A Survey + Introduction

[Athenian]

Hello. I am a student with interests in philosophy, politics and sociology.

Although I am not an Objectivist, I have joined this website to learn more about the philosophy and to discuss with its adherents. One subject of particular interest to me is ethical egoism, which I am currently researching. Learning about Objectivism may give me some insight and perspective into this issue.

I would also be interested in discussing other philosophical and political issues, as it seems reasonable that most people here would have an above average level of interest and knowledge in these fields.

I would appreciate it if you could fill in the survey I have designed. I am interested in how people here feel about certain issues, for multiple reasons.

Thank you for your time. I hope that time I spent on this forum will be productive and helpful.

[SapereAude]

Welcome to the forum, Athenian.

I hope you find what you're looking for here..

Regarding question 3, I find it problematic. I had to check none because while I've voted for candidates of different parties I don't vote for the party. I vote for the individual.

I suspect this is a distinction that many Oists will stick on and could give you a skewed result.

[Dante]

Welcome. Good luck with your research. I'd suggest delving into the specifics of Objectivism's form of ethical egoism rather than relying primarily on what Objectivists say about concrete issues. Tara Smith has some great resources on Objectivism's brand of ethical egoism.

[2046]

I'm not really satisfied enough with the options provided to answer your survey.

In the first question, an option that amounts to “climate change always occurs, may and may not be related to human causes in certain instances, however the government has no right to use criminal aggression against innocents, the problem either way should and can only be solved by respecting individual rights” is not presented. Perhaps this could be the option of “climate change is a socialist non sequitur.”

Second question, the option of “Objectivism” is not presented. The Objectivist understanding of free will is a sui generis theory that is not really compatible with the usual options.

The third question, it is a false alternative to ask “which party will someone vote for,” as if the parties themselves were on the ballot as a whole. There is no option of “who to vote for really depends on the context of the situation vis-a-vis its effects on individual rights.”

The final question has a problem insofar as what you mean by “interfere with business” isn't really clear by what you present. According to Objectivism, the government does have a right and the obligation to interfere with those who engage in the initiation of force or fraud in order to protect persons and property from assault by criminals. There are murderers, muggers, rapists, robbers, and con men of various types. The deeds of all these categories of people represent the use of coercion against innocents. The government's interference with the activities of these people is entirely appropriate and does not itself constitute intervention into the economy, since it is action that ensures voluntary exchange and trade.

The government, however, does not have a right to itself become criminal, to initiate the use of force against innocents, which means the government does not have a right to intervene in the market economy. So, “The government has no right to interfere with business at all” isn't even really an accurate enough summation of the principle of laissez-faire. Perhaps if it were replaced with “The government has no right to intervene in the economy,” or “The government has no right to enact any legislation which hinders the operation of the market economy.” Next, with the above understanding of economic interventionism, “Regulating honest advertising,” if we take it to mean nothing more than the outlawing of dishonest advertising, isn't really an intervention in the market or a regulation of business, but the use of the general anti-fraud law.

[Dante]

Next, with the above understanding of economic interventionism, “Regulating honest advertising,” if we take it to mean nothing more than the outlawing of dishonest advertising, isn't really an intervention in the market or a regulation of business, but the use of the general anti-fraud law.

For your research reference, I'm the one that voted for that one (honest advertising), and that's precisely why I did.

[mmmcannibalism]

For your research reference, I'm the one that voted for that one (honest advertising), and that's precisely why I did.

Same, I felt that it implied(perhaps just because it was being asked to objectivists)that it meant regulating fraud in advertising.

[FeatherFall]

For your research reference, I'm the one that voted for that one (honest advertising), and that's precisely why I did.

Similarly, the question about food safety could be answered "yes" if it was interpreted to involve laws against poisoning people (or something like it). I did not select it because food safety regulation in the US involves a lot of other rights-violating nonesense. All of the questions seem to warrant a more detailed reply if the Objectivist position is to be understood. I'll take a stab at it later tonight if I have the time.

[Dante]

Similarly, the question about food safety could be answered "yes" if it was interpreted to involve laws against poisoning people (or something like it). I did not select it because food safety regulation in the US involves a lot of other rights-violating nonesense.

Yeah, I was considering that one as well, but I ultimately didn't choose it because (unlike the advertising one), there is no indication of fraud or of deceiving consumers in the way that regulation is phrased in the poll. The rights violation comes from concealing the harmfulness of food products (fraud), not of the selling of harmful products in general.

[Nicky]

Hi, Athenian. I have an answer for all of them, but for the most part my answer is not among the options you provided.

1. Climate change is real, and to some extent it is caused by man made gases. But the exact warming, as well as the consequences of that warming are unknown. The one thing that is clear is that the UN, NASA and environmentalist claims on the extent and the consequences are all false, and not by honest mistake but deliberate fraud. It's also clear that government action is not justified in any way. Concern is, of course. Who would think that the state of the planet's climate shouldn't be our concern?

2. Free will exists, so does causality. Determinism is wrong.

3. I'll vote for the best candidate, irrespective of what party they're in. My current preferences are Gingrich, Gary Johnson, and Obama (if Gingrich is nominated, I'm voting for him, otherwise Johnson. If he drops out too, I'm going with Obama over any of the other Repub. candidates).

4. Sometimes.

5. Is this thing broken? Why did Softwarenerd vote for every one of these? There's no way an oist forum's admin thinks minimum wage is a good idea. None of the above, of course. I would go with the environmental impact one, but only if it didn't also include sustainability. And there are other legitimate roles, not on the list. Like patents, regulating commerce with enemy countries, regulating weapons manufacturing and sales to some extent, etc.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Nicky

[softwareNerd]

5. Is this thing broken? Why did Softwarenerd vote for every one of these? There's no way an oist forum's admin thinks minimum wage is a good idea.

I wonder how that happened. I just deleted my votes and tried again and came out fine.

[brian0918]

I am interested in how people here feel about certain issues

You will find that the conclusions Objectivists have reached on specific issues are primarily driven by rationale, not feeling.

Likewise, you cannot pretend to learn about Objectivism by simply examining particular conclusions on very specific issues.

Edited January 30, 2012 by brian0918