Information about these works.

Here are the main posts (I started the blog the first of this month.):

First Blog Post - Some charcoal drawings (18" x 24")
A few more charcoal drawings (18" x 24")
Some small, 5 x 7, paintings:
Some small, 6 x 8, paintings:
Some small, 8 x 10, paintings:
Some 9 x 12 paintings:
And some 11 x 14 paintings:

I've posted a few things since those; you can see them if you want by going to the main page and browsing.

Visual art, unlike music, deals with concretes. As long as an object is representational - as long as it presents an intelligible subject- it can be evaluated objectively.

The process has 4 steps:

1. perception of the object
2. conceptual grasp of its meaning
3. an appraisal in terms of one's basic values
4. emotion

Even if this process is very fast and it feels to us more like: perception ---> emotion (like in the case of beauty) because the object IS intelligible - it is possible for us to deduce its meaning via reason and thus gain understanding behind our reaction to it. It represents this .... I value ... so I had a positive/negative reaction to it.

When the object is not representational the evaluation is subjective.

Beauty of representational objects can be objectively evaluated.

---------------------------------------------------------


There are observed commonalities in what people find attractive. In terms of human face, it has been observed that even newborns have positive reactions to more symmetrical/harmonious faces. Infants 2 months of age and older will spend more time looking at attractive faces when these are shown paired with faces judged by adults to be unattractive. Some studies reveal that symmetrical faces are an indication of a person who has evolved from a large gene pool (a good thing). The preference for a more symmetrical features also arose from the fact that throughout history, humans have chosen to breed with people they perceived to be healthy. Healthy genes mean a symmetrical face. During developmental stages, if genes are 100% healthy, your left side and right side will be perfectly symmetrical, complete mirror images of each other. This conveys to the world you’ve had healthy genes passed on to you. However, if outside factors skew symmetry, such as a small infection or malnourishment this causes small imperfections during development, creating asymmetry.

As many already noted changes in preferences (thinner or more plump), for example, over time do not make them subjective. Subjective would mean that there is no objective reason for an individual to have a preference for one over the other. But there were good reasons for those preferences then and there are good reasons for the preferences of today. There is a good reason for an individual to be attracted to a more fit body; there is a rational reason behind having a preference for a healthy skin.

Seems like some do not like that those preferences exist. To me they put themselves in conflict with reality really. To me it is no different than fighting the fact that humans are selfish.

You are welcome. Thank you as well.

Since I mentioned Scott Burdick and his presentation, "Banishment of Beauty," for convenience, here are direct links to the four parts of his presentation (about 1 hour total time):






Scott and his wife, Susan Lyon, are both artists. They share a web site: Scott Burdick and Susan Lyon

Some of the representational artists Scott Burdick mentioned or showed works of in his presentation:

John Singer Sargent
Anders Zorn
Edgar Payne
Richard Schmid
Jeremy Lipking
Daniel Gerhartz
Clive Aspevig
Scott Christensen
Morgan Weistling
Matt Smith
Albert Handell
Burton Silverman
Kevin Macpherson
Alexey Steele
Jacob Collins

I just mentioned a couple of things (the article by Dr. Stephen Hicks: "Why Art Became Ugly" and the four-part YouTube video presentation by artist Scott Burdick, "Banishment of Beauty") on another thread, and I think they deserve their own thread to give them deserved attention.

Dr. Stephen Hicks' "Why Art Became Ugly"

Artist Scott Burdick's YouTube Channel (look for the four parts for "Banishment of Beauty")

Dr. Hicks has a similar article, "Post Postmodern Art" as well as a book, Explaining Postmodernism, on the subject.

The radicals are the movers, the moderates follow.


Islam is a total-state religion and does not recognize the propriety of a separation between church and state. If I understand your question, I'd say, again, that the moderates or the inconsistent majority give a "bad name" to the consistent ones.
I know that Dr. Peikoff gave an answer to a similar question in one of his podcasts, but I cannot find it right off. If I remember, he said that it's the radicals that set the course of history. Once they do, once they act, the moderates are irrelevant.

There is not a single good argument that marriage is "defined" as between a man and a woman, any more than there is a good argument that marriage is "defined" as between people of roughly the same age, same religion, or same race. To even raise this question of definitions implies the primacy of definitions. Read up on the Objectivist theory of concepts, and you will see that the purpose of a definition is to efficiently express the essential defining property of the concept, which implies all of the concrete instances. Definitions do not serve as gatekeepers, admitting only those units that pass the definitional test. The adequacy of the definition is tested by seeing whether it correctly identifies the units actually subsumed by the concept. You have inverted the relationship between definition and concrete.No, this is not a problem with marriage, it is a problem with taxation. Specifically, the tax provision that allows less theft through taxation to married couples is what might violate due process and equal protection. (Though in fact they do not, but that's a more advanced problem).There is a higher standard, which I would have assumed that you're familiar with. Marriage is basically on a par with the UCC, in stating a regular set of assumptions in agreements. There is no compelling reason for the state to make any kind of agreement more convenient, and it could theoretically demand that all contracts be written, signed and notarized (thus bringing ordinary business to a halt). Once a convenient, regularized legal relationship is recognized it should be recognized universally. It would thus be a violation of equal protection to hold that unwritten contracts such as exist when you buy a gallon of milk are recognized only between whites. We need not get into questioning the legitimacy of state-sanctioned sales.However, I am celebrating a righteous principled ruling. Not the least of which is that even when the mob arbitrarily demands it, the state cannot rightfully impede the exercise of individual rights by an arbitrarily specified population. Strict law, especially strict adherence to the Constitution, demands that Prop 8 be ruled unconstitutional, as it was.