The Prudent Predator argument

[Marc K.]

[cut-paste]

If I do not understand Ayn Rand’s philosophy and you do, please be so kind as to address her claim that destruction of the looter is the price of looting [...]

[cut-paste]

[...] I will politely await such proof.

[cut-paste]

[...] unless you first prove [...]

[cut-paste]

If you do not understand Objectivism and are awaiting a proof how do you know what I have to prove first? Since you don't know where we're going, why don't you let me drive. We don't have to go all the way back to "A is A" or that there is one reality do we? Why don't you start by answering my questions:

Do you think that animals have rights? If not, why not? What is the essential difference between animals and men?

To make this point, I suggested that killing a hog would also serve as “proof” of the abandonment of reason.

Sorry, try again. You can prove no point by stating the illogical.

“Respecting the rights of others isn’t essential to thinking rationally,” you say? It follows then that it is possible to think rationally without respecting rights.

That's right. How, you say, is this possible? Now wait for it ....... are you listening? I can think rationally ...... on a desert island. Ta...da...

However, in society, if I am respectful of other's rights, I am, if not thinking rationally, at least I am acting rationally (which is all that is required).

Your statement that pulling a gun on a man shows the abandonment of reason can either a) be proved or cannot be proved.

I proved it, you just weren't listening.

In my scenario initially you are trying to rationally persuade me to give you money. When I say no you continue to reason with me, you use your mind to think of ways to convince me. After all, this is the least dangerous way for you to operate. However, once you pull the gun you are saying that your rational ability to persuade has failed you, you cannot think of another reason to give me so you resort to not allowing me to use my mind. Force is that which paralyzes the mind of the victim.

and provide evidence for it sufficient to overcome the counter-examples that I’ve listed in this thread.

You'll have to remind me. The only example I remember you giving is that it can sometimes be rational to point a loaded gun at your head and pull the trigger. Since it is never rational do this you'll have to do better.

[Gary Brenner]

softwareNerd wrote:

It is not always easy to project long-term consequences. In many older style economies, a large proportion of businessmen accept some weak version of the prudent-predator theory, trying to milk short term profit out of deals, with little perspective on the benefits of building reputation. If one looks at India and China, this ethical lesson is not an easy one for the locals to learn when their businesses are opened up to competition. However, after some trial and error, some get the practicality of non-predation and those are the companies that do the best in business.

My goal may not be to perform better than other businesses but to maximize profits by preventing competitors from entering the market.

For example, suppose government has prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcohol in my city. By bribing officials and deploying my squad of enforcers, I can operate as the exclusive vendor of illegal alcohol in my locality. My costs of bribery and enforcement may well be offset by my ability to charge double or triple the price that would exist in a freer market. And while it is true that demand would decline somewhat, my customer base may still be much larger than it would be under free competition.

In other words, the free market is a terrific idea. Nevertheless, some people can benefit from a highly regulated market.

[softwareNerd]

Why would you want to have a system where all the peoplem who produce the things you use bribe city officials and end up giving you lousy quality products at high prices? That isn't practical.

[Gary Brenner]

Inspector wrote:

It is not proved statistically using “data” as you put it. It is proved by knowing the source of self-esteem, which Objectivism does.

Then by what information-gathering mechanism does Objectivism “know” the source of my self-esteem?

Here is an excerpt on the subject of looting and self-esteem. Examine if you will...

“Both the bank robber and the ‘idiot-philosopher’ are psychological parasites. The basic cause in both cases is the same: a mental development arrested by a concrete-bound quest for the unearned. The basic motivation is the same: an overwhelming terror of reality and the desire to escape it.”

So if a bank robber is terrified of reality, why does he go into a real bank and not a fantasy bank? Why does he take real money and not fantasy money?

Remember, as I said, the extent that someone must declare war on reality and on all other men. Unless you think that it is practical to live by clubbing random people over the head, then “prudent” predation must mean fraud. It must mean concealing one’s crimes. Such a man\'s life becomes a quest to eternally conceal the facts of reality (the fact of his crimes, not only that he committed them, but that he is even capable of doing so) from the whole of humanity. Reality and its facts become one’s enemy.

The fact that a predator, in the process of committing fraud or another crime, conceals information from other people does not mean that he is concealing that information from himself. It doesn’t follow that hiding facts from others makes one an enemy of reality. If that were so, then Objectivism would have to take a position against military spies and undercover cops.

Here is some more on that point:

And if you think that war on reality is somehow compatible with reason, consider one more fact:

Friendship becomes completely impossible to such a man. Friendship is the sharing and recognition of one’s values. But a predator sees other men as prey. A man who shared his deepest values would be a fellow predator, and thus a constant threat to his life. He could not be friends with such a man.

A prudent predator would not necessarily have to be friends with other predators. In fact, he may take the same defensive measures against them as people in general do.

He also could not be friends with a producer, for he thinks producers to be suckers. Furthermore, any man of reason is a threat to him, as they may discover any of his frauds (or his biggest fraud - the concealment of his true nature). He would have to shun men of reason in favor of fools. Forget about romance; any woman smart enough for him to respect would be smart enough to find him out - or smart enough to plan his murder and escape with the insurance money. He would be genuinely, permanently alone.

A prudent predator need not think of all men as fools, only the ones who were foolish enough to be his victims. Furthermore, if he carefully conceals the source of his income, there is no reason why the prudent predator cannot enjoy friendships and intimate relationships. After all, agents in the U.S. intelligence establishment don’t talk shop with their family and neighbors. Why must the prudent predator?

I just have to stop and will say that the Objectivist argument on this subject is much larger, and much more complex than Gary has implied. So much so that it is safe to declare that he is simply so ignorant of Objectivism that he isn’t qualified to critique the philosophy.

Nothing that you quoted constitutes a proof that the looter is destroyed by his looting.

If committing fraud is “surrender[ing] one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one\'s master,” then, in order to get his money back, all the victim would have to do is command his “slave” to hand it back with interest. Try this the next time you’re cheated.

“Systematically court[ing] failure, pain, destruction” is not the same as being destroyed.

“Is [the liar] self-confident? Not if the term means confidence in one’s ability to deal with reality.” So the man who defrauds another is not dealing with reality? So in reality there was no transfer of money from the victim to the perpetrator? That could only mean that the victim in “reality” is not a victim.

Now of course Gary is still overlooking the most important part of Objectivism - the part too long to even attempt to put up here - epistemology. It’s a subject that dwarfs the above, but is absolutely critical to understanding the above. I guarantee that Gary will not be satisfied, since he still does not understand principles, and how to think in them.

Unproven assertion. The fact that a person does not embrace your principles does not indicate an inability to understand principles or to think in them.

[Gary Brenner]

Marc K. wrote:

If you do not understand Objectivism

That is your claim and one that remains to be proven.

and are awaiting a proof how do you know what I have to prove first?

The subject of this thread is at the top of the page. In order to address the topic, feel free to enter whatever argument you think works best.

Since you don\'t know where we’re going, why don\'t you let me drive. We don’t have to go all the way back to “A is A” or that there is one reality do we?

If you’ve been following the thread you would know that we don’t.

Why don\'t you start by answering my questions:

I answered it in Post #505:

“No, the point is, as I’ve shown in this thread, we don’t arrive at a system of rights, a system of Thou Shall Not Aggress Against Others, from the premise that one’s own life is the standard of one’s values. There are just too many circumstances in which self-interest is well served by prudent theft. If you intend to prove that someone is irrational because he has taken money out of another man’s pocket, you must first prove that respecting the possessions of others is essential to thinking rationally. But so far Objectivism has not done that. Therefore, Rand’s argument provides no better support for human rights than it does for, say, animal rights.”

My purpose here is not to examine the case for rights in general, but to see if rights can be derived from Ayn Rand’s egoistic premise.

Sorry, try again. You can prove no point by stating the illogical.

There is no better logic in the Objectivist attempt to derive human rights from the premise that one’s life is the standard of one’s values.

That’s right. How, you say, is this possible? Now wait for it ....... are you listening? I can think rationally ...... on a desert island. Ta...da...

However, in society, if I am respectful of other’s rights, I am, if not thinking rationally, at least I am acting rationally (which is all that is required).

In Post #423, you wrote, “Reason and force are opposites. A gun is not an argument. As soon as you pull the gun, you abandon reason.”

In Post #512, you wrote, “Respecting the rights of others isn’t essential to thinking rationally.”

I can only conclude that your position is that one can violate the rights of others and still think rationally as long as one does not pull a gun on them.

I proved it, you just weren’t listening.

In Post #512 in response to my statement “you must first prove that respecting the possessions of others is essential to thinking rationally,” you wrote, “Objectivism will never prove that because it is backward.”

So what is your \"backward\" proof again?

In my scenario initially you are trying to rationally persuade me to give you money. When I say no you continue to reason with me, you use your mind to think of ways to convince me. After all, this is the least dangerous way for you to operate. However, once you pull the gun you are saying that your rational ability to persuade has failed you, you cannot think of another reason to give me so you resort to not allowing me to use my mind. Force is that which paralyzes the mind of the victim.

Your scenario was written in response to my question in Post #416, “Where is the demonstration that those who steal from others abandon reason?”

The fact that a predator “paralyzes the mind of the victim” does not demonstrate that the predator himself has abandoned reason.

Furthermore, an inability to persuade someone else of something does not prove the abandonment of reason either. There are many theists I’ve not been able to move from their faith in God; that hardly says anything against my commitment to reason.

You’ll have to remind me.

You can start with my Post #1 in this thread.

The only example I remember you giving is that it can sometimes be rational to point a loaded gun at your head and pull the trigger. Since it is never rational do this you\'ll have to do better.

A you will have to do better than that. I have never said that it is rational to to point a loaded gun at your head and pull the trigger unless one has both reward for that action and protection from the bullet.

[Gary Brenner]

softwareNerd wrote:

Why would you want to have a system where all the peoplem who produce the things you use bribe city officials and end up giving you lousy quality products at high prices? That isn’t practical.

I don’t want such a system. And the vast majority of people don’t want it either. But that isn’t the point. Government prohibition, regulation and licensing can be very beneficial to certain special interest groups. If government intervention never benefited anyone, people would not spend millions of dollars trying to get special interest legislation passed.

[hunterrose]

You can't arrive at any system of Thou Shall X from the premise that one’s own life is the standard of one's values. There are just too many circumstances in which self-interest is well served by not doing X.

If X equals maintaining one’s life, then the above statement is false.

Nope. There are just too many circumstances in which the looter is "well served" by not maintaining his life e.g. if someone (who is more expert at maintaining his life) maintains his life for him.

If it were true that X may maintain Y’s life as long as X is “more expert at maintaining his life,” then it would apply to the non-looter as well as well as to the looter.

Let's stipulate that. You still believe that there are some circumstances in which one is well-served by not maintaining one's own life. Thus, according to your metaethics, maintaining one's life wouldn't count as a Thou Shall.

So the question remains: is there anything that qualifies (to you) as an objective ought? If there isn't, then your stance isn't just anti-Objectivist, but (far, far worse) anti-ethics in general.

You still have not explained away all the counter-examples to Rand’s claim that destruction of the looter is the price of looting.

What's there to explain? Pick a form of destruction. It's blatantly obvious that looters don't necessarily meet physical destruction. If you can find where Rand said otherwise, everyone would admit she was wrong on that count.

Personally, I don't care for the arguments that looters will necessarily meet emotional/mental/happiness destruction. I don't know why you'd possibly want to tackle such an imbroglio, but if you do, come up with a way to prove whether a person who appears happy and mentally/emotionally whole isn't actually unhappy or emotionally/mentally destroyed. I think that's a waste of time, but... whatever.

Whatever form of destruction you're talking about, it doesn't matter. Rand NEVER said that you shouldn't loot because you are guaranteed to meet destruction X. If she did, then her argument against looting would rise and fall with appropriate examples. Since she didn't... what difference do your counter-examples make in terms of ethics?

We don’t make such a case because it is not a “given” that “self-interest is well served by not doing the action that is likely to help one attain one’s goal.”

Surely you, the Counter-exampler, don't deny that there are some circumstances in which one's self-interest is well served by not doing the action that is likely to help one attain one's goal??? Because softwareNerd long ago mentioned that there are plenty of circumstances where people play the lottery (an action that is not likely to attain one's goals) and end up more well served than if they'd put it the same money into the S&P 500 (an action that is likely to attain one's goals).

Again, the point is that you are a victim of the same argument you're using against Rand. If a couple of circumstances where people profited from not doing Rand's oughts invalidates her oughts... then a couple of circumstances where people profited from not doing Gary Brenner's oughts invalidates his oughts.

[Inspector]

Then by what information-gathering mechanism does Objectivism “know” the source of my self-esteem?

By knowing the source of self-esteem as such; of all self-esteem.

It doesn’t follow that hiding facts from others makes one an enemy of reality. If that were so, then Objectivism would have to take a position against military spies and undercover cops.

Spies and undercover cops only declare war on a specific group of people: criminals or an enemy nation; not the whole of humanity. And they only do so temporarily, not for the rest of their lives.

A prudent predator would not necessarily have to be friends with other predators. In fact, he may take the same defensive measures against them as people in general do.

He would have to. Friendship would be impossible.

A prudent predator need not think of all men as fools, only the ones who were foolish enough to be his victims. Furthermore, if he carefully conceals the source of his income, there is no reason why the prudent predator cannot enjoy friendships and intimate relationships. After all, agents in the U.S. intelligence establishment don’t talk shop with their family and neighbors. Why must the prudent predator?

Because unlike a spy, the predator's victims are his family and neighbors. His victims are the whole of humanity - everyone is potential prey. Any non-predator is worthy of his contempt, since they are foolish enough to not be predators, which he is convinced is superior. He would be incapable of respecting them.

Nothing that you quoted constitutes a proof that the looter is destroyed by his looting.

You missed one of the most important quotes - the one that described how the whole way you are going about this is a total misunderstanding of the Objectivist position.

Philosophy can tell us only this much: reality is a unity; to depart from it at a single point, therefore, is to depart from it in principle and thus to play with a lighted fuse. The bomb may not go off. The liar may blank out the power of his nemesis: that which is, and may get away with any given scheme; he may win the battle. But if such are the battles he is fighting, he has to lose the war...

This is true by the nature of dishonesty, by the nature of the principle it involves—even if, like Gyges in Plato's myth, the liar is never found out and amasses a fortune. It is true because the fundamental avenger of his life of lies is not the victims or the police, but that which one cannot escape: reality itself.

If committing fraud is “surrender[ing] one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one\'s master,” then, in order to get his money back, all the victim would have to do is command his “slave” to hand it back with interest. Try this the next time you’re cheated.

Wow, you sure are concrete bound.

“Systematically court[ing] failure, pain, destruction” is not the same as being destroyed.

So systematically courting disaster is good, then?

Unproven assertion. The fact that a person does not embrace your principles does not indicate an inability to understand principles or to think in them.

I think those of us here who think in principles will all, unanimously, agree that it has been proven you are not thinking in principles. You've responded in an unprincipled fashion to every argument raised. You won't speak in universals. You refuse to make generalizations. Every moral question is an isolated event for you, which is to be considered without reference to principle - only probability. Your method is textbook pragmatism (literally in this case as you match what is in the Objectivist textbooks to a "T").

If government intervention never benefited anyone, people would not spend millions of dollars trying to get special interest legislation passed.

That's not true. People would and do in fact do so despite the fact that it is not in their interest. 10,000 Frenchmen can be wrong.

[Inspector]

If there isn't, then your stance isn't just anti-Objectivist, but (far, far worse) anti-ethics in general.

...Exactly as predicted.

[JMeganSnow]

Government prohibition, regulation and licensing can be very beneficial to certain special interest groups. If government intervention never benefited anyone, people would not spend millions of dollars trying to get special interest legislation passed.

Define "benefit" if you will.

People spend millions of dollars on all kinds of things that don't benefit them: expenditure of effort or cash is not proof of the existence of benefit, real or perceived. Only by reference to objectively-defined principles can you determine whether anything is actually a benefit to anyone, that meaning a long-term, over-all service to their life.

Part of the prudent-predator idea is the conception that a given "thing" is a benefit in and of itself, and thus that you benefit by acquiring it via whatever means. Things, however, are just things. Money is only worth what it can buy for you, which, in a world where everyone else has been drained to line your pocket, is not much. Feudal barons had the power to squelch and loot would-be competitors that modern barons can only dream of . . . and the poorest relatively-free American has amenities that a medival baron could not obtain for any price.

You say that you don't want this kind of society? With good reason, I expect, it was miserable! However, when you advocate prudent-predator, this is actually the kind of society you are advocating. So, taking the long term, how does ANY act of prudent-predator actually benefit you?

The next usual claim is that you can get away with it because prudent predators will be a small proportion of the population, so in those circumstances it's fine. However this is an unwarranted assumption to make. As Francisco said, when brutality is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. Each successful predator becomes a magnet for other predators, that get wealth from him as he got it.

There are many things that you may be able to successfully get away with for a time. You could never brush your teeth, for instance, or never bathe, or never exercise. Would you say that prudent-predator principle thus dictates that you should be a teeth-rotted filthy smelly couch potato? Why don't you go ahead and do that, then. I predict the rest of us will be rid of you shortly.

[aequalsa]

If a prudent predator after careful study determines that he can take his neighbor’s gold coins with only a very slight chance of being caught, then his analysis is no different in kind from that of the risk-taking stock broker or real estate speculator.

This is only with a very short sighted prudent predator. If he considered all of the factors and long term ramifiations of his actions he would realize that

People mistakenly think of themselves as fairly static whereas their beliefs and attitudes are in a fairly constant state of fluxuation. One major factor of change is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term that describes the inner turmoil that results when one's actions do not match one's beliefs. What tends to happen in most people is that when you act in a certain way, eventually your beliefs will shift to correlate with your actions. This relieves that tension. Another well established belief in psychology is that opposites do not generally attract, rather, like attracts like. So people have friends and loved ones and even acquaintances who are generally like them.

My experience confirms these two notions well enough for my satisfaction (though I admit it is not the geometric proof you ask for). Peoples beliefs eventually match their actions. Virtuous people tend to have virtuous friends and predators tend to have predator friends. This creates a sort of loose karma where the influences, opportunities, and effects of their immediate environment are more or less likely to benefit or harm the individual in question.

Again, not a proof, but this is one of the many "intangible" side effects that the prudent predator will not escape.

[Gary Brenner]

hunterrose wrote:

Let’s stipulate that You still believe that there are some circumstances in which one is well-served by not maintaining one’s own life. Thus, according to your metaethics, maintaining one’s life wouldn’t count as a Thou Shall.

Let’s not stipulate it. Such circumstances assume the existence of a force better (“more expert,” as you say) at maintaining a subject’s life than the subject himself is. But such an assumption is purely theoretical; you’ve provided no real world instance where that is the case – unless you are talking about the severely retarded or brain damaged. Yet in regard to the latter, we would have to question whether ethical choices are even possible inasmuch as there is an absence of volition. Therefore, maintaining one’s life still counts as a Thou Shalt in the context of holding one’s own life as the standard of one’s values.

So the question remains: is there anything that qualifies (to you) as an objective ought? If there isn’t, then your stance isn’t just anti-Objectivist, but (far, far worse) anti-ethics in general.

I’ve said it many times before: if one’s life is the standard of one’s values, one ought to take actions which are likely to preserve (and perhaps enrich) one’s life.

What’s there to explain? Pick a form of destruction. It’s blatantly obvious that looters don’t necessarily meet physical destruction. If you can find where Rand said otherwise, everyone would admit she was wrong on that count.

I never insisted that Rand meant physical destruction. Early in the debate I said I’d be willing to entertain arguments for destruction in any sense of the word. Now all you all have to do is demonstrate that all looters face destruction, physical or non-physical. If you cannot do this, then we can agree that Rand is in error, as I said in my Post #1.

Personally, I don’t care for the arguments that looters will necessarily meet emotional/mental/happiness destruction.

Me neither.

I don’t know why you’d possibly want to tackle such an imbroglio, but if you do, come up with a way to prove whether a person who appears happy and mentally/emotionally whole isn’t actually unhappy or emotionally/mentally destroyed. I think that’s a waste of time, but... whatever.

To be sure, I don’t want to tackle it. Assertions about a person’s happiness are non-quantifiable, non-falsifiable and thus unscientific. If you prefer, we’ll stick to physical destruction.

Whatever form of destruction you\'re talking about, it doesn\'t matter. Rand NEVER said that you shouldn’t loot because you are guaranteed to meet destruction X. If she did, then her argument against looting would rise and fall with appropriate examples. Since she didn’t... what difference do your counter-examples make in terms of ethics?

Then, if we start with the premise that one’s life is the standard of one’s values, just what is the Objectivist case against looting as a means of furthering one’s life?

Surely you, the Counter-exampler, don’t deny that there are some circumstances in which one’s self-interest is well served by not doing the action that is likely to help one attain one’s goal???

Because softwareNerd long ago mentioned that there are plenty of circumstances where people play the lottery (an action that is not likely to attain one’s goals) and end up more well served than if they’d put it the same money into the S&P 500 (an action that is likely to attain one\'s goals).

Self-interest is best served by taking stock of reality. Only one in 80 million people can benefit from buying a lottery ticket. It is not a rational gamble. On the other hand, a skilled poker player can make a comfortable living at the game because the odds are not overwhelmingly against him. As I’ve said all along, rational living is a matter of intelligently weighing potential benefits against costs.

Again, the point is that you are a victim of the same argument you’re using against Rand. If a couple of circumstances where people profited from not doing Rand\'s oughts invalidates her oughts... then a couple of circumstances where people profited from not doing Gary Brenner’s oughts invalidates his oughts.

First of all, the millions of people who plan, implement and benefit from government theft are more than “a couple of circumstances.” Secondly, if certain people can selfishly profit and prosper by not following Rand’s prohibition on the initiation of force, why should we suppose that her oughts apply to them? (And if they don’t, then her system is non-universal.) Thirdly, refer to my second paragraph in this post and then, if you are up to it, offer a counter-example.

[Gary Brenner]

Inspector wrote:

By knowing the source of self-esteem as such; of all self-esteem.

Self-esteem is respecting or valuing oneself. Now how do you propose to prove that the self-esteem of every looter is less than that of every producer?

Spies and undercover cops only declare war on a specific group of people: criminals or an enemy nation; not the whole of humanity. And they only do so temporarily, not for the rest of their lives.

And bank robbers only declare war on a specific bank, not the whole of humanity. And many looters get rich quick and retire early.

He would have to. Friendship would be impossible.

Because unlike a spy, the predator’s victims are his family and neighbors. His victims are the whole of humanity - everyone is potential prey.

Were you thinking of a predator who robbed his wife, his children and then went house to house like an Anti-Santa Claus and held up every other family on the planet? I was thinking of the predator who pirated some software for a few years and used the earnings to buy his wife a fur coat and put his kids through college.

Any non-predator is worthy of his contempt, since they are foolish enough to not be predators, which he is convinced is superior. He would be incapable of respecting them.

Just as some mathematicians are not contemptuous of non-mathematicians among their friends and families, so some predators don’t have hard feelings against their acquaintances who don’t pursue the wild and woolly life of a criminal.

You missed one of the most important quotes - the one that described how the whole way you are going about this is a total misunderstanding of the Objectivist position.

“Philosophy can tell us only this much: reality is a unity; to depart from it at a single point, therefore, is to depart from it in principle and thus to play with a lighted fuse.

“. . . . —even if, like Gyges in Plato\'s myth, the liar is never found out and amasses a fortune. It is true because the fundamental avenger of his life of lies is not the victims or the police, but that which one cannot escape: reality itself.”

So, tell me, how did “reality itself” punish Chairman Mao for his crimes against humanity?

Wow, you sure are concrete bound.

So when Rand said that the liar made other men his “master,” she meant something other than “master”? Wow.

So systematically courting disaster is good, then?

Not at all. But remember our purpose here is to prove whether or not the destruction of the looter is “inevitable” (your word from an earlier post).

I think those of us here who think in principles will all, unanimously, agree that it has been proven you are not thinking in principles.

Hooray for majority rule! Everyone who has read the thread and communicated with me privately agrees that I have followed Rand’s basic ethical principle and have shown that it does not lead to the conclusion that Rand claims for it.

You’ve responded in an unprincipled fashion to every argument raised.

Not true. I have endorsed Rand’s epistemology and initial ethical premise and I’ve used the principles of logic to make my case, including pointing out fallacies committed by others in arguing against me.

You won’t speak in universals. You refuse to make generalizations. Every moral question is an isolated event for you, which is to be considered without reference to principle - only probability. Your method is textbook pragmatism (literally in this case as you match what is in the Objectivist textbooks to a \"T\").

1. I’ve never denied universals. I’ve employed them a number of times, as in 2 + 2 = 4. What I don’t go along with are phony universals that attempt to make sweeping generalizations about “man” and that can be easily disproved by reference to the world around us.

2. I have not disputed the existence or value of certain moral principles. I have repeatedly endorsed Rand’s primary ethical statement than an organism’s life is the standard of its values.

3. I am not a pragmatist, and I’ve presented specific evidence to refute that allegation.

That’s not true. People would and do in fact do so despite the fact that it is not in their interest. 10,000 Frenchmen can be wrong.

Granted. Not everyone would oppose government intervention even if they were shown that on the whole it harmed them. But I stand by my point that intervention is a net benefit to certain special interest group. Bootleggers and crime bosses had a heyday during alcohol prohibition. The drug company that lobbies states to pass laws mandating vaccinations for middle school girls stands to make a fortune.

[Gary Brenner]

JmeganSnow wrote:

Define “benefit” if you will.

Acquisitions, usually monetary but sometimes a boost in rank or power.

People spend millions of dollars on all kinds of things that don’t benefit them: expenditure of effort or cash is not proof of the existence of benefit, real or perceived. Only by reference to objectively-defined principles can you determine whether anything is actually a benefit to anyone, that meaning a long-term, over-all service to their life.

Very well. By what principles and at what point will Donald Trump determine that his investments have been a long-term, over-all service to his life?

Part of the prudent-predator idea is the conception that a given “thing” is a benefit in and of itself, and thus that you benefit by acquiring it via whatever means. Things, however, are just things. Money is only worth what it can buy for you, which, in a world where everyone else has been drained to line your pocket, is not much. Feudal barons had the power to squelch and loot would-be competitors that modern barons can only dream of . . . and the poorest relatively-free American has amenities that a medival baron could not obtain for any price.

I agree. That’s why most people would prefer to be tax looters in the modern U.S.A. than looting barons in medieval Europe.

You say that you don’t want this kind of society? With good reason, I expect, it was miserable! However, when you advocate prudent-predator, this is actually the kind of society you are advocating. So, taking the long term, how does ANY act of prudent-predator actually benefit you?

To be correct, I am not a predator, prudent or otherwise. Nor do I advocate looting as a practice for others. I have posited the prudent predator argument to show a faulty link in Rand’s ethical system, specifically that respecting the rights of others does not necessarily follow from setting one’s own life as the standard of one’s values. But to answer your question, there is no advantage to the looter in encouraging others to join him in his livelihood. In fact, like governments, many predators insist on limiting entry to the field, operating within an exclusive territory. On this practice see, for example, Mafioso: A History of the Mafia from its Origins to the Present Day by Gaia Servadio.

The next usual claim is that you can get away with it because prudent predators will be a small proportion of the population, so in those circumstances it’s fine. However this is an unwarranted assumption to make. As Francisco said, when brutality is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. Each successful predator becomes a magnet for other predators, that get wealth from him as he got it.

I’m not sure that this is true, except in the high stakes world of organized crime. I know of a shoplifter and a software pirate who don’t attract predators to any greater degree than other members of society with a similar level of wealth.

There are many things that you may be able to successfully get away with for a time. You could never brush your teeth, for instance, or never bathe, or never exercise. Would you say that prudent-predator principle thus dictates that you should be a teeth-rotted filthy smelly couch potato? Why don’t you go ahead and do that, then. I predict the rest of us will be rid of you shortly.

This takes us back to the question of risks and cost/benefit analysis. If there were some great incentive in not brushing one’s teeth, say a $100,000 prize for every tooth lost to rot, then it may well be prudent to toss out the toothbrush. But to get back to real world factors, from time to time life offers opportunities to attain large sums of money by violating the rights of others with minimal risk to oneself. I have already mentioned several times my friendship with an elderly, confused man who kept thousands of silver and gold coins in unlocked file cabinets in his home. He was no good at keeping records and regularly misplaced things. On my visits he often fell into a deep sleep. If I had chosen to, I could have made myself $50,000 richer and my friend would have been none the wiser.

I don’t see why we should assume, outside of detective fiction, that crime never pays.

[Gary Brenner]

aequalsa wrote:

This is only with a very short sighted prudent predator. If he considered all of the factors and long term ramifiations of his actions he would realize that

Are you saying that the long term ramifications will inevitably work against the looter? What is the basis for this claim? Yes, certain forms of theft are extremely poor risks. Bank robbery is a good example. But other forms of theft are not. For example, IP piracy. And when it comes to government-protected looting, such as tax collecting, the risks are virtually non-existent.

Peoples beliefs eventually match their actions. Virtuous people tend to have virtuous friends and predators tend to have predator friends. This creates a sort of loose karma where the influences, opportunities, and effects of their immediate environment are more or less likely to benefit or harm the individual in question.

Again, not a proof, but this is one of the many “intangible” side effects that the prudent predator will not escape.

Since we have been discussing the prudent predator we may ask 1) whether the predator is required to socialize with other predators, and 2) is it in his interest to be surrounded day in, day out by other predators? I am certain that there would be many complex factors involved in making these decisions. But we don’t necessarily have to assume that the intelligent looter has to spend his days holed up in a den of thieves.

[Inspector]

Self-esteem is respecting or valuing oneself. Now how do you propose to prove that the self-esteem of every looter is less than that of every producer?

I'm not entirely motivated to. You've demonstrated you're not even remotely familiar with the Objectivist argument that you claim to refute. Why should I bother educating you, here, manually? What do you offer me?

And bank robbers only declare war on a specific bank, not the whole of humanity.

Hello? Are you listening? Did you even read my last few posts? A bank robber must systematically conceal his crime, as well as his criminal nature, from the whole of humanity. If he sees nothing wrong, in principle, with preying on innocent human beings, then he must conceal this fact lest he be shunned and isolated from all other men. Furthermore, he will be in utter contempt of everyone who is "foolish" enough (in his eyes) to live as producers and not predators.

Were you thinking of a predator who robbed his wife, his children and then went house to house like an Anti-Santa Claus and held up every other family on the planet?

If he thought he could get away with it, he would most certainly do so. Why wouldn't he? If the probability of him getting rich exceeded the probability of him getting caught, why wouldn't he? Everyone - everyone is potential prey to such a man. This is something he must conceal at all costs from the whole world.

Just as some mathematicians are not contemptuous of non-mathematicians among their friends and families, so some predators don’t have hard feelings against their acquaintances who don’t pursue the wild and woolly life of a criminal.

Mathematicians don't kill people for a "living." To a predator, you are not only prey - you are also foolish for not realizing the "truth" as he has.

So, tell me, how did “reality itself” punish Chairman Mao for his crimes against humanity?

What the hell do I know of the life of Mao? All I know about him is that he was totally effing insane.

So when Rand said that the liar made other men his “master,” she meant something other than “master”? Wow.

You're only proving my point about your concrete-boundedness.

Not at all. But remember our purpose here is to prove whether or not the destruction of the looter is “inevitable” (your word from an earlier post).

So "systematically courting disaster" isn't good enough for you, then? You would recommend "systematically courting disaster?"

Hooray for majority rule! Everyone who has read the thread and communicated with me privately agrees that I have followed Rand’s basic ethical principle and have shown that it does not lead to the conclusion that Rand claims for it.

I don't give a damn what random people tell you. It is patently obvious to me that you are using a pragmatist's epistemology. I am confident it is obvious to anyone else that has a shred of understanding of Objectivist epistemology. So I don't feel the need to prove anything.

Not true. I have endorsed Rand’s epistemology...

Then why are you working in probabilities, answering every ethical question in reference to probability and not using ethical universals? Your claim is nothing but hot air.

2. I have not disputed the existence or value of certain moral principles. I have repeatedly endorsed Rand’s primary ethical statement than an organism’s life is the standard of its values.

You're a prudent predator, then? Tell me, predator, what crimes have you gotten away with?

3. I am not a pragmatist, and I’ve presented specific evidence to refute that allegation.

Really?

But I stand by my point that intervention is a net benefit to certain special interest group.

So you're saying that even though it destroys the hope of reaping the vast benefits of a full laisez-faire capitalist system, it is worth it for a few trifles? To whom? Idiots? I thought you said you accepted the goal of life and the means of reason? You're saying it would be in the short term interest of those who have abandoned reason, because they have abandoned reason? You're just taking it as a given that they have chosen an inferior means of living and then you are willing to judge on that concrete level that intervention "benefits" them? What would benefit them would be to have chosen a more lucrative way of life, and furthermore one that didn't cause society to crumble around them!

And you say you're not a pragmatist?!?

And don't give me that "well, it would be hard and require effort" thing, because as far as I can tell you are endorsing life here, no matter how painful and full of toil and effort! Exactly when did you smuggle in ease as a goal of your looter? How does ease further the goal of his staying alive?

Edited April 20, 2007 by Inspector

[Inspector]

But to answer your question, there is no advantage to the looter in encouraging others to join him in his livelihood. In fact, like governments, many predators insist on limiting entry to the field, operating within an exclusive territory. On this practice see, for example, Mafioso: A History of the Mafia from its Origins to the Present Day by Gaia Servadio.

Indeed, the looter's interest, even though he "knows" that a human being's best means of survival is looting, is to convince everyone else otherwise. One more way in which he must lie to all of humanity.

[exaltron]

I have already mentioned several times my friendship with an elderly, confused man who kept thousands of silver and gold coins in unlocked file cabinets in his home. He was no good at keeping records and regularly misplaced things. On my visits he often fell into a deep sleep. If I had chosen to, I could have made myself $50,000 richer and my friend would have been none the wiser.

Ok, I'll bite, why did you choose not to filch the coins? Clearly your friend would not have missed the coins and probably would never have used the money. According to your ethics (do whatever furthers your life or enhances your survival), this should have been a no-brainer, so why choose the immoral path of walking away from all that value?

[Gary Brenner]

Inspector wrote:

1. I’m not entirely motivated to. You’ve demonstrated you’re not even remotely familiar with the Objectivist argument that you claim to refute. Why should I bother educating you, here, manually? What do you offer me?

2. Hello? Are you listening? Did you even read my last few posts? A bank robber must systematically conceal his crime, as well as his criminal nature, from the whole of humanity.

1. I have quoted Ayn Rand directly and at some length. If you think I’ve misrepresented her argument, feel free to present the evidence.

2. The “whole” of humanity? “Whole” means entire, as in 100%. So if three men rob a bank together, each one has to keep the crime a secret not only from the other two but from himself as well?

1. If he sees nothing wrong, in principle, with preying on innocent human beings, then he must conceal this fact lest he be shunned and isolated from all other men. Furthermore, he will be in utter contempt of everyone who is “foolish” enough (in his eyes) to live as producers and not predators.

2. If he thought he could get away with it, he would most certainly do so. Why wouldn\'t he? If the probability of him getting rich exceeded the probability of him getting caught, why wouldn\'t he? Everyone - everyone is potential prey to such a man. This is something he must conceal at all costs from the whole world.

1. Yes, certain professions require keeping secrets from other people. A man working on a new invention may be cautiously tight-lipped, even though the endeavor takes years. But for both the inventor and the looter the payoff may be worthwhile.

And why should the looter necessarily hold the producer in contempt? A jewel thief may have very high regard for a person wealthy and sophisticated enough to accumulate a large cache of diamonds for him to steal.

2. Yes, if we are speaking of those predators who have robbed every single person in the world, then we are indeed speaking of looters who make all of mankind their prey. If we are speaking of the less ambitious predators, then that, of course, is not the case.

Mathematicians don’t kill people for a “living.” To a predator, you are not only prey - you are also foolish for not realizing the “truth” as he has.

So is it the fact that mathematicians don’t kill for a living that makes it impossible for them to be contemptuous of non-mathematicians? And why should we suppose that everyone is “prey” to the looter? If I steal diamonds and you own no diamonds, in what sense are you my “prey”? And why should the looter think badly of those who do not loot? More looters means more competition.

1. What the hell do I know of the life of Mao? All I know about him is that he was totally effing insane.

2. You’re only proving my point about your concrete-boundedness.

1. If that is all that you know about him, then you cannot conclude that “reality” punished him for his crimes against humanity. He may have been insane before he committed his first act of aggression.

2. You cannot have it both ways. If I am “concrete-bound” for taking Rand’s use of “master” literally, then I cannot be “concrete-bound” if I ask for a less literal interpretation.

So “systematically courting disaster” isn’t good enough for you, then? You would recommend “systematically courting disaster?”

You asked me earlier, “So systematically courting disaster is good, then?”

My answer: “Not at all.”

Perhaps I should have underlined it. In any case, we are no closer to proving that destruction is inevitable for all looters.

1. I don’t give a damn what random people tell you. It is patently obvious to me that you are using a pragmatist\'s epistemology. I am confident it is obvious to anyone else that has a shred of understanding of Objectivist epistemology. So I don’t feel the need to prove anything.

2. Then why are you working in probabilities, answering every ethical question in reference to probability and not using ethical universals? Your claim is nothing but hot air.

1. And, accordingly, I am not moved by your absence of proof.

2. The ethical universal “an organism’s life is its standard of values” does not tell one whether investing $1,000 in Coca-Cola stock is a good idea. One must look to the particulars of the circumstance. Similarly, that same ethical premise does not provide one with conclusive information about whether or not stealing another man’s horse is likely to be beneficial.

1. You’re a prudent predator, then? Tell me, predator, what crimes have you gotten away with?

2. So you’re saying that even though it destroys the hope of reaping the vast benefits of a full laisez-faire capitalist system, it is worth it for a few trifles? To whom? Idiots?

1. I made it abundantly clear early in the thread that I am not a predator. The argument I’ve presented is a demonstration that respect for individual rights does not follow logically from Rand’s egoistic premises.

2. Laissez faire benefits men of intelliegnce, ability and hard work. Interventionism benefits men with political pull. The beneficiaries in each case are not the same group of people. Hank Rearden vs. Orren Boyle.

I thought you said you accepted the goal of life and the means of reason? You’re saying it would be in the short term interest of those who have abandoned reason, because they have abandoned reason?

The assumption that the man who uses political pull has abandoned reason is unproven.

1. You’re just taking it as a given that they have chosen an inferior means of living and then you are willing to judge on that concrete level that intervention “benefits” them?

2. What would benefit them would be to have chosen a more lucrative way of life, and furthermore one that didn’t cause society to crumble around them!

1. It is well documented that government welfare benefits idlers, that forced affirmative action benefits the less qualified, that tax-funded art benefits “artists” who can’t make it in the free market, that regulation of professions benefits those who want less competition.

2. In the time since the U.S. welfare state began some seven decades ago, several generations of tax looters and welfare bureaucrats have earned comfortable incomes without being destroyed by the “crumbling society” around them.

1. And you say you’re not a pragmatist?!?

2. And don\'t give me that “well, it would be hard and require effort” thing, because as far as I can tell you are endorsing life here, no matter how painful and full of toil and effort! Exactly when did you smuggle in ease as a goal of your looter? How does ease further the goal of his staying alive?

1. I’m not aware that the definition of “pragmatist” is a person who observes that some segments of society benefit from coercion.

2. Very well. Where does one derive “ease” from the Objectivist ethics? Are those who choose ease over working weekends immoral?

Inspector wrote;

Indeed, the looter’s interest, even though he “knows” that a human being’s best means of survival is looting, is to convince everyone else otherwise.

The looter does not know any such thing, anymore than a professor of mathematics “knows” that a human being’s best means of survival is to teach math.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Gary Brenner

[Gary Brenner]

exaltron wrote:

Ok, I’ll bite, why did you choose not to filch the coins? Clearly your friend would not have missed the coins and probably would never have used the money. According to your ethics (do whatever furthers your life or enhances your survival), this should have been a no-brainer, so why choose the immoral path of walking away from all that value?

Fair question. I said early in the thread that I am not a predator, that I favor individualism, private property and capitalism. The rationale for this belief is the overwhelming evidence that laissez faire promotes peace, prosperity and a benevolent society for the vast majority of people. (My bible is Ludwig von Mises\'s The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth, more recently published as Liberalism). Yes, this is an efficiency or utilitarian justification and I am well aware of the pitfalls of utilitarianism. This discussion is motivated in part by my need to refine and strengthen my defense of the free market.

I did not mention it before, but I also subscribe to Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. While I disagree with Smith’s position that sympathy and fellow-feeling are innate, I think they nonetheless exert a strong influence on human behavior, although obviously not for everyone. They certainly do in my case.

In short, I want to promote a society that respects property, and my conscience would have plagued me if I took the old man’s gold. (His children ended up with the coins and cashed them in before he was cold in the ground.)

[JMeganSnow]

Acquisitions, usually monetary but sometimes a boost in rank or power.

See, this is the heart of the problem right here and the fundamental point on which all other disagreements are based . . . and no-one else bothered to say anything about it. *rolls eyes tiredly* It's amazing how much disagreement can be avoided by checking fundamental points before you run off half-cocked.

Nothing is inherently beneficial, not a rise in status, an increase in power, or the aquisition of more stuff. I can easily provide examples of all those that are not only not beneficial, but actually detrimental (I will do so if you feel the need for a concrete or two to relate the idea back to).

The important factor ignored by your (helpful, thank you) definition is the question of context. Specific things are only beneficial or detrimental in a specific context. So, in order to determine the status of some investment, you have to know the full context (or at the very least the fullest context available to you.

The problem is that the context even for a very simple act such as dusting your furniture is immense. Every part of reality is related to every other part, even if only on an undetectable level. If you were to try to consider every possible ramification of every possible action, you would go crazy--not to mention the fact that your mind just can't handle that quantity of information. The question is just too complex.

This is where principles come in: a principle is your method of reducing this enormity of context to a simple, graspable idea which you can then apply. Without principles, you could spend a lifetime studying one single option and still never be able to say definitively which course you should take. With a principle, you can understand not only this option but all options that are fundamentally related to it and dispense with it in seconds.

Now, let's look at some concretes:

Very well. By what principles and at what point will Donald Trump determine that his investments have been a long-term, over-all service to his life?

Actually, if I know anything about Donald Trump, he probably knew whether his investments would be a long-term, overall service to his life before he even made them! That is, after all, why he's rich and we're not: he's discovered and applied the principles of investment. It wasn't necessary for all his investments to pay off as long as he applied a consistent strategy and method to making them: if his principles were correct his investments had to pay off eventually.

This doesn't mean that it was given that Donald Trump would become rich: no principle can take into account freak happenstances. There might have been some kind of disaster. He could have been struck by lightning. However, simply because of their freakish nature, these same happenstances are not fundamental and do not matter when you form your principles. Would it make sense to guess randomly that you will be hit by a bus and killed on your 35th birthday and live your life accordingly? No.

This is also the invalidation of the prudent-predator principle. It relies on freak happenstances as its fundamental context. It relies on "well I won't get caught" (even though most criminals are), or "well I can be an exception" (even though most people aren't). It turns principles on their head and presents you with a principle of being un-principled.

Instead of simplifying a vast wealth of complexity, it turns you into a slave of that complexity, forcing you to guard every moment against ten million accidents you can't predict. A principled person only has to deal with the remote possibility a few freak disasters. To a prudent predator, every normal activity is a potential disaster waiting to happen. Yes, it might be possible for you to get away with it . . . just as it might be possible for me to be hit by a bus and killed on my 35th birthday. However, you cannot assume that and living your life in accordance with it is folly.

However, I can assume that if I discover and live by rational principles, I will enjoy success, not as an accident, but as the natural result of those principles.

[Inspector]

1. I have quoted Ayn Rand directly and at some length. If you think I’ve misrepresented her argument, feel free to present the evidence.

I did a lot more quoting than you, and the quotations I provided clearly refute your earlier characterization of Objectivism. What about that last bit that I highlighted in bold? Anything to say to that?

2. The “whole” of humanity? “Whole” means entire, as in 100%. So if three men rob a bank together, each one has to keep the crime a secret not only from the other two but from himself as well?

I was talking about a lone bank robber. But for each man he is in cahoots with, he must increase his risk of discovery exponentially.

1. Yes, certain professions require keeping secrets from other people. A man working on a new invention may be cautiously tight-lipped, even though the endeavor takes years.

You don't get it, do you? An inventor must only keep the secret of his invention, only temporarily, and he can still share it with trustworthy friends. He doesn't have to tell a single lie; just refuse to reveal details. He doesn't have to conceal that he is an inventor. A looter must lie to all men he meets, not only about his crime, but about his nature; about what he is. He must do so systematically and must invent an ever-expanding set of lies that he must never slip up on. He must especially not reveal it to friends and family, lest he alienate them as they will know themselves potential prey.

And why should the looter necessarily hold the producer in contempt? A jewel thief may have very high regard for a person wealthy and sophisticated enough to accumulate a large cache of diamonds for him to steal.

If he had so much respect, he wouldn't be able to destroy that man by looting him.

2. Yes, if we are speaking of those predators who have robbed every single person in the world, then we are indeed speaking of looters who make all of mankind their prey. If we are speaking of the less ambitious predators, then that, of course, is not the case.

No, you need to think in principles. Once you have decided that "robbing is okay," then you have, in principle declared all of mankind to be your prey.

So is it the fact that mathematicians don’t kill for a living that makes it impossible for them to be contemptuous of non-mathematicians?

No, it is the fact that mathematicians are producers. Their mode of living is production. They wouldn't have philosophic grounds to be in contempt of other producers qua production. Different professions are not fundamentally different from his, only superficially so. With looting, that is a philosophical difference, not one of career choice. It is a difference of morality.

1. If that is all that you know about him, then you cannot conclude that “reality” punished him for his crimes against humanity. He may have been insane before he committed his first act of aggression.

It doesn't matter whether he looted because he was insane or went insane from looting. Either way, you can't use him as an example of a man who "got away with it." But, as I pointed out a few posts ago with the quote I highlighted in bold, coming up with a man who "got away with it" does not constitute a refutation of the Objectivist position.

2. You cannot have it both ways. If I am “concrete-bound” for taking Rand’s use of “master” literally, then I cannot be “concrete-bound” if I ask for a less literal interpretation.

You weren't asking for a less concrete-bound interpretation; you were balking at the idea of one.

You asked me earlier, “So systematically courting disaster is good, then?”

My answer: “Not at all.”

Perhaps I should have underlined it. In any case, we are no closer to proving that destruction is inevitable for all looters.

"Systematically courting disaster" is the destruction of which Objectivism speaks (that, and the psycho-epistemological destruction). Unless you think "systematically courting disaster" is okay, then you can't endorse looting. Since you said "not at all," then am I to take it that you consider looting to be rejected as a rational ethical principle?

2. The ethical universal “an organism’s life is its standard of values” does not tell one whether investing $1,000 in Coca-Cola stock is a good idea. One must look to the particulars of the circumstance. Similarly, that same ethical premise does not provide one with conclusive information about whether or not stealing another man’s horse is likely to be beneficial.

You've yet to mention any universals in ethics. You've mentioned the one in meta-ethics, which you don't agree with but are merely using as a "devil's advocate" of sorts.

1. I made it abundantly clear early in the thread that I am not a predator. The argument I’ve presented is a demonstration that respect for individual rights does not follow logically from Rand’s egoistic premises.

Yes, I know. That's what's so confusing. If you're not, then the statement you made which I was responding to there makes no sense.

2. Laissez faire benefits men of intelliegnce, ability and hard work. Interventionism benefits men with political pull. The beneficiaries in each case are not the same group of people. Hank Rearden vs. Orren Boyle.

There is your problem. You take the existence of an Orren Boyle as a metaphysical given. But it most emphatically is not! Men choose to become Orren Boyles; nobody is born that way. And it is an irrational choice. So you can't just take it as a given that some men are Boyles and then judge what is best for them from there. You have to consider that they could have chosen not to be Boyles and ask if it would be better for them to be a Boyle in a Boyle's world, or an average, not particularly talented producer in a Galt's world. Definitely, the better choice is the latter!

2. In the time since the U.S. welfare state began some seven decades ago, several generations of tax looters and welfare bureaucrats have earned comfortable incomes without being destroyed by the “crumbling society” around them.

How can you know that? How many have died because of the inventions that were not invented? How many will die because of the same? How many got mediocre jobs because of the good jobs that were destroyed by the welfare state? How many were killed by the criminals that are caused by the welfare state? How many were killed in wars fought badly because of the philosophy which sustains a welfare state? How many will die if our society continues to slide away from individual rights? The world economy is sustained by the US economy. If ours collapses, you can look forward to the misery of ages thought long gone.

1. I’m not aware that the definition of “pragmatist” is a person who observes that some segments of society benefit from coercion.

I am aware of the definition where one approaches choices in an unprincipled fashion, as you did where you did not look out to the wider choice that I mentioned above, instead only doing a concrete-bound cost-benefit analysis on the range of the moment.

2. Very well. Where does one derive “ease” from the Objectivist ethics? Are those who choose ease over working weekends immoral?

Sometimes.

"The looter does not know any such thing, anymore than a professor of mathematics “knows” that a human being’s best means of survival is to teach math."

Mathematics is not an ethical choice. A mathematician does not make a philosophic statement about the universal nature of man.

[hunterrose]

Such circumstances assume the existence of a force better (“more expert,” as you say) at maintaining a subject’s life than the subject himself is. But such an assumption is purely theoretical; you’ve provided no real world instance where that is the case

Really? Prove that a billionaire can feed and shelter you better than you can?? Then perhaps you should define what you mean by "maintaining one's life" if you really want to insist this meets your standards of oughts.

You have to demonstrate that all looters face [guaranteed] destruction, physical or non-physical. If you cannot do this, then we can agree that Rand is in error, as I said in my Post #1.

I don't think Rand meant that looting is guaranteed to result in a destruction. However, if she did mean such and in terms of physical destruction, it'd be erroneous, I agree. If she mean such in terms of non-physical destruction, it'd be arbitrary (not erroneous) until a way to prove one whether was non-physically destroyed was arrived at.

Was that satisfactory?

There are plenty of circumstances where people play the lottery and end up more well served.

Self-interest is best served by taking stock of reality.

1. define "taking stock of reality"
   
2. prove that self-interest is best served by taking stock of reality
   
3. prove that people who win the lottery do not take stock of reality
   

If you cannot do this, then we can agree that winning more money than Mao or the average tax collector ever had qualifies as being well-served, at least as your counter-examples describe it.

If certain people can selfishly profit and prosper by not following Rand’s prohibition on the initiation of force, why should we suppose that her oughts apply to them?

If you truly believed that was relevant, you'd acknowledge that certain people profit by not following your ought of "more likely to succeed" actions. You haven't.

Refer to my second paragraph in this post and then, if you are up to it, offer a counter-example.

??? This...

If one’s life is the standard of one’s values, one ought to take actions which are likely to preserve (and perhaps enrich) one’s life.

...is your second paragraph, but what are you asking me to counter-example? You don't say why one ought to take actions that are more likely to preserve/enrich one's life.

[Gary Brenner]

JmeganSnow

See, this is the heart of the problem right here and the fundamental point on which all other disagreements are based . . . and no-one else bothered to say anything about it. *rolls eyes tiredly* It’s amazing how much disagreement can be avoided by checking fundamental points before you run off half-cocked.

Nothing is inherently beneficial, not a rise in status, an increase in power, or the aquisition of more stuff. I can easily provide examples of all those that are not only not beneficial, but actually detrimental (I will do so if you feel the need for a concrete or two to relate the idea back to).

Agreed. And I don’t think I have said anything to suggest that anything in and of itself is beneficial. Money, for example, is only a means to an end.

The important factor ignored by your (helpful, thank you) definition is the question of context. Specific things are only beneficial or detrimental in a specific context. So, in order to determine the status of some investment, you have to know the full context (or at the very least the fullest context available to you.

The problem is that the context even for a very simple act such as dusting your furniture is immense. Every part of reality is related to every other part, even if only on an undetectable level. If you were to try to consider every possible ramification of every possible action, you would go crazy--not to mention the fact that your mind just can’t handle that quantity of information. The question is just too complex.

This is where principles come in: a principle is your method of reducing this enormity of context to a simple, graspable idea which you can then apply. Without principles, you could spend a lifetime studying one single option and still never be able to say definitively which course you should take. With a principle, you can understand not only this option but all options that are fundamentally related to it and dispense with it in seconds.

Now, let\\\'s look at some concretes:

Actually, if I know anything about Donald Trump, he probably knew whether his investments would be a long-term, overall service to his life before he even made them! That is, after all, why he’s rich and we’re not: he’s discovered and applied the principles of investment. It wasn’t necessary for all his investments to pay off as long as he applied a consistent strategy and method to making them: if his principles were correct his investments had to pay off eventually.

This doesn\\\'t mean that it was given that Donald Trump would become rich: no principle can take into account freak happenstances. There might have been some kind of disaster. He could have been struck by lightning. However, simply because of their freakish nature, these same happenstances are not fundamental and do not matter when you form your principles. Would it make sense to guess randomly that you will be hit by a bus and killed on your 35th birthday and live your life accordingly? No.

This is also the invalidation of the prudent-predator principle. It relies on freak happenstances as its fundamental context. It relies on “well I won’t get caught” (even though most criminals are), or “well I can be an exception” (even though most people aren’t). It turns principles on their head and presents you with a principle of being un-principled.

I agree that it would be irrational to expect that one could survive on freak happenstances. For example, it is a stupid waste of time and money to attempt to become a millionaire by playing the lottery. But not all predatory activity relies on dumb luck. Some forms of looting involve no greater risk than that required to invest in the stock market or speculate on real estate. And some no risk at all. I have already mentioned the looters who work full-time for the IRS. Since our government has been hiring income tax looters for nearly a century, in what sense is successful tax looting a freak happenstance? And why should federally employed looters have to worry about “getting caught”? If so, by whom?

Instead of simplifying a vast wealth of complexity, it turns you into a slave of that complexity, forcing you to guard every moment against ten million accidents you can’t predict. A principled person only has to deal with the remote possibility a few freak disasters. To a prudent predator, every normal activity is a potential disaster waiting to happen. Yes, it might be possible for you to get away with it . . . just as it might be possible for me to be hit by a bus and killed on my 35th birthday. However, you cannot assume that and living your life in accordance with it is folly.

However, I can assume that if I discover and live by rational principles, I will enjoy success, not as an accident, but as the natural result of those principles.

There are thousands of special interest groups who successfully lobby Congress, the states and local governments for tax-funding and government-enforced restrictions on competitors. A cousin of mine became very wealthy by obtaining one of only three liquor licenses issued by the county when it went wet after World War II. In the following years, he used political influence to prevent other licenses from being issued and thereby prospered by keeping competition low. Since this pattern of artificially limited supply has been repeated all over the country not only with regard to alcohol sales but other enterprises and professions as well, we can hardly call it freakish.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Gary Brenner

[Inspector]

There are thousands of special interest groups who successfully lobby Congress, the states and local governments for tax-funding and government-enforced restrictions on competitors. A cousin of mine became very wealthy by obtaining one of only three liquor licenses issued by the county when it went wet after World War II. In the following years, he used political influence to prevent other licenses from being issued and thereby prospered by keeping competition low. Since this pattern of artificially limited supply has been repeated all over the country not only with regard to alcohol sales but other enterprises and professions as well, we can hardly call it freakish.

Gary, this is a different kind of looter than the one Megan was talking about in the paragraph you replied to. It would be helpful if you didn't keep shifting things around like that. Please, if you have a defense for the "practicality" of theft, present it and if not then admit defeat - don't shift the argument to being a looter-by-proxy in the IRS or pull peddler, which has its own set of problems. Yes, they are all ultimately related, but that doesn't change the fact that you're using an underhanded tactic.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Inspector