Xref: utcsri alt.philosophy.objectivism:25207 talk.philosophy.misc:25788 Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!lakid From: lakid@netcom.com (Mike Rael) Subject: Re: What does Ayn Rand/Objectivism claim? (was Why is Ayn Rand/Objectivism wrong?) Message-ID: Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <1994Dec02.172825.101775@zeus.aix.calpoly.edu> Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 10:04:11 GMT Lines: 159 Walter J. Turberville (III) (wturber@primenet.com) wrote: : In article Edward William Matthews writes: : >From: Edward William Matthews : >Subject: Re: What does Ayn Rand/Objectivism claim? (was Why is Ayn Rand/Objectivism wrong?) : >Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:31:32 -0800 : >On Fri, 2 Dec 1994, May T. Young wrote: : >> In article , : >> Jordan Hay wrote: : >> > A very intelligent, albeit misguided, group of students at my high : >> >school has become dedicated to spread objectivism as the singular rational : >> >philosophical view point that is valid. : >> : >> What are the central tenets of Rand's Objectivism, : >> anyway? Occasionally I see it alternately heralded as the : >> Ultimate Truth or demonized, but I really don't know much : >> about it (and, no, I'm not curious enough to spend winter : >> vacation plowing through _Atlas Shrugged_ or anything like : >> that). Can someone summarize the basic points? Thanks. I suggest that more than a thumbnail sketch of Rand's philosophy is what is wanted. Yet not, either, the simple directive to "go read Atlas Shrugged." Kids who are into Objectivism are often in rebellion against their guardians. It's the philosophy of the age that it's arrogant to outright say that you know something the other person doesn't. This attitude came from Benjamin Franklin, perhaps before him as well, when he advocated a kind of hypocrisy where he pretended he knew less than the people around him so they'd think better of him and be less likely to be enemies of his. Perhaps what Franklin meant was that one shouldn't prematurely assert knowledge in front of those who are your superiors in your business, since it was interpreted as disrespect. That's why when Rand advocates that one express confidence in one's thinking, and backs this up with some heavy philosophical artillery dating back from Aristotle, many kids take to it avidly. Here is their great chance to talk back to their elders and be RIGHT---even though, their motive in doing so is rebelliousness, and not an independent understanding of the ideas. Really, there is nothing terribly controversial about Rand's ideas--if you haven't gone to college and learned the ways that people have discovered that, at first glance, seem to brilliantly destroy the philosophy of enlightened common sense. What are these ideas? 1.That there is a stable reality. That a lamp doesn't turn into a pigeon one moment when your back is turned, and back to a lamp again when you look at it. 2.That our ideas about the world need to be checked out by using our eyes and ears, and combining the results of our senses with the other ideas that are thrown at us in order to know facts. For example, I may have the feeling that my God is better than your God. If you ask how I know this, I might reply:God makes sure that the Israelis (I am born Jewish, so this argument comes easily to me:)) win every war they engage in. You point out that many times in the Bible it was said that God killed off the Jews. So that my people, the Jews, did not win each battle they essayed. You would then crow:that is a contradiction, so your belief in the superiority of your God is false. Really, this method of getting ideas, and checking them out with the real world for contradictions, is used by business executives and auto repair men. It is totally noncontroversial. The problem comes when your Objectivists assert that this is the ONLY means of knowing facts. That prayer or intuition might yield ideas which, when checked out, are knowledge. However, one can't know this without engaging in the checking-out process. Most people, in my view, have a multitude of beliefs that they just accepted without checking them out. So when someone asserts that they can't know things except by a process of reason, and particularly when it's young people who do this semi-belligerently, this can raise the hackles of everyone about them. 3.In the field of ethics, Rand advocated a philsophy of rational egoism. That is, she believed that doing good for yourself and for those you love, working hard to make the things you need, and enjoying them deeply, is what life is all about. Her ex-cohort, Nathaniel Branden, advocates being benevolent to others, but because it serves the purpose of the individual not to feel alienated from others, but basically friendly--this needs to be mentioned because, while Rand was alive, to the best of my knowledge, this idea was not stressed in her philosophy, though she DID do some writing to that effect, nonetheless. Again, there is nothing terribly controversial here. When people talk about Christian ethics, for the most part what they refer to is being helpful to people when they are in need and forgiving others when they do wrong and are repentant. Christ doesn't talk about a morality of rational self-interest, but then Christ's vision was meant to complement that of the Jews, not to replace it utterly. The Jews believe that...people should do good for themselves and for those whom they value, work hard, and enjoy the fruits of their labor deeply. When the Jewish ethic is combined with Christian as it is generally understood on a commonsense level, it sounds remarkably like what Rand advocates. Except that Rand was an atheist. Since Rand excepts no philosophical idea on faith, the idea of a God who could not be defined in perceptaul or empirical terms was utterly repugnant to her. Students learning the arguments that Rand devised gleefully use them against their elders, knowing that this is an emotional hot spot with many of them. You might want to point out to them that their elders are in control, and they COULD make fun of their kids' inexperience at every opportunity, since that is THE hot spot of most kids! 4.In the field of politics, Rand believes that whatever a person creates is his...all of it. Which means, no taxes or social welfare programs of any sort. The purpose of government is strictly to defend the honest workingman from the robbers at home or abroad. Many people will disagree with this notion, for a wide variety of reasons. But if the root of it is made clear, "Thou shalt not steal nor murder," most people will agree with the idealism behind it, even though they will say it is impractical to act on it in our society. It's really a question, ultimately, of your view of man. Rand believes that if people are just left alone to work out their own lives, they tend to become stronger, more honest, and more productive. The welfare statists believe that the strong individual is the exception, that most people are lazy or weak or corrupt and unable to care for themselves or those who they love without the aid of laws that punish the wicked people who are constantly trying to take advantage of them. Geographically, one can see the effect of the free market by wandering from Russia into Poland. Historically, one can see it in the long dominance of the United States of America as compared to the rest of the world. Psychologically, one can see it in the effects of telling women that it is OK for them to be strong and to work, not just be housewives. Nonetheless, these issues continue to be points of controversy throughout the United States and the world, generally. 5. In the field of art, once again, Rand is saying nothing terribly controversial to the commonsense mind. Essentially, she is saying that beauty is beauty and ugliness is ugliness and the two must not be confused. That the purpose of art is to uplift, to give one more spiritual strength, not to make one feel lowly or guilty. I went through a music appreciation course at USC where first one heard a Beethoven symphony that was proclaimed as "great," and then one heard a modern work of random noise, also proclaimed as "great." Similarly, in the field of literature, I'd read a great book by Twain one moment, and then some tawdry piece of trash the next moment that proclaimed that life was one big garbage heap and invited the readers to be part of the garbage. In this area, Rand is performing the function of the one who saw the emperor had no clothes on, and dared to say it aloud. I hope that this small rendition will help make Rand's ideas more clear to you. It isn't that the students who advocate Rand's notions have the keys to the universe in their pockets, as they claim:) Rather, they have learned some really powerful arguments to use to fight intellectually for many ideas that people, if they really stopped to think about it, would often agree with. The way to "handle" such students is simplicity itself when you realize what's happening. The students are in rebellion and seeking genuine understanding at the same time. Rand's arguments are more general than specific. So, when the students claim they know the truth about X, ask them what the ideas are AGAINST their idea. Ask them to read any relevant journals or magazines or books that would state the many problems in implementing Rand's ideas. Then ask the students how, given their new knowledge of what the problems in the field of interest actually are, they might apply Rand's principles in dealing with it. For those who would be thoughtful, this approach gets them out of the rarified air of "pure philosophy" into the world of material reality. It will help develop their intellectual self-confidence. And isn't that what education should be about, anyways?? Mike Rael lakid@netcom.com Xref: utcsri alt.philosophy.objectivism:25227 Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!pipex!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!usenet From: andrew@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Andrew Southwick) Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Monopolies Date: 2 Dec 1994 22:08:47 GMT Organization: IBM SWSD, Lexington, KY, USA Lines: 59 Message-ID: <3bo5tf$jku@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> References: <3bjd98$6qh@agate.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: andrew@csgrad.cs.vt.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cv.lexington.ibm.com X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.04 shadab@uclink3.berkeley.edu writes: > Can anyone recomend any non-Objectivist economic literature, >preferably by reputable economists, that talks about the formation of >monopolies as being a part of statism and only statism? Milton Friedman is a Libertarian (not libertarian); I recommend Hazlitt instead. Fredric Bastiat's _Economic Sophisms_ is also insightful, and any of von Mises' works would help for those with the patience to finish them. Reisman (who is an Objectivist) may or may not help; it depends on your audience. I do not recall how much explicit reference he makes to Objectivism. > I know that if people are not willing to face up to the facts of >reality because of some prejudice, then no amount of proof will help, but such >a widespread fallacy such as: "The Government _must_ regulate certain >companies in order for coercive monopolies not to form." can be a little >frustrating when trying to explain that capitalism=freedom, period. General info: A monopoly is generally defined as a market where there is a single producer of a good without substitute. There are two problems with this definition, however: every product has a substitute (although for many markets and goods the substitutes might be poor, they still exist), and every producer has a monopoly on the specific product he manufactures (e.g. I might find Hagen Dazs ice-cream to be just as tasty as Ben & Jerry's, and they might both come in the same flavors and cost the same at the local grocery, but Ben & Jerry have pledged to give some of my money to causes I do not support; for that reason I will not buy their products--reputation and sanction is just as much a part of a transaction as money is). So, again, what is a monopoly? The market for a good for which there is no close substitute. There are two types of monopolies: earned and enforced. A monopoly is earned when the sole producer provides such a high quality and/or low price that there is no demand or feasibility for a substitute. A monopoly is enforced whenever the government or a private entity uses force or the threat of such to restrict entry into the market, or the survival of its competitors. Those that believe that the government *must* regulate certain industries to prevent coercive monopolies are generally guilty of one of the following errors: 1) misunderstanding of 'coercive monopoly' 2) poor understanding of market forces, and how competition is a product of a free market, not a regulated one 3) direct evasion 4) denial of individual rights 5) using invalid examples, such as thinking that certain coercive monopolies in the past were the result of free-market forces, and not government intervention. Questions to ask: 1) what is a coercive monopoly? 2) how do they form in a free market? 3) does the mome rath outgrabe? 4) (this gets complicated; it is generally easier to explain where rights come from than to try to show contradiction in believing otherwise) 5) what were the historical factors that gave rise to the coercive monopoly, and how are these factors free-market? >-H. Brian Shadab Andrew R. Southwick asouthwick@vnet.ibm.com I am not a lawyer, but I've seen one on TV I speak not for IBM -- Freedom by permission is a contradiction in terms -- From dolson@den.mmc.com Sun Feb 25 09:17:55 1996 Xref: elastic can.politics:48206 talk.politics:999 Path: elastic!exorcist!lethe!abyss!light-house!whome!infoshare!istar.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!world!coopnews.coop.net!news.den.mmc.com!dolson From: dolson@den.mmc.com (David W. Olson) Newsgroups: talk.politics,can.politics,ab.politics,ca.politics,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Medical Care as an Entitlement Re: Objectivism Rots the Mind Date: 21 Feb 1996 00:27:00 GMT Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver Lines: 76 Sender: DW.Olson Distribution: na Expires: 1 Mar 96 Message-ID: <4gdosk$gih@tel.den.mmc.com> References: <4e1pa8$rt5@eri.erinet.com> <4e3muv$fop@ <4gd5le$758@hpindda.cup.hp.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: baldy.den.mmc.com In article <4gd5le$758@hpindda.cup.hp.com> knight@cup.hp.com (Paul Knight) writes: > >Henry Lustig (hlustig@harborside.com) wrote: >: On 16 Feb 1996 01:12:10 GMT, knight@cup.hp.com (Paul Knight) wrote: > >: [purge] >: > >: >Millions of ill people are denied health care because they have no insurance. >: >A friend from college died of heart disease because he had no insurance. >: >Nobody would do cardiac angioplasty for him without insurance. That is >: >my definition of denial: witholding of vital medical care. >: > >: Horsefeathers! No one is denied medical insurance. One just has to realign >: one's priorities and go and purchase it if so desired. like any other >: insurance, policy must be proportional to risk or it becomes a welfare >: program. > >Well, sir, I gather that you don't much about patients with pre-existing >conditions. My wife, in particular, had a severe case of systemic >lupus erythematosus. She was denied medical insurance specifically >because of her illness. > >The disease's consequences to her were fatal and its consequences >to me included near bankruptcy. > P. On the last question, "No one is denied medical insurance" vs "pre-existing conditions", Paul Knight is correct on the facts. There is not an insur- ance provider for every risk. For some risks the would-be customer will either have to assume the risk him/her-self or scout-up/create his/her own mutual insurance society to cover that risk. I am concerned, though, that Paul Knight does not seem to understand what insurance is. He seems to think that he can buy insurance at the last minute, paying the average rate, and the company will pay his medical bills for whatever he has. Insurance does *not* work like that. Suppose that you have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of suffering a head injury in a car crash, costing $50,000 to treat, and that you wanted to be covered for that. You should do the obvious - wear seat belts, install airbags, wear a crash helmet while driving. But what should you do about the treat- ment cost? You can keep $50,000 on hand, under the bed or in the bank, just in case. Or you can make an agreement with others with the same concern. You pay $.05 ($50,000 * 1/1,000,000) as your share, plus administrative costs, and you are covered. Roughly speaking. With a pre-existing condition the risk is 1 in 1, the rate you would have to pay is $50,000 plus and you can save the administrative cost by paying the doctor yourself rather than having the company handle it. The situation isn't really insurance anymore. >: >A friend from college died of heart disease because he had no insurance. >: >Nobody would do cardiac angioplasty for him without insurance. That is >: >my definition of denial: witholding of vital medical care. This statement by Paul Knight also bothers me. First, you can find someone who would do cardiac angioplasty. You don't need insurance - only money. The statement "withholding of vital medical care" is more disturbing. Paul seems to say "The facility exists - cure him! (nevermind money)". It is easy to say that once the facility exists - but if you do then nobody will be willing to staff the facility. Who will pay them? Nobody will be willing to build better facilities. Who will pay them? Society, you say? That leads to the last problem. The members of society could voluntarily pay. That is what we have right now. Or somebody could take money unvolun- tarily from the members of society and pay for it. And the medical care provided will meet that somebody's needs, not the needs of the members of the public. There is an entire branch of economics called public choice theory that describes the failures and market distortions that come from that. Life, alas, is not fair or risk-free. David Olson, my posting, my response. BTW, why is this posted to so many newsgroups? Distribution limited to na (north america). My newsgroup, co.politics, deleted. From knight@cup.hp.com Sun Feb 25 09:20:42 1996 Xref: elastic can.politics:48365 talk.politics:1028 Path: elastic!jaywon.pci.on.ca!ftn.net!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!hookup!cunews!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!crchh327.rich.bnr.ca!corpgate!news.uoregon.edu!news.jsums.edu!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!primus.ac.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hpax!cupnews2.cup.hp.com!knight From: knight@cup.hp.com (Paul Knight) Newsgroups: talk.politics,can.politics,ab.politics,ca.politics,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Medical Care as an Entitlement Re: Objectivism Rots the Mind Followup-To: talk.politics,can.politics,ab.politics,ca.politics,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.philosophy.objectivism Date: 22 Feb 1996 02:30:10 GMT Organization: Information Networks Division: Hewlett Packard Lines: 96 Distribution: na Message-ID: <4ggkfi$ohu@hpindda.cup.hp.com> References: <4e1pa8$rt5@eri.erinet.com> <4e3muv$fop@ <4gd5le$758@hpindda.cup.hp.com> <4gdosk$gih@tel.den.mmc.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hpindda.cup.hp.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2.2] David W. Olson (dolson@den.mmc.com) wrote: : In article <4gd5le$758@hpindda.cup.hp.com> knight@cup.hp.com (Paul Knight) writes: : > : >Henry Lustig (hlustig@harborside.com) wrote: : >: On 16 Feb 1996 01:12:10 GMT, knight@cup.hp.com (Paul Knight) wrote: : > : >: [purge] : >: > : >: >Millions of ill people are denied health care because they have no insurance. : >: >A friend from college died of heart disease because he had no insurance. : >: >Nobody would do cardiac angioplasty for him without insurance. That is : >: >my definition of denial: witholding of vital medical care. : >: > : >: Horsefeathers! No one is denied medical insurance. One just has to realign : >: one's priorities and go and purchase it if so desired. like any other : >: insurance, policy must be proportional to risk or it becomes a welfare : >: program. : > : >Well, sir, I gather that you don't much about patients with pre-existing : >conditions. My wife, in particular, had a severe case of systemic : >lupus erythematosus. She was denied medical insurance specifically : >because of her illness. : > : >The disease's consequences to her were fatal and its consequences : >to me included near bankruptcy. : > P. : On the last question, "No one is denied medical insurance" vs "pre-existing : conditions", Paul Knight is correct on the facts. There is not an insur- : ance provider for every risk. For some risks the would-be customer will : either have to assume the risk him/her-self or scout-up/create his/her own : mutual insurance society to cover that risk. : I am concerned, though, that Paul Knight does not seem to understand what : insurance is. He seems to think that he can buy insurance at the last : minute, paying the average rate, and the company will pay his medical : bills for whatever he has. Insurance does *not* work like that. I fully understand the nature of insurance. For this reason, the current medical insurance industry does not provide coverage for many who need it the most. I do not expect that under the current system, insurance will be available to millions of people. Therefore, we need an alternative for those who cannot get insurance. Those who are not profitable for the insurance companies still need health care. : >: >A friend from college died of heart disease because he had no insurance. : >: >Nobody would do cardiac angioplasty for him without insurance. That is : >: >my definition of denial: witholding of vital medical care. : This statement by Paul Knight also bothers me. First, you can find someone : who would do cardiac angioplasty. You don't need insurance - only money. : The statement "withholding of vital medical care" is more disturbing. Paul : seems to say "The facility exists - cure him! (nevermind money)". It is : easy to say that once the facility exists - but if you do then nobody will : be willing to staff the facility. Who will pay them? Nobody will be willing : to build better facilities. Who will pay them? Society, you say? Personally, I would extend Medicare to everybody. Thus, my friend would have received the same treatment as many other people. And he would have a good chance of still being alive. Nowhere did I state that treatments in hospitals should be uncompensated. : That leads to the last problem. The members of society could voluntarily : pay. That is what we have right now. Or somebody could take money unvolun- : tarily from the members of society and pay for it. And the medical care : provided will meet that somebody's needs, not the needs of the members of : the public. There is an entire branch of economics called public choice : theory that describes the failures and market distortions that come from that. Members of society already cover the aged and disabled through Medicare, and they also provide some care for the poor through Medicaid. Certainly universal health care would have different effects on the economy than does the current system, but it would also have different effects on the lives of people. I'm much less interested on the market distortions than I am interested in providing health care to those who need it. Simply, market distortions are more palatable to me than sick people without health care. Those are biological distortions caused by the current inhumane health care finance industry. : Life, alas, is not fair or risk-free. This is certainly true. However, this does not mean that people should be denied health care. Those people have a double problem, illness and the lack of funds. Therefore, if life is not fair or risk-free, there is no good reason not to set up a health care alternative for those who need the care. It might not be totally fair to those who can afford health care, but, as was stated, life is not fair. Fairness is important, but health is more important. Peace and good health, P.