Dormin111

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18455465 The situation: On Sunday Greece will have its second national election after the first one collapsed for some reason. Currenty the seven major Greek parties have formed oppositional coalitions which will decide whether or not Greece maintains its "austerity," stays in the EU, and stays with the Euro. The two sides: 1. Pro-bailout/EU/Euro A. New Democracy (19% of vote) - the "conservative party" by Greek standards, and hardcore progressives by any other standard B. Pasok (13%) - moderate socialists 2. Anti Bailout 1. Syriza (17%) - hardcore socialists, nationalization of the entire financial system 2. Independent Greeks (11%) - populist nationalists 3. Democratic Left (6%) - moderate socialists 4. KKE (9%) - communists, only party which explicitly wants to abandon the Euro 5. Golden Dawn (7%) - fascists So if the pro-bailout side wins Greece will limp on for a few more years before bankruptcy inevitably occurs and they drop the Euro. If the anti-bailout side wins, even if the new government doesn't explictly opt out of the EU, they will probably be de facto or even litterally thrown out for not accepting the bailout terms laid out by Germany. Given the situation, I am rooting for the socialist/communist/fascist coalition since it will crash the economy more quickly and allow something closer to a recovery to occur sooner.

From the position of someone who knows little to nothing about physics: does this mean that if a being were to move in one direction for eternity that he would eventually end up back where he started? Or if nothing is infinite, does this mean that time itself will end?

I am not sure what you mean or how it adresses the point. The government can charge ANY price if it wants to, even if the utility operation does run at a loss since they can just perpetually bailout the operation with taxes. The issue is one of "social optimization" (to use a socialist term). The government cannot predict the optimal price without the pricing mechnism in place. They could try a bunch of phony market-aping techniques, but ultimately they will be highly innefficient and continue to come back to the same problem.

If cutting off your hand is a satisfying, healthy, and fulfilling way to live enhance your life and have fun, should one cut off his hand? Is it ethical because it is in an individual's self-interest? An activity is not in an individual's self interest because it is arbitrarily given that status. An activity is in one's self interest if it logically benefits the existence of the individual. In the case of campaigning for socialism, the activity is furthering the cause of pillaging and oppression. Any individual who committs himself to the cause will be have to deal with logical contradictions, and therefore an unhappier life.

It flumuxes me that it is an achievement for a 50 year old man who was in the Senate and now the whitehouse for four years to finally come around to the right side on an issue as blatantly obvious and simple as gay marriage. And especially from a progressive! I am a twenty year old at a liberal arts college and I am astounded by the lack of awareness of the cynical nature of Obama's sudden conversion. He just happens to make this major life altering statement just as a huge step backwards occurs in a Republican dominated state. He didn't bother to announce this new stance sooner in a press release or in speech, but instead waited for the opurtune moment. This is about as low as a politican can get.

I would say it is a blatantly naked attempt to rally the youth vote. Young people aren't voting for Romney, but they aren't nearly as strongly in favor of Obama as they were four years ago either. I think he decided to cut his losses in North Carolina rather than ride the fence and instead rally his core vote accross the country. Also, Obama is starting to remind me of Gail Wynand. He controls nothing, his followers control him.

There are other topic on this issue but they are mostly about the right of a state to conquere land marginally controlled by barbaric natives rather than claim unoccupied terriroty. Does a government have a right to expand into terriroty which is uncontrolled by any other state? Must the government recieve a request by friendly or national occupants of the unruled territory? Does government authority automatically expand into areas in which national citizens have occupied? Specific Scenario 1: The US government uses its satellites to discover a deserted island in the Pacific Ocean. Can the government claim this land? Must the government put the land towards some sort of offical state use (build a naval base) before claiming it? Can the government claim the land and then auction off for private use? Specific Scenario 2: A deserted island is discovered in the Pacific Ocean. An American citizen finds the island first and then claims it as his own property (to cement this claim, he builds a house, a port, and puts a good chunk of the island into use). Can the man ask the US government for his island to be annexed into US territory? Should the US govenrment grant such requests? Specific Scenario 3: A deserted island is discovered in the pacific ocean by a group of Americans. The members pf the group each individually lay claim to the island and then dispute each others' claims. Should or can the state intervene to settle this legal dispute?

Even in the position as head of the economy's central bank, Greenspan could have done his best to abide by market pricniples by pushing for deregulation and responding to the market in the way the free market would (at least by his best estimates). For instance, he should have tried to eliminate inflation and raise interest rates drastically during economic downtruns to attract new savings.

I see your point but I believe launching a moral conversion against an opponent can be extremely difficult because of how vast the gap is between Objectivism and nearly every other philosophy out there. I have tried this strategy many times in debates and often I run into a brick wall of indifference or astonishment if I point out that I have never signed a social contract or that I am being robbed at gun point through taxation every year. This argument generally goes spiraling into political philosophy and is too much to cover in a single meeting. Unfortunately, it is often much easier to just use the Austrian route and point out how illogical the Keynsean policies are and how every market intervention will necesarily harmful.

It is enjoyable. It feels really good. By "mutual masturbation," I mean rather than two individuals only choosing between passionate romantic sex and solo masturbation, they can instead have sex with each other purely for physical pleasure. This sex does involve values, and to a lesser degree feelings (as they pertain to a relationship), but this sex does not include the "highest values." It comes from two individuals seeking pleasure. Pleasure is achieved by it.

I have been thinking of sex as "any activity which stimulates one or more person's sexual organs in a positive way." This includes masturbation, handjobs, oral, vaginal, anal, kissing, etc. I admit I am getting a bit twisted up in the arguments, so to reiterate, my main point is: having sex can be an awesome, life altering activity, but it can also be used as a short term gain for pleasure akin to "two person mastrubation." I believe Rand denied the latter and that she was wrong. I do not see why the latter must necesarily interfere with the former as has been suggested. The count-argument I have heard is that sex should not be lumped into the same category as any other physical activity between consenting adults, but I have yet to hear an entirely convincing reason as to why this should be so. Also I very much agree with all of what DonAthos said in his last post. Sorry double post with minor alterations.

Both Einstein and Newton were wrong to some degree, but Einstein was less wrong than Newton. There is an objective way in which gravity operates, both men speculated as to how it soperates given the knowlege they possessed. It is not really their fault, but given their lack of total knowlege, neither was able to come up with the optimal (true) answer.

I concur with Greebo. Economic valuation is subjectively determined by individuals according to their own preferences. A trade is "balanced" as long as it is voluntarily agreed upon out of mutual self-interest. A trade is unbalnced if it is not conducted because one or both parties felt that the sacrifice of their wealth was not worth the return.

While I am by no means an expert on the subject, Objectivism definetely rejects psychoanalysis, especially of the Freudian variety. Psycoanalysis pictures men as wild beast whose ability to use logic is actually an illusion and that all decisions are actually made at the behest of an invisible subconcious which is driven by sex, power, and family. It posits that men are wild beasts and that the creation of civlization has necesarily made us all unhappy because if we aren't out there raping and murdering people then we are suppressing our true selves.

What Spiral means by "deserves" is the definition that you (and far too many other people) have used. You use it as a floating abstraction to refer to some sort of mystical judgement of how an individual's actions have contributed to a non-existent black box. You say: "They would get a lot of money but do they deserve it? Even though they worked for it, aren't they making more than should have?" Deserve it by what criteria? How much work is enough? Who decides how much is enough? How much should one have? Who decides that? How are work, deserts, and benefits quantified and calculated? These are non-existent criteria for an invalid concept.

That depends on what you mean by "meaingless." It is true that there is no mystical entity which punishes or rewards people based on their level of virtue, but there is an objective reality and a logical derivitive of what actions should be taken. Two people can certainly have different opinions, but either one is correct and the other is wrong, or both are wrong (assuming it is not a preference, but an issue pertaining to the objective form of reality). A position that cannot be enforced can still have meaning if the position is correct. If that position is opposed, then the holders of the incorrect position will face negative consequences when they fail to comprehend reality.

These statements assume that the only reasons to have sex are reproduction and romantic love. Why can't short term pleasure be a reason? As in, masturbation by way of another individual. This does not necesarily mean that personality has NO effect, but just that it is secondary to the sexual pleasure derived from the encounter. "Therefor, our sexual urges, as a rule, mirror our hierarchy of values." I think a better statement is: "Therefore, our romanitc urges, as a rule, mirror our hierarchy of values." If an individual seeks romantic relationships with supermodel Stalins, empty headed sluts, or gorgeous sociopaths, then he is indeed, likely immoral. But that is not the same as using these same individuals as masturbation toys for an evening.

I admit that if someone's personality was incredibly revolting, like Stalin, I would probably not be able or want to have sex with her. However, if I simply wanted to have some sexual pleasure within the next few hours, I would be willing to tolerate an annoying personality if it did not outweigh the sexual pleasure I could gain from the encounter.

How do you reconcile this with masturbation? Must I have some special relationship with my hand or myself to masturbate? I think you are having a hard time bringing your conception of sex down to a concrete form (ie. it is a floating abtraction). Yes my brain reacts differently, but so what? My brain reacts differently depending on almost every different activity I can perform with another person. What is it specifically that makes sex different?

Interesting points. I will respond to both Spiral Architect and Eiuol in this post. I agree with nearly everything you have both written, but I specially am commenting on Rand's perceptions which I am not sure your statements entirely line up with. From the Rand Lexicon on sex: "But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he’s taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment..." "Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important . . . ." I completely agree that physical pleasure must necesarily be connected with rational values. One should not merely pursue every action on whim or brute emotion, but should consider the logical and more implications and goals of their actions. My problem with Rand's perception of sex is that I do not see why sex gets this "artifical" boost. Why is sex one of the most "important" aspects of life? Spiral Architect- "So the choice is do you accept the minimum happiness in your life, or do you take responsibility for your life and happiness and set about maximizing it. Do you learn the values you want to gain or keep, and then get out there any realize them in a partner?" I think this is a false dichotomy which Rand falls into. You later say that you have no problem with one night stands if they are honestly done, but as far as I can tell Rand did not agree (as indicated by the above quotes). "if it is simple physical pleasure you want, frankly you could just masturbate. Or if you are heterosexual you could easily solve your physical desire by taking a partner of the same sex since no mental consideration is necessary. It is only physical, right? You only need to provide the stimulus and let your mind wander through a fantasy, right?" I do not fulfill sexual desires just so I can stop being aroused, but also to gain a great amount of pleasure. Masturbation is nice and all but obviously there is a difference in sensation compared with having sex with another individual. It is my desire to maximize my pleasure with sexual encounters and generally sex with another person is preferable to masturbation. As a straight male, I do not desire having sex with other males because of my biological attraction to females. I do not think I have the will power, nor do I see any reason to close my eyes and have sex with a male while blanking out. Eiuol - 1. By "irrelevent" I was refering to your bag of potato chips scenario in reference to the relationship between sexual partners. You say that it is wrong to think about sex as "skin rubbing against skin," I do not see why. Furthermore, I do not see why thinking about it in that way necesarily means that it is divorced from value. Value is gained from sex because it provides physical pleasure. It certainly can provide more if there is a deep and meaninful connection between those involved, but my case is that the deep connection does not have to exist in order for sex to have value. What makes sex inherently different from getting a massage or engaging in any other physically pleasureable activity between consenting adults? 2. I don't think there is a "too much" or "too little" sex, just a general propensity to engage in sexual activity. There are people who never have sex before they are married and there are those who get laid a few times a week. It is a vague generalization to be sure. The "highest value" issue is that I am really sticking on. Presumably another woman's physical beauty is not a "highest value," and thus Rand would consider sleeping with a woman only for her looks to be an immoral action (or perhaps not an immoral action, but indiciative of an immoral personality if I understand Reidy). I am questioning why is this the case with sex but not any other random pleasureable act. Why is ok for me to get a massage from some random person who I don't care about purely for the sake of physical pleasure, but it is immoral for me to sleep with a feeble minded slut for a night purely for the physical pleasure? "If promiscuity meant having a one -night stand every single day for a year, it'd probably be destructive to the extent of foregoing a lot closer relationships." I agree, and to reiterate, pursuit of sex for purely physical pleasure should not get in the way of meaningful relationships. But this does not mean that it should never be pursued under any circumstances. "You did give an example of being repulsed by a personality but still wanting to have sex with them, but do you think it's possible in that situation to go through with it? I would imagine that such repulsion would kill the mood." Of course an attractive personality would be preferable but between a choice of "attractive moron or masturbation," I might choose the former depending upon how repulsive the personality was and how attractive she was.

I think that is an irrational thought.

Why would someone of good character not be interested in buying a prostitute for a night of fun?

What if I value the person purely on the grounds of their physical appearence? I am repulsed by the personality, but she is gorgeous and therefore I want to initate a one night stand with no further intentions. "Sexual desires aren't independent of one's values, and that fact shouldn't be ignored." I agree with this, but I think Rand took it a step too far, to the point of "sexual desires aren't independent of one's highest values, and that fact shouldn't be ignored." My highest value in another person is not her physical appearence, yet I believe that can rightfully be the sole determinate of whether or not I would want to have sex with her.

To reiterate, I believe Rand's views on sex were mystical in that she arbitrarily elevated a random physical activity to an inflated moral level. In response to Eiuol: "1) what is meant by approaching sex casually?" To approach sex casually is to approach it in a non-intimate way (broadly). Generally this means that relationships and emotions are either irrelevent or non-existent. Examples include "friends with benefits" or going to a bar to have sex with a stranger just because she is attractive. "2) what exactly does promiscuity mean?" High propensity to engage in sex. Generally, promiscuity is correlated with casual sex. By my understanding of Rand, sex is a deeply "spiritual" (by her definition) act which should only occur between individuals who greatly value each other in a romantic way. To Rand, promiscuity would nearly always be immoral since promiscuous people generally engage in sex purely for physical pleasure or on whims. An example of the opposite would be Howard Roarke who rarely engaged in sex (if ever, I cannot recall) before meeting Dominique because few people could rise to meet his value standard. "Also, just to add, food isn't a great comparison, since we're talking about human relationships. I would say friendship is important enough to never treat casually or lightly, as an example, although many people may interpret any friendship to be casual since it's not a romantic relationship." I am arguing that sex doesn't have to involve human relationships in any meaningful sense. I do not see the immorality of meeting a stranger in a bar and engaging in sex without any intention of starting a romantic or friendly relationship with the person.

I will start a new thread.