Subject: Re: What does Ayn Rand/Objectivism claim? (was Why is Ayn Rand/Objectivism wrong?)
From: [email-masked] (Mike Rael)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 10:04:11 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism

Walter J. Turberville (III) ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.941202132341.25610B-100000@gladstone> Edward William Matthews <[email-masked]> writes:
: >From: Edward William Matthews <[email-masked]>
: >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 <[email-masked]>,
: >> Jordan Hay <[email-masked]> 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
                                 [email-masked]

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: [email-masked] (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: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cv.lexington.ibm.com
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.04

[email-masked] 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                                 [email-masked]
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 [email-masked] 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: [email-masked] (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: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <4e3muv$fop@ <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: baldy.den.mmc.com

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Paul Knight) writes:
>
>Henry Lustig ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: On 16 Feb 1996 01:12:10 GMT, [email-masked] (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 [email-masked] 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: [email-masked] (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: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <4e3muv$fop@ <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpindda.cup.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2.2]

David W. Olson ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Paul Knight) writes:
: >
: >Henry Lustig ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >: On 16 Feb 1996 01:12:10 GMT, [email-masked] (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.