Politics: Discuss your political views and debate with others.

[Another brick in the wall]

I lean libertarian on many issues. I think taxes and government spending are too high and that government imposes many regulations that stifle free enterprise and personal freedom. On the other hand, I'm not against regulations all together. We have that regulate potentially dangerous items like dynamite and cars, so banning assault weapons seems reasonable to me. I'm not a gun-nut or a Constitution fetishist, but I do think we expose ourselves to danger by consistently ignoring the advice of the framers.

[WITHTEETH]

I beleive in a big government, no other company governed by that govermnet should be bigger then that goverment. becuase then the goverment could have secular influence. that would lead to our goverment not being the "peoples" goverment.
I also am all for MORE social programs. I do not understand why people reject social programs. If we are all connected subatomically then we all effect eachother. so why not help others out :)
Also Jesus helped the poor and sick, so why dont more radical christians do it? and no donoting doesn't do squat, im sick of that excuse. true people say the goverment can't run anything but look at what roosevelt did with it, he built airports and highways! I say if a goverment program like healthcare or education is not working, DONT CUT IT, you need to try harder! do you want your kids, and grandkids to have healthcare and a good education DEFINATELY? then help them out and vote for it. we need these programs.

I thought it was ridiculous how George W. Bush said we have to balance science and morals. How can you balance science. It is like trying to balance algebra isn't it? you have to balance the people behind science. but it sounded great didn't it? "we have to balance science and morals" and people ate it up, from then on it was a moral issue. what a load of crap. it disgusts me how dumb people can be. religion and state are suppose to be seperate. to impose ones religion on others is MORALLY wrong.

[Another brick in the wall]

It's true; some christians can be very hypocritical when it comes to actually following Christ's teachings. The government can run things, but not nearly as efficiently as private organizations or individuals. Remember school lunches? Weren't exactly top notch, were they? That's government for you. Did you know that the government spends millions of dollars on anti-smoking advertising and at the same time spends millions of dollars in subsidies to tobacco farmers? It's true! You seem to think that government services are free, but they aren't. They're paid for with taxes, taxes that we have to pay. About 40% of the federal budget goes to Medicare and Social Security. The US spends more on social programs than the Soviet Union did.

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

This reminds me. I wrote this as a satire to my representatives to demonstrate how corrupt Washington is.
As you can see, I have a cynical view of politics and politicians.

The Ten Rules
1. This rule is by far the most important, always cover yourself. You don't need facts per se, and even if you haven't any, clever rhetoric will suffice. If you lack either one then what ever you said will return to bite you in the ass.Never let the people know your true motives.

2. This rule is more for protecting you against political enemies. Always abide by the 'never say never' rule. This means you must never, under any circumstances, say you never did this or that. I will draw an example from a former president, "I never had sexual relations with that woman." You may dodge the question, but never deny it unless you are either prepared to defend your claim or if you don't it will end your political career.

3. I call this rule the 'Billy Carter rule'. This relates to family members. If you have any homosexual or illegitimate children, make that fact extremely well-hidden, lest you want to be attacked by the press. This also applies to siblings and parents. If they're already distant, make them even more so.

4. Never, whether it be a debate or a press conference, be direct. You should always remain esoteric and make your answers riddled in so-called 'buzzwords' and talking points from the party line.

5.This is the 'Hitler rule'. Basically it means you should come to every rally and scheduled appearances late. Never be punctual. In theory this will make the crowd all the more eager to hear what you have to say.

6. Pre-emptive attacks are your dearest friends. You must always attack your opponent before he she even conceives of attacking you. This will give you the upper hand. If they do attack you apply the concept of 'an eye for an eye', except take it a step further, 'an eye for two eyes.' Opportunism is a must in politics. It is required for survival.

7. Play the values card. Claim that you share the same values as the voters and possess the moral fiber to their elected official. Claim your opponent does not and label him or an ideologue and an elitist. When it comes to religion it is safest to claim to be Christian, more specifically a protestant.

8.Claim that every decision you have made and will make has and will benefit the people. Claim that the opposite is true of your opponent.

9.Label everyone. Take advantage of the fact that most people in the United States think within terms of black and white and the left-right political system. People are afraid of extreme so claim to be a 'moderate'.

10. The final rule is, always abide by the party line.You should join a party and use that parties reputation to your advantage

[VOICE-of-REASON]

to impose ones religion on others is MORALLY wrong.
And to impose your plans on others is not?

As for passing moral judgment, which you even emphasize ... I don't understand. Do you not advocate the relativism of morality?

[Another brick in the wall]

I believe in moral relativism in the following sense: Different cultures have at differen times considered various behaviors to be proper and improper. I'm not disputing that. Still, I think western values are superior than any other morality described.

[WITHTEETH]

Good point Reason! i struggle with a battle maybe you can help with. How can state an church be seperated when the majority are christians and thats how they vote as they "should". then again i vote for my own beleifs... any words of wisdom? so how can it stay on biased from beleifs?

[Another brick in the wall]

As far as I'm concerned, separation of church and state means this: No person can be forced to attend a church or be prevented from attending one. The government shall not make any law which aids one religion over another, aids all religions, or discourages all relsgions.

This is paraphrased from some Supreme Court Justice; I forget which one.

[WITHTEETH]

But in a democracy, people can vote for their beliefs. no abortion, no gay rights, no sex. and they have the iron fist as long as they have the numbers. so they are imposing theiur will on others legally. but then again i want to have my own beliefs such as more social programs. so where are the lines drawn? its blurred to me...

[VOICE-of-REASON]

Another brick in the wall (from here on “Brick”), clearly you do not believe in moral relativism; not if you believe in the superiority of western civilization. The essence of relativism – and of multiculturalism – is that all cultures and morals are equal in value, that there is no objective way of judging either to be superior or inferior to another. You cannot believe this unless you wish to contradict yourself; that is to say, you cannot both believe and not believe that all judgments of value are arbitrary at the same time.

Also, when you assert that different individuals from different cultures have believed different things at various historical periods, you are not making a judgment or evaluation; you are merely making a statement of fact.

-------------------------------------

TEETH, I must say that I do not subscribe to the idealization of Democracy. I do not find it to be either a desirable or just form of government, as it simply means: unbridled tyranny of the majority, i.e., to hell with minorities – that they are right or wrong be damned. The classic example of the evil of this form of government is the murder of Socrates in Ancient Greece.

As for your “problem/battle” … it has no magical formula, or shortcut, for solution. I can only recommend sources if such is your wish. I can tell you this however: a part of your problem arises from your idealization of democracy, specifically, the fact that you believe that everything is open to public debates and polls. It is not, or to be exact, it should not be.

With respect to your wish to implement “social” programs – here’s a solution: you are always free finance them at your own expense – just like you expect the religionists to keep their religion to themselves, and finance it with their own income.

Finally, the concept of Separation of Church and State is not one that arises out of a vacuum. It is derived from the fact that the only proper form of law and government is the protection of the individual rights of men, i.e., the rights to life, liberty and property.

[Philboid Studge]

I think taxes and government spending are too high and that government imposes many regulations that stifle free enterprise and personal freedom. On the other hand, I'm not against regulations all together.
How do you feel about environmental regulations? Should manufacturing plants, for example, have limits on the volume of pollutants it can produce?

[Another brick in the wall]

Some environmental regulations, like the ban on DDT, are useful. Others, like zoning laws, actually make things worse. By forcing companies to build far away from residential areas, the companies' incentive to reduce pollution is taken away.

[Another brick in the wall]

Another brick in the wall (from here on “Brick”), clearly you do not believe in moral relativism; not if you believe in the superiority of western civilization. The essence of relativism – and of multiculturalism – is that all cultures and morals are equal in value, that there is no objective way of judging either to be superior or inferior to another. You cannot believe this unless you wish to contradict yourself; that is to say, you cannot both believe and not believe that all judgments of value are arbitrary at the same time.

Also, when you assert that different individuals from different cultures have believed different things at various historical periods, you are not making a judgment or evaluation; you are merely making a statement of fact.
In my philosophy class, the instructor said there are 2 kinds of moral relativism. The first kind, the one I subscribe to, is called descriptive moral relativism. The other kind, absolute moral relativism, is the one you describe as all cultures and morals and equal. I do not believe this. I do not believe that Sharia law which treats women as inferiors or the Jim Crow laws of the South deserve equal respect as western pluralism. You say there is no objective way of judging whether one culture is superior to another. Do you really think Nazism is just as good as American democracy?

[VOICE-of-REASON]

How do you feel about environmental regulations?
I despise them all. And no, none of them are useful. They are all harmful however.

You say there is no objective way of judging whether one culture is superior to another.
Not exactly. I was simply describing what moral relativism is. I do know that there is an objective way of judging cultures, values, and societies.

And I don’t see the basis for the disintegration which your professor is engaging in: that there have been different values adopted by different societies at different historical periods is not a moral evaluation – it is a historical fact, i.e., one that everyone who knows a little bit of history subscribes to. Until your professor is able to point out to a legitimate basis for differentiation, there will be only Moral Relativism – no classes and no distinctions.

Do you really think Nazism is just as good as American democracy?
Ok, America is not a democracy – at least not yet. America is a constitutional republic. And at the present, it is better than Nazi Germany. I fear that it won’t however, the day it becomes a democracy.

[Another brick in the wall]

I was using democracy in a casual sense, but your terminology is more accurate.

[WITHTEETH]

Things are getting tricky now. what form of gov. do you prefer?

Democracy has been bothering me leately, and the US is a democratic republic, soon to be a corporate military thological oligarchi.
I have been thinking about this recently. some people i can see as more valuable to a society then others. the educated, but if you give them the only vote who knows if they'll use utilitarianism. most likely not. whats worse is when the low income vote AGAINST itself over Moral issues like gay rights, abortions and war, instead of putting a meal on the table, and healthcare. whoever controls the mob controls...

[Another brick in the wall]

Yes, what a pity those poor, ignorant folks aren't as "enlightened" as you are, comrade. Maybe these wrongthinking people could be sent to some kind of camp . . .

[WITHTEETH]

I might sound a bit rough but for many its true in my eyes. I wouldn't send anybody to camp but i would like to send them to school. maybe no one without a highschool diploma should vote. that way micheal jackson doesn't become a supreme court justice, we know he has experience.

[Another brick in the wall]

I don't think it matters a great deal who the President is. He's mostly just a guy to blame when things go wrong. Congress doesn't change much from year to year either. In my view, the solution isn't more government but less government. I keep hearing this figure about 40 million Americans without health insurance. How many of those are people who came here illegaly? There are 280 million people in this country. 40 million without health insuance means 240 million who do have it- that's 6/7. The healthcare crisis is all hype. When you take into consideration the leading causes of death for Americans can be greatly reduced with changes in lifestyle, health is mainly a matter of personal responsibility.

[WITHTEETH]

Let me take back the things i've said and say that we just need to get our education system on its feet. that and more voters coming to vote would be great too. I like democracy :)

[LogicMan]

Let me take back the things i've said and say that we just need to get our education system on its feet. that and more voters coming to vote would be great too. I like democracy :)
Well I posted to late again but it never hurts to repeat. One of the biggest problems with our society is a short attention span and how easy it has been for individuals of dubious (dishonest) intentions to veer people of topic. This country was never set up to be a "Democracy" (majority vote). I was suppose to be a "Constitutionally LIMITED Republic" with individual rights as a (proper) primary and that is were the limit properly exist. In other words you can not vote on individual rights...they are inviolate. As soon as you do infringe on individual rights with regulation you de-facto no longer have individual rights and have replaced them with (socialistic) privileges. That said this would require that only moral individualists are running a government. That has never happened and probably never will. This means the only way to deal with those who would seek to use the government as a means of power and influence rather than the idealistic protector of individual rights and nothing more, is through the masses being educated enough on what individual rights are, and where they originate. For this to happen they have to understand what an absolute is (means).

[WITHTEETH]

Wow, that is quite intresting, thank you! :)

[nthn200]

I beleive in a big government, no other company governed by that govermnet should be bigger then that goverment. becuase then the goverment could have secular influence. that would lead to our goverment not being the "peoples" goverment.
I also am all for MORE social programs. I do not understand why people reject social programs. If we are all connected subatomically then we all effect eachother. so why not help others out :)
Also Jesus helped the poor and sick, so why dont more radical christians do it? and no donoting doesn't do squat, im sick of that excuse. true people say the goverment can't run anything but look at what roosevelt did with it, he built airports and highways! I say if a goverment program like healthcare or education is not working, DONT CUT IT, you need to try harder! do you want your kids, and grandkids to have healthcare and a good education DEFINATELY? then help them out and vote for it. we need these programs.

I thought it was ridiculous how George W. Bush said we have to balance science and morals. How can you balance science. It is like trying to balance algebra isn't it? you have to balance the people behind science. but it sounded great didn't it? "we have to balance science and morals" and people ate it up, from then on it was a moral issue. what a load of crap. it disgusts me how dumb people can be. religion and state are suppose to be seperate. to impose ones religion on others is MORALLY wrong.
Bush is full of shit, but I agree with the theory. The other end to an absolute theocracy could be something hideous like keeping colonies of clones for organ harvesting or downloading human consciousness into computers...Faustian shit. However, the current administration has morality as one of the last things on their mind. The are just using the Christian Right for votes and influence. The Christian Right is just plain crazy.

I completely agree with your socialist theories. You should see "Finding Fidel," it's a documentary on Cuba by Oliver Stone. It really puts the way we run our country in perspective.

[Tenspace]

Excellent post, LogicMan. Too bad we are so far from a rational reality that it would take a major catastrophic event to awake the masses.

Any examples of failed governments from the past that had a good side? In other words, if you could combine the advantages of major past governments (Greek, Roman, anything), what would you choose?

Ten

[WITHTEETH]

Another thought that has been running thru my head leatly is Karl Marx Communism. I keep hearing how it will never happen yadda yadda yadda, its a utopia, blah and blah. but... i think it might be possible. The proletarians seem to be making themselves aware over time just like he said. we are voting for more social programs such as education, healthcare, and welfare. if you just accross the pond to scandinavia they have a social democracy set up in their countries. it seems nice to me...
I am a roosevelt fan. Roosevelt almost passed a 2nd bill of rights that would have led to a more social US with healthcare for everyone, a decent wage for everyone that will cover food shelter clothing and recreation. a good education and welfare ect... slowly we have been getting some of the stuff he was going for but since the vietnam war it slowed, and then Nixon stopped it.
WHat are your comments, do you guys/gals think we could be getting closer to the proltarians being aware of their oppression of religion and the selfish, so they will develop somthing similar to communism atleast?

[NihilistThug]

I am against politics. I think with some basic logic and economic thought, and some common observance of empirical reality, will show that the government is totally useless and it is logically impossible that it could possibly do anything better than civil society. Aside from kill lots of people.
You people really give the Church too much of a hard time about the Crusades. It wasn't the church that went on the Crusades, it was the State working at the behest of the Church.
Economically speaking I have views that are usually compatible with market anarchists/anarcho-capitalists/real libertarians, although I reject all imperatives (such as NAP) out of hand. The only good thing socialism ever did was AK47s, and really that was just the result of some guy defying Socialism via an accident (Mikhail Kalashnikov was a tank engineer, not a small arms designer and he got layed up in a hospital).
And for all you socialists/welfare statists/sydicalists out there: if you want to take my private property, come and get it. I'm looking for an excuse to give you SOBs five to the spine.

[Lundie]

I'm all for a benevolent dictatorship with communist overtones. Now all we need to do is genetically modify a foetus to endow it with superhuman physical and mental capabilities, imbue its genetic code with moral incorruptibility to forestall any potential Napoleonic complexes from arising, give it absolute dictatorial powers, and let it get on with the job of governing while we lap up the milk and honey.

[LogicMan]

Any examples of failed governments from the past that had a good side? In other words, if you could combine the advantages of major past governments (Greek, Roman, anything), what would you choose?

Ten
No I am affraid not. I am not very knowledgeable about these goverments, so outside of Aristotle and some of the incredible sculture that was created (though I still do not understand the obsession with portly female figures) during the decline of the Greek empire, the only thing of import that I note is that slavery was part of both cultures.

I am against politics. I think with some basic logic and economic thought, and some common observance of empirical reality, will show that the government is totally useless and it is logically impossible that it could possibly do anything better than civil society. Aside from kill lots of people.
There are several ways I would like to respond to this. Probably one of the most interesting posts I have seen here. I will hold back somewhat as I am curious to see who will respond to this.

The question...If people respected individual rights, what then does a government have to offer?
I have taken this argument to an Objectivist website and the debate went back and forth.

The same response was given by the individual that I was discussing this with and her answer was becuase if you did not have a government and a court system you would have anarchy. By anarchy I assume she meant peoples behavior would become completely chaotic (immoral).

My rebuttle was that what can cause greater damage: Individuals who are chaotic or a government that is immoral that is backed by a standing army that is ready to squash individuals who will not go along?

Her response was that that is why you have the checks and balances built into the system.

My rebuttle was as follows: In the system we have, both moral and non moral people are free to run for a government office.
What becomes important then is why would a moral person want to have power over individuals,
which is a contradiction to individual rights.
The reason for an immoral person to want to seek government position is simple...power and control.
So at best you might have a mix of moral individuals who are fighting a contradiction and some power mongers. The result...a mixed bag and a bunch of political game playing.

And on a side note: an old aquaintence once told me that he read somewhere that some of the founding fathers (man I hate that term) had discussed these issues. I never had time to verify or debunk this. If anyone knows (that is can provide proof) please post a source.

Finally the one problem I have with the strict definition of Nihlism as provided by the dictionary:
Nihilism (NIGH-uh-liz-'m), literally, means belief in nothing. (Good so far as only facts matter. Beliefs and opinions are merely unproven ideas taht have no value unless proven) As a philosophical position, nihilism is the view that the world, and especially human existence, is without meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. (All these must be self generated except truth which is objectively observed) (I have no Idea about the rest of this dictionary statment as I am not a studied philosopher) It is more often a charge levelled against a particular idea than a position which is overtly subscribed to. Movements such as Dada, Deconstructionism and Punk have been described by various observers as "nihilist". Nihilism is also a characteristic that has been asc

[Philboid Studge]

How do you feel about environmental regulations?
I despise them all. And no, none of them are useful. They are all harmful however.
Brick didn't ask that, Philboid did. So absent regulation, what to do about industrial pollution?

[Another brick in the wall]

Buy less stuff? A lot of people seem to think their actions have no effect on the environment, and all pollution is because of big, evil, greedy corporations. But if everyone ate a little less, drove a little less, and bought a little less, there would be a lot less pollution. Education is better than legislation, I always say.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

I see that this is degenerating once again into a misinformed critique of Objectivism – specifically, its theory of government. So I will try – for one last time – to defend the good name of a person from individuals who have never read, or at best have never understood, anything she wrote.

In her own words:

************************************************** *
If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door – or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.

The use of physical force – even its retaliatory use – cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice – the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

Visualize, for example, what would happen if a man missed his wallet, concluded that he had been robbed, and broke into every house in the neighborhood to search it, and shot the first man who gave him a dirty look, taking the look as proof of guilt.

The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to ‘prosecute crimes’, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds and vendettas.

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government – of a proper government – its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control – i.e., under objectively defined laws.

[…]

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naïve floating abstraction: … a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and an arbiter for honest disagreement among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists – who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business – the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizens free to “shop” and to patronize every government he chooses.

Remember that the forcible restraint of men is the only service a government can offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government”. Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration should be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of police A proceed to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

~ Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government”, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1963.

**************************************************

why would a moral person want to have power over individuals,
which is a contradiction to individual rights.
A government – a proper government – is not supposed to be “power over individuals” as such. It is supposed to be a way to subdue and deter criminals. It is supposed to be exactly the very institution which would stop immoral individuals from having the power of physical force over innocent individuals.

As for your fear of an allegedly immoral person getting into a governmental position … I submit that there is no harm he/she can do if State and Law were restricted to the only purpose they are meant for: the protection of individual rights – nothing more and nothing less. For an elaboration on this, I can’t recommend enough that you read Frederic Bastiat’s timeless essays: The Law (http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2a.html), and The State. (http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/BasEss5.html) (P.S: you may want to ignore the few references to “God”, or simply replace them with “Nature.”)

[Philboid Studge]

Buy less stuff? A lot of people seem to think their actions have no effect on the environment, and all pollution is because of big, evil, greedy corporations. But if everyone ate a little less, drove a little less, and bought a little less, there would be a lot less pollution. Education is better than legislation, I always say.
I assume your response is an answer to the question, "So absent regulation, what to do about industrial pollution?"

There are many problems with your answer:
1) Won't buying less stuff slow the economy?
2) How would you enforce buying less stuff?
3) Is your answer remotely realistic? Capitalist economies tend to look unkindly on buying less stuff.
4) Even if you could get people to buy less stuff, would there be no need for environmental regulations for say, the disposal of nuclear waste? How would buying less stuff keep plutonium out of the water supply?
5) Sulfur dioxide from manufacturing plants in the US Midwest does most of its damage in NE states, far from the point of emission (because of wind patterns). What incentives would Midwesterners have to buy less stuff?
6) . . . et cetera, et cetera ...

P.S. I do not separate the "evil, greedy corporations" from the consumer either. But their raison d'etre is to make profits, not protect the environment -- and they behave that way. They rarely, for example, recognize externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities), and so the taxpaying public ends up subsidizing them.


P.P.S. Objectivism offers little to address real-life problems -- such as environmental concerns -- as the lengthy and irrelevant cut 'n paste missive above will attest.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

Objectivism offers little to address real-life problems...
That’s hilarious, especially coming from someone who knows nothing of Objectivism. So, who told you to think that anyway?

[Philboid Studge]

That’s hilarious, especially coming from someone who knows nothing of Objectivism. So, who told you to think that anyway?
Hooray, I have dignity again!

Anyway, much of what I've learned about Objectivism lately (admittedly, it's been years since I've given it much thought) has come from the Randians in this forum. When the most they can say about environmental regulations is, "I despise them all. And no, none of them are useful. They are all harmful however," I naturally assume Objectivism to be void of any practical application. Perhaps I shouldn't be blaming Objectivism per se for this shortcoming -- maybe it's just the particular Objectivists in here, some of whom don't seem to have thoughts of their own.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

Anyway, much [the question is exactly how much] of what I've learned about Objectivism lately (admittedly, it's been years since I've given it much thought) has come from the Randians in this forum … I naturally assume Objectivism to be void of any practical application.
(Brackets mine.)

Well, at least there is some honesty in there for once. Whew!

Keep it up with the assumptions. Don’t ever let the ignorance stand in your way.

[LogicMan]

A government – a proper government – is not supposed to be “power over individuals” as such. It is supposed to be a way to subdue and deter criminals. It is supposed to be exactly the very institution which would stop immoral individuals from having the power of physical force over innocent individuals.
As for your fear of an allegedly immoral person getting into a governmental position … I submit that there is no harm he/she can do if State and Law were restricted to the only purpose they are meant for: the protection of individual rights – nothing more and nothing less.
You should know that part of my motivation here is to instigate. I am seeing way too much go along to get along attitude lately.

Yes an Ideal a government would be just that and no more, but that is not the the way it has worked. It is not a fear that immoral people can get in but rather that they have. Before going further there is no need to discuss the fact that negative individual behavior does not, or is not a legitimate reason to discard a concept or idea they put forth. The concept or Idea stands on it's own merit. That of course I know you know, however I know others here do not understand this
To illustrate the point I was referring to I will use the most obvious example. That example is in fact the founding fathers whom owned slaves even while they wrote the constitution. In order to do this they had to put aside the law of identity to rationalize this contradiction. More over further down the road laws that banned slaves from being taught to read etc. These laws were passed by elected officials. (for others) This points out how important proper definition is and how miss defining anything can lead to the most despicable of actions.
There are of course many other examples to add here, social security (the ultimate parasitical scheme), just as there is even more that can be brought up in other worse systems.


I appreciate the link tip.

Not much for quotes but this one is good

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor saftey -Franklin

The sad part is the time in life wasted having to deal with ignorance... the ultimate breeding ground for all that is bad, and of course if bad comes not from ignorance, but from conscious choice, then the source can rightly be called evil.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Buy less stuff? A lot of people seem to think their actions have no effect on the environment, and all pollution is because of big, evil, greedy corporations. But if everyone ate a little less, drove a little less, and bought a little less, there would be a lot less pollution. Education is better than legislation, I always say.
Pollution from products I do not, in fact, buy can still have a negative effect on me.

Think about car emmision levels; I don't own a car, and I don't plan to buy one in the near future, but somehow the pollution from other people's cars can still effect me.

Smoking too. Despite the fact that I do not smoke, second-hand smoke still irritates my allergies.

See, pollution doesn't respect borders.

[Another brick in the wall]

It's a balancing act between the good of the individual and the good of the many. I'm not against all environmental legislation, but I think it's important to preserve as much individual liberty as possible. It's impossible to insulate yourself against all the actions of others, so in some ways, you just have to deal with it. I don't like litter on the highways, but I can't clean up all of it on my own. I do a little here and there, but when no one owns something, there is no incentive to take care of it. Think about how disgusting public rest rooms are. Private property helps curb pollution.

[nthn200]

I see that this is degenerating once again into a misinformed critique of Objectivism – specifically, its theory of government. So I will try – for one last time – to defend the good name of a person from individuals who have never read, or at best have never understood, anything she wrote.

In her own words:

************************************************** *
If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door – or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.

The use of physical force – even its retaliatory use – cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice – the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

Visualize, for example, what would happen if a man missed his wallet, concluded that he had been robbed, and broke into every house in the neighborhood to search it, and shot the first man who gave him a dirty look, taking the look as proof of guilt.

The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to ‘prosecute crimes’, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds and vendettas.

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government – of a proper government – its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control – i.e., under objectively defined laws.

[…]

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naïve floating abstraction: … a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and an arbiter for honest disagreement among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists – who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business – the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizens free to “shop” and to patronize every government he chooses.

Remember that the forcible restraint of men is the only service a government can offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government”. Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration should be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of police A proceed to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

~ Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government”, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1963.

**************************************************

why would a moral person want to have power over individuals,
which is a contradiction to individual rights.
A government – a proper government – is not supposed to be “power over individuals” as such. It is supposed to be a way to subdue and deter criminals. It is supposed to be exactly the very institution which would stop immoral individuals from having the power of physical force over innocent individuals.

As for your fear of an allegedly immoral person getting into a governmental position … I submit that there is no harm he/she can do if State and Law were restricted to the only purpose they are meant for: the protection of individual rights – nothing more and nothing less. For an elaboration on this, I can’t recommend enough that you read Frederic Bastiat’s timeless essays: The Law (http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2a.html), and The State. (http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/BasEss5.html) (P.S: you may want to ignore the few references to “God”, or simply replace them with “Nature.”)
Even though Ayn Rand dangerously reinforces the status quo, here's an interesting analogy I thought of after reading the above that you don't necessarily have to agree with so don't get angry because I just thought that I would put it out there;



Totalitarianism : Anarchy

Fundamentalism : Atheism .....


.....Democratic Republic : ? .....

Maybe we should all really try to examine what actually is good about religion. There is a lot of acclaimed objective literature on religion that does not condemn it.

[LogicMan]

Even though Ayn Rand dangerously reinforces the status quo, here's an interesting analogy I thought of after reading the above that you don't necessarily have to agree with so don't get angry because I just thought that I would put it out there;

Totalitarianism : Anarchy

Fundamentalism : Atheism .....

....Democratic Republic : ? .....

Maybe we should all really try to examine what actually is good about religion. There is a lot of acclaimed objective literature on religion that does not condemn it.
I am not sure where you are going with the first part.
Angry?...

I must admit that I am amazed that you chose to post this after reading either my stuff or VOR's.
EDIT- I take the above back. You do not understand the sum total of my knowledge nor could you.

As for religion this is somewhat tiresome but here we go.

The nature of what we are and the function of our brain is to perceive and interact with the environment in which we live and not to make up things because we may not be in possession of the total sum of data that is existence (the universe). I personally condemn that which is made up and past off as equal to, or greater than, facts (reality). In fact, from my personal stand point, I can not think of anything more heinous than to infect a persons thought process in this way. Remember the brain is mans greatest tool for survival. It needs to be efficient at it's job.

I can only read your statement to translate to an unbiased accurate look at religion in which case your statement is incorrect.

The reason for my putting forth the discussion I had on an Objectivist site was to get more people engaged in the discussion.

My contention is that rational men (women) would be reasonable enough to work things out even if they had to resort to third party arbitration. This however is a virtually impossible hypothetical as most people are not rational and in fact do need to be governed. There just is not enough space here to go into all the variables here and my personal frustration with the consequences caused by ignorance.

So far however there have been some good posts and people making some good observations. For those who have trouble with Objectivism, remember it is an "Ideal" and an idea that is taking into account a whole lot of things. Some of you have pointed out that it does not deal with every day stuff. I know what you are getting at, but again remember Rand was putting forth an idea. Personal attaches do not invalidate that which is good about Objectivism.
That said there are Objectivists that post here and they do their bit to inform as to the philosophy.

On the environmental issue, some people are in fact are just short sighted or maybe just immoral. I have heard many people say that they just do not care. After all they will not have to deal with it. This is the kind of thinking that leads to government policies such as Social Security. We'll just borrow money against the next generation and make them liable for the bill even they do not have a say in the matter. How a person can claim to care about or love their grandchildren if they are supporters of SS is repulsive. Oh ya I remember now...You just turn your brain off and pretend it does not matter.
Quick example story
Fisherman from a south pacific island (cannot remember which) over harvested the local waters. They did not think to help restock the fish population. The consequences were dramatic in that the local reef began to break down and more fish began disappearing. To make the story short after they tried to use prayer to correct the situation, they brought in a marine biologist who set up safe zones and a restocking plan and the situation started to rebound quickly. Moral Having both short and Long term view is essential.

End score
Prayer (religion) - 0
Science - 1

[nthn200]

Even though Ayn Rand dangerously reinforces the status quo, here's an interesting analogy I thought of after reading the above that you don't necessarily have to agree with so don't get angry because I just thought that I would put it out there;

Totalitarianism : Anarchy

Fundamentalism : Atheism .....

....Democratic Republic : ? .....

Maybe we should all really try to examine what actually is good about religion. There is a lot of acclaimed objective literature on religion that does not condemn it.
I am not sure where you are going with the first part.
Angry?...

I must admit that I am amazed that you chose to post this after reading either my stuff or VOR's.
EDIT- I take the above back. You do not understand the sum total of my knowledge nor could you.
If you knew shit, you would know that rational objectivism was in advent of the Enlightenment and was not even considered a popular worldview until the beginnings of globalism. But I think it's funny that you would decide to sum up all of the goals of human existance like that. If all of human existance can only be described using metaphors (prove to me that it can't I dare you), who are you to say that a scientific hypothesis is more relative to human existance than the ancient mythologies that grew into religion.

At any rate, I wasn't directing my comment towards you but to the whole forum, I just used that quote as a scaffold.

[Philboid Studge]

Private property helps curb pollution.
Imagine what the world would be like if there were only private property. You or I would probably never set foot on a beach, for example. (Unless we had jobs as somebody's cabana boy.)

You're probably right when you say setting policy involves "a balancing act." And in that vein it's probably wrong to assume the theorem "the fewer regulations, the better." Some are necessary, and paring them down indefinitely would erase a few important ones.

[Another brick in the wall]

I think the people who owned the beaches in this hypothetical world would charge admission to their beaches. When you go to the beach, you have to pay for parking, for hotels, for food. I don't see why beaches must be free. You don't object to paying to see a movie, I assume. Why would you object to paying an admission fee for a beach?

[Little Earth Stamper]

I think the people who owned the beaches in this hypothetical world would charge admission to their beaches. When you go to the beach, you have to pay for parking, for hotels, for food. I don't see why beaches must be free. You don't object to paying to see a movie, I assume. Why would you object to paying an admission fee for a beach?
Well, strictly sdpeaking, somebody actually made the movie; they put in both money and time to create something that otherwise wouldn't be there.

Beaches are there whether someone owns them or not.

Anyway, I take the objectivist view: I like being able to go to the beach, and I'm not gonna sacrifice my own well-being so that someone else can be arbitrarily awarded control of the beach.

[Another brick in the wall]

Land is there whether someone owns it our not. If people can own land, why can't someone own a beach?

[Tenspace]

Here in the Redneck Riveria, they do own the beach. There are stretches of private beach everywhere. People are pretty cool about it, and don't mind anyone taking a walk, but they will stop you from setting up for the day on their property. There are areas where private land is adjacent to a public beach area. The landowners put up fences to keep the Bubbas off the private property. Some even lay netting down - makes it easier to collect the beer cans they throw over the fence.

Tenspace

[Another brick in the wall]

Ha! There's a big litter problem here in West Virginia. Our new moniker should be "the smashed beer bottle state."

[NihilistThug]

"If people respected individual rights, what then does a government have to offer?"
People don't need to 'respect' rights. The free market and voluntary associations provide superior security at lower costs (which will consume less cost per capita and become more efficient for cost more quickly, because of the higher rate of capital accumulation). A state-less society is not 'chaotic'. The government destroys security and creates chaos, in fact it has a very high incentive to do so because such actions give it an excuse to expand.
Government is always, under any circumstances, useless unless one is interested in the mass fleecing of productive individuals by human leeches or mass murder via wars. There is no such thing as a 'good' or 'stable' government. All states grow, and they grow exponentially. The only stable order is that of the free market.

[nthn200]

"If people respected individual rights, what then does a government have to offer?"
People don't need to 'respect' rights. The free market and voluntary associations provide superior security at lower costs (which will consume less cost per capita and become more efficient for cost more quickly, because of the higher rate of capital accumulation). A state-less society is not 'chaotic'. The government destroys security and creates chaos, in fact it has a very high incentive to do so because such actions give it an excuse to expand.
Government is always, under any circumstances, useless unless one is interested in the mass fleecing of productive individuals by human leeches or mass murder via wars. There is no such thing as a 'good' or 'stable' government. All states grow, and they grow exponentially. The only stable order is that of the free market.
The free market can also be described as fuedalism. All of the corporations have one main purpose...profit. With the advent of the age of communication, the people do not dictate what they need, the corporations do. The (ideal) purpose of government is to insure that the needs of the people are met and carried out. The market has no such tie.

Case in point---
Corporate farms took advantage of a loophole in a law that was supposed to subsidize farmers so that their level of production could meet the price line at which it would be economically phesible for them to produce. The corporate farms produce at the same relative levels and every unit of corn, for example, that exceeds the market demand curve to meet the supply curve for this price is payed for by the taxpayers. This excess corn is mostly turned into high fructose corn syrup, which has no nutritional value, and its recent presence can be accounted for in every new one of the thousands of softdrinks or sugary tea drinks that have emerged recently. Now the same people that pay for the original corn at the market price also pay for the extra corn to be produced and subsequently the shitty sugar drinks that will just make them obese and they will die of diabetes because the government isn't centralized enough to provide adequate health care.

Aside from that mess, the market itself is utterly dependent on the presence of government anyway, and could not exist alone...

So....lots of holes in the free market thing...

[VOICE-of-REASON]

Anyway, I take the objectivist view: I like being able to go to the beach, and I'm not gonna sacrifice my own well-being so that someone else can be arbitrarily awarded control of the beach.
And what on earth makes that and “Objectivist view”?

… Think about car emmision levels; I don't own a car, and I don't plan to buy one in the near future, but somehow the pollution from other people's cars can still effect me…
You socialists are just insufferable. What makes you think that you can ever achieve contradictions – that you can eat your cake and have it, too? What makes you think that you can have effects without appropriate causes – that you can eat your cake before you have it?

You claim to love “freedom”, yet you advocate totalitarianism in the name of illusory “security”. You want a high standard of living, yet you abhor the only system that can provide it: Capitalism. You demand more welfare, more jobs, higher salaries, and you hate “outsourcing”, yet you still demand less or no factories, no profits, no savings, no fuel, no oil, no coal, no nuclear power, no “pollution”, and you will rush to vote into office every spineless bureaucrat who promises to do everything with the mob power that you will give him, to make life and work impossible to those who have the ability to produce that which you want to be “distributed.” Why do you think that A will cease to be A, only if you wish it hard enough?

The free market can also be described as fuedalism. All of the corporations have one main purpose...profit.
You ought to open an actual book on [laissez-faire] capitalism some day – you might just know what it is you’re parroting about. How do companies make profits on the free market – magically? Because it certainly isn’t by exploitation – Marxist delusions and willful distortions notwithstanding. Companies, successful companies, make profits only by offering good products to their consumers, i.e., by offering them values, not by exploiting them.

What is called “competition” in capitalism is the actual opposite of “biological, jungle competition,” in that on the free market the competition that exists pertains to the fact of who can produce the best, i.e., who can best satisfy the wants of the customers by offering them the best products at the cheapest prices, in other words: by raising everyone’s standard of living, whether such was his intention or not – the laws of the market remain inalienable. And any “survival of the fittest” here can only mean “survival of the best/fittest products and best/fittest methods of production,” which is to the advantage of everyone: a classic historical example here would be Henry Ford.

With the advent of the age of communication, the people do not dictate what they need, the corporations do.
What happened to the free will of “the people?” Interesting how you wish to substitute “corporate dictatorship” [contradiction in terms] for actual DICTATORSHIP – the total, centralized STATE.

…the supply curve for this price is payed for by the taxpayers.
You seem to be forgetting who/what is making taxpayers pay such a subsidy: the STATE. And as a solution you wish to fatten the state??!!?? Clearly if this scenario were happening on the free market, there would be no such subsidy – from anyone to anyone, as state and economics would be absolutely separated – so your non-complaint has no merit.

the market itself is utterly dependent on the presence of government anyway
Well, I guess one can be as desperate as that for arguments. Is the free market dependent on a communist, or fascist government? Clearly it is dependent on a government no more than any society’s need for government. But strictly speaking however, capitalism is exactly the system that does not need, and by its own definition, does not incorporate, any form of government intervention in the economy. So, I really don’t know who has told you to think this.

So....lots of holes in the free market thing...
Pick up a book for Christ’s sake!

[Little Earth Stamper]

Anyway, I take the objectivist view: I like being able to go to the beach, and I'm not gonna sacrifice my own well-being so that someone else can be arbitrarily awarded control of the beach.
And what on earth makes that and “Objectivist view”?
What doesn't?

… Think about car emmision levels; I don't own a car, and I don't plan to buy one in the near future, but somehow the pollution from other people's cars can still effect me…
You socialists are just insufferable. What makes you think that you can ever achieve contradictions – that you can eat your cake and have it, too? What makes you think that you can have effects without appropriate causes – that you can eat your cake before you have it?

You claim to love “freedom”, yet you advocate totalitarianism in the name of illusory “security”. You want a high standard of living, yet you abhor the only system that can provide it: Capitalism. You demand more welfare, more jobs, higher salaries, and you hate “outsourcing”, yet you still demand less or no factories, no profits, no savings, no fuel, no oil, no coal, no nuclear power, no “pollution”, and you will rush to vote into office every spineless bureaucrat who promises to do everything with the mob power that you will give him, to make life and work impossible to those who have the ability to produce that which you want to be “distributed.” Why do you think that A will cease to be A, only if you wish it hard enough?
Wow, it's uncanny, you read me like a book!

Just out of curiosity, do you think that a mindless saying like "A is A" will magically turn into an actual argument if you say it enough times?

Anyway, I notice that in your tirade against commies like me, you forgot to actually address my arguments, and those of Philiboid. We pretty much have the same point, which is that often polluters often live in different markets then the people who have to deal with pollution.

How, in your free market world, do people in New York deal with polluters who live in Iowa?

[Philboid Studge]

Why do you think that A will cease to be A, only if you wish it hard enough?
A was never A in the first place -- no matter how hard you wish it to be. (Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-abc.htm), of all, people, made mincemeat of that syllogism right around the time Alissa Rosenbaum (http://www.atlassociety.com/rand.asp) was churning out failed screenplays for Cecil B. DeMille.)

Companies, successful companies, make profits only by offering good products to their consumers, i.e., by offering them values, not by exploiting them.
Besides 'good products,' there are not-so-good by-products. A 'successful' company will maximize profits in part by minimizing costs, particularly costs not directly related to the quality of their goods. Manufacturing waste used to be pumped directly into rivers, because that was the cheapest way to dispose of it. (How is that not exploitation?) Regulations -- yes, those! -- put a stop to that, but there has since been an ongoing struggle between 'successful' companies and the commons they continue to exploit for profit. If there were no controls on, say, mercury effluent, what market mechanism would prevent people from dumping it in the cheapest way possible? (I know this is hard to believe, but apparently companies are run by people. That's okay, though, as people pretty much behave perfectly under all circumstances.)

You socialists are just insufferable. Yada, yada, yada...
And on and on, with nary a word on what to actually do about anything. Never mind, because something that has never existed -- pure capitalism -- will be the great panacea. (Objectivism sure sounds a lot like ol' time religion to me.)

Not coincidentally, just like laissez-faire (lazy, unfair?) capitalism, Objectivism's principal flaw (principle flaw?) is that it does not take into account how real humans actually behave. Ayn Rand herself admitted that she knew nothing of psychology, and that's probably why her "philosophy" sounds good on paper to people who crave formula answers, but has no practical application in the world of homo sapiens. If only all these higher primates were rational, what a perfect world it would be ...

Pick up a book for Christ’s sake!
Thanks for reinforcing my point. Stick your face in a book, never leave the ivory tower. Don't even bother to look out the window, and a benevolent Invisible Hand (http://plus.maths.org/issue14/features/smith/) will take care of everything.

[Another brick in the wall]

How, in your free market world, do people in New York deal with polluters who live in Iowa?
Why would people in New York be worried about pollution in Iowa? Let the people in Iowa worry about it.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

... a mindless saying like "A is A"…
A was never A in the first place …
Wow! They are actually outdoing each other. That’s just hilarious. You are such concrete-bound mentalities – that you are utterly unable to see, or abstract beyond your noses shouldn’t be much of a surprise: you are semi-barbarians.

Capitalism is to you what Evolution is to religionists. You will never study it’s theory or its history in practice, yet you will never stop damning it; when you are told that capitalism is completely self-regulatory, and that it is governed by well established natural laws, you still cry that capitalism is the “anarchy of production” – just as the religionists think that mere “chance” is the main operator in Evolution; and you proceed on to cry that you need “planning” or “regulation”, just as the religionists are unable to understand the universe without an all-knowing, super-planning intelligence: and of course, you both think that this non-entity will give you paradise – for the socialists, paradise on earth; for the religionists, paradise in the afterlife … and each cling to their self-delusions with the faith of a fanatic, refusing to see reality for what it is.

If you think that the “pollution” of industrial civilization is unbearable then by all means, continue destroying it. Go ahead and evade the fact that your present “polluted” standard of living, and your life expectancy, were not even imaginable to a savage of prehistoric ages – the mentality of whom you still possess today. Evade the fact that because of “polluting” capitalism [or what remains of it, to be exact], you live in a better society than exist in third world countries – where there is no “pollution” and no capitalism. Evade the fact that since the Industrial Revolution, Capitalism, or whatever remnant of it that has managed to survive in spite of your never-ending hamperings, has done nothing but raise your standard of living. Evade the fact that New York City was unlivable in its horse-and-buggy days with the omnipresence of animal excrements on the streets, and that it is far cleaner now than it was just 30 years ago – that it continues to get cleaner: that better technology + cleaner fuel = cleaner environment.

But of course, once again you think you can have effects without appropriate causes. You cry about our foreign dependency of fuel – “polluting” fuel – yet you will do everything possible to restrict Alaskan off-shore drilling, and as a result of your reckless, scare-mongering policies, no license for a single nuclear power plant has been awarded for over two decades, while you full well know that nuclear energy is by far the cleanest, safest, and most reliable energy source currently available to modern economies. As for your aversion to new and better technology … well that need not be mentioned here: one only needs to watch the evening news to find out.

Keep on wishing for contradictions and effects without causes – after all, you are “practical” men … you just need to wish it hard enough – the absolutism of reality be damned.

[Philboid Studge]

How, in your free market world, do people in New York deal with polluters who live in Iowa?
Why would people in New York be worried about pollution in Iowa? Let the people in Iowa worry about it.
Go back to post #32 and read point 5. (And do read up on externalities.)

[Another brick in the wall]

Now, now, VOR, insults are not necessary. Stick to attacking the arguments.

[nthn200]

Anyway, I take the objectivist view: I like being able to go to the beach, and I'm not gonna sacrifice my own well-being so that someone else can be arbitrarily awarded control of the beach.
And what on earth makes that and “Objectivist view”?

… Think about car emmision levels; I don't own a car, and I don't plan to buy one in the near future, but somehow the pollution from other people's cars can still effect me…
You socialists are just insufferable. What makes you think that you can ever achieve contradictions – that you can eat your cake and have it, too? What makes you think that you can have effects without appropriate causes – that you can eat your cake before you have it?

You claim to love “freedom”, yet you advocate totalitarianism in the name of illusory “security”. You want a high standard of living, yet you abhor the only system that can provide it: Capitalism. You demand more welfare, more jobs, higher salaries, and you hate “outsourcing”, yet you still demand less or no factories, no profits, no savings, no fuel, no oil, no coal, no nuclear power, no “pollution”, and you will rush to vote into office every spineless bureaucrat who promises to do everything with the mob power that you will give him, to make life and work impossible to those who have the ability to produce that which you want to be “distributed.” Why do you think that A will cease to be A, only if you wish it hard enough?

The free market can also be described as fuedalism. All of the corporations have one main purpose...profit.
You ought to open an actual book on [laissez-faire] capitalism some day – you might just know what it is you’re parroting about. How do companies make profits on the free market – magically? Because it certainly isn’t by exploitation – Marxist delusions and willful distortions notwithstanding. Companies, successful companies, make profits only by offering good products to their consumers, i.e., by offering them values, not by exploiting them.

What is called “competition” in capitalism is the actual opposite of “biological, jungle competition,” in that on the free market the competition that exists pertains to the fact of who can produce the best, i.e., who can best satisfy the wants of the customers by offering them the best products at the cheapest prices, in other words: by raising everyone’s standard of living, whether such was his intention or not – the laws of the market remain inalienable. And any “survival of the fittest” here can only mean “survival of the best/fittest products and best/fittest methods of production,” which is to the advantage of everyone: a classic historical example here would be Henry Ford.

With the advent of the age of communication, the people do not dictate what they need, the corporations do.
What happened to the free will of “the people?” Interesting how you wish to substitute “corporate dictatorship” [contradiction in terms] for actual DICTATORSHIP – the total, centralized STATE.

…the supply curve for this price is payed for by the taxpayers.
You seem to be forgetting who/what is making taxpayers pay such a subsidy: the STATE. And as a solution you wish to fatten the state??!!?? Clearly if this scenario were happening on the free market, there would be no such subsidy – from anyone to anyone, as state and economics would be absolutely separated – so your non-complaint has no merit.

the market itself is utterly dependent on the presence of government anyway
Well, I guess one can be as desperate as that for arguments. Is the free market dependent on a communist, or fascist government? Clearly it is dependent on a government no more than any society’s need for government. But strictly speaking however, capitalism is exactly the system that does not need, and by its own definition, does not incorporate, any form of government intervention in the economy. So, I really don’t know who has told you to think this.

So....lots of holes in the free market thing...
Pick up a book for Christ’s sake!
Adam Smith devised laissez-faire economics in the 1700's before limited liability corporations or public trusts. The world has changed a tad since then. Just because you read a book or took a business class doesn't mean that you've solved any of the world's issues. Don't you see that there can be no absolute theory on government or economics?

Here's how capitism would work without any government: No Human Rights. The closest we came to that was the industrial revolution. All of that bullshit climaxed into a world wide depression and was followed by two world wars.

[Another brick in the wall]

The stuff made in Iowa gets sold all over America, so it's not completely their fault that the acid rain falls on New York. At any rate, pollution is an unavoidable consequence of industry. If people want to pass regulations to reduce pollution, it will drive up the cost of the products made by the factories affected by those regulations. There's no way around it; either people need to buy less or people need to be willing to pay more. I never said I was against all environmental regulations, but they're not the panacaea that some make them out to be.

[Little Earth Stamper]

But of course, once again you think you can have effects without appropriate causes. You cry about our foreign dependency of fuel – “polluting” fuel – yet you will do everything possible to restrict Alaskan off-shore drilling, and as a result of your reckless, scare-mongering policies, no license for a single nuclear power plant has been awarded for over two decades, while you full well know that nuclear energy is by far the cleanest, safest, and most reliable energy source currently available to modern economies. As for your aversion to new and better technology … well that need not be mentioned here: one only needs to watch the evening news to find out.
Point out the post where either Philiboid or I spoke out against nuclear power.

Show me the post where either Philiboid or I decried dependance on foreign fuels.

Quote the post where Philiboid or I whined about the Alaskan drilling plan.

Oh wait, you can't, because we never said those things.

Hey, here's an idea: Attack our actual arguments. I realize that this is an unorthodox debate strategy, but I think it just might work. I'll make it easy for you.

See, in all our posts we have mentioned a common fear: Poorly disposed of pollution. For example, we worry when companies dump Mercury directly into our rivers. Here in Portland, there's a problem with sewer tunnels that just empty directly into the Willamette river. Nuclear plants, despite cleanliness, do in fact create some waste, and this waste is fairly dangerous. It's probably not a good idea to just toss it into an empty lot by the side of the road, although this would be the cheapest option.

Now, we want to know this: Why companies follow complicated and expensive cleanup procedures, when they could just dump their waste in somebody else's back yard?

See how I asked a question there? All you have to do is answer it and that will deflate my brutal, mindless savagery.

[Little Earth Stamper]

The stuff made in Iowa gets sold all over America, so it's not completely their fault that the acid rain falls on New York. At any rate, pollution is an unavoidable consequence of industry. If people want to pass regulations to reduce pollution, it will drive up the cost of the products made by the factories affected by those regulations. There's no way around it; either people need to buy less or people need to be willing to pay more. I never said I was against all environmental regulations, but they're not the panacaea that some make them out to be.
What if the product being produced in Iowa is coal power? What does New York do then?

Actually, power is a really good example, because it's a necessity, and the infrastructure to provide it is incredibly complicated to set up. This means that there's not a lot of competition in the power-providing arena. So what do you do if you don't like the way your power company is behaving? Boycott them and go without electricity for a few months? Wait for another company to build a new power-palnt and put new power lines up throughout the entire city?

Even if that happens, you have to hope that the current power-plant doesn't own all the land needed for powerlines, and that they don't just buy up the new power company.

A similar situation occurs with the water system. Suppose they build the sewers so they just dump untreated waste directly into the river, or just into some valley outside of town? What are you going to do about it?

Anyway, I agree with you, but I'm also talking to someone who thinks that any goverment regulations on pollution are evil and savage. I find that to be a slightly less credible argument then "Although some regulations are necessary, they drive up the cost of production, and must therefore be used judiciously in order to maintain the economy".

[Philboid Studge]

As always, the Objectivists have little to say about real life. They can only rail against the barbarians at the gates, content with their self-appointed roles as Keepers of the Vedas, privy to the Absolute Truths of the universe. And when they do mention real life, they toss reality, absolute or otherwise, out the window:

Evade the fact that New York City was unlivable in its horse-and-buggy days with the omnipresence of animal excrements on the streets, and that it is far cleaner now than it was just 30 years ago – that it continues to get cleaner: that better technology + cleaner fuel = cleaner environment.
Yeah, made possible by the Clean Air Act, among other regulations passed in the 1970s (God bless Nixon!). Even your "better technology + cleaner fuel" equation is driven more by regulations and (omigod, what'll we tell the children?) government subsidies than by some magical function of capitalism. Oh, but facts be damned. I must say, the irony is delicious: here's someone who says he has tapped into objective reality, yet thinks nothing of making claims contrary to real facts. Ya got chutzpah, kid. I'll give you that.

[Another brick in the wall]

If you don't like the way your power company behaves, there are several things you can do: you can conserve power to prevent pollution, you could by an electric generator, you could move out to the country and use solar cells or wind power for electricity. I understand your point that other people's activities can affect us in ways we don't like, but that's one of the drawbacks of a free society. Fast food and highways are convenient, but they greatly increase litter. Cars are convenient, but they produce pollution. I'm not sure I agree with you about the part that competition is not a possibility in some industries. Why couldn't there be multiple power companies in a given area? There can be multiple phone companies in a given area without having to add more infrastructure. Competing industries can and do share infrastructure; trucking companies don't build their own private highway systems, they use the public highways.

[LogicMan]

If you knew shit, you would know that rational objectivism was in advent of the Enlightenment and was not even considered a popular worldview until the beginnings of globalism.
I do not know what you mean by the "Enlightenment"

Also I am not a philosopher per say. I am a scientist. That is I only deal with things that are geared toward reality with correct scientific methodologies. Therefore anything that stands the test of reality (actual verification) is acceptable to me.

If all of human existence can only be described using metaphors (prove to me that it can't I dare you),
I am not sure what you are getting at here?

If however like other religious people you are saying ..."prove god does not exist". The proper response is...It is not up to anyone to disprove a negative. That is anything which has no actual evidence and contradicts proven facts.
As an example: If someone back in history may have said prove there is no thunder god. Well you can not prove something does not exist, however you can prove how things in reality actually work and in the process destroy that which is made up (the thunder god)...in this case by figuring out what actually caused thunder and lightning.

who are you to say that a scientific hypothesis is more relative to human existence than the ancient mythologies that grew into religion.
You seem to miss a critical word I used..."fact". Hypothesis as I am sure you know are ideas for directions in which to find the actual facts. So at least a hypothesis has potential where as myths do not...that is in the context of dealing with our environment.
Again proven facts and contextually accurate concepts are that which allow us to exist in our environment. Ancient mythologies and current mythologies are fine as entertainment but are in no way to be considered relative to science.

[Little Earth Stamper]

If you don't like the way your power company behaves, there are several things you can do: you can conserve power to prevent pollution, you could by an electric generator, you could move out to the country and use solar cells or wind power for electricity. I understand your point that other people's activities can affect us in ways we don't like, but that's one of the drawbacks of a free society. Fast food and highways are convenient, but they greatly increase litter. Cars are convenient, but they produce pollution. I'm not sure I agree with you about the part that competition is not a possibility in some industries. Why couldn't there be multiple power companies in a given area? There can be multiple phone companies in a given area without having to add more infrastructure. Competing industries can and do share infrastructure; trucking companies don't build their own private highway systems, they use the public highways.
This is because they are public highways. In a truly Lassez-faire system, wouldn't the infrastructure be privately owned?

Moving out to the country is a good option, unless you're a janitor or a teacher or a mechanic or anyone who can't afford to. I'm curious as to how the costs of a generator stack up to costs of power from a plant.

[Tenspace]

Moving out to the country is a good option, unless you're a janitor or a teacher or a mechanic or anyone who can't afford to. I'm curious as to how the costs of a generator stack up to costs of power from a plant.
Most power companies will buy back unused generation capacity from you. So get a big generator and sell back the power to the power company. You'll be your own little power fiefdom on the grid. :)

Ten

[Another brick in the wall]

Moving out to the country is a good option, unless you're a janitor or a teacher or a mechanic or anyone who can't afford to. I'm curious as to how the costs of a generator stack up to costs of power from a plant.
No one forced them into low-paying jobs. I don't know if using a generator would be cheaper than getting it from a company. It probably depends on where you live, how much you use, and so forth.

[LogicMan]

A was never A in the first place -- no matter how hard you wish it to be.
I did not think I would see this one.

If A is not A then nothing is what it is. That chair you sit on becomes a table becomes a car becomes a........
Oops my mistake; If I really held to your statement that A is not A then - ohf9aycufaf3liiag95 lshAU56P9-]Q8TCIUHDOSQ;P917[CN;C;oi{ FHRHEY 3;kA0pok;jc(u2pijuh835peurn46u5q3747.

Phew back in the reality of A is A I can actually use words that are what they are and we can communicate.

There is a larger point here. The most critical thing anyone should know.

If A is not A or can become B then it can be C or F, or K, or W or.........

Existence and that which exists can not be random
That is in contradiction to it's nature


If only all these higher primates were rational, what a perfect world it would be ...
I agree with the literal interpolation of this sarcastic statement


People don't need to 'respect' rights. The free market and voluntary associations provide superior security at lower costs (which will consume less cost per capita and become more efficient for cost more quickly, because of the higher rate of capital accumulation).
A truly free market can not exist without free people. For people to be free they must have the rights to themselves.


A state-less society is not 'chaotic'.
It is chaotic only if the people are. No people will not necessarily go bonkers just because the is no government baby sitting them. In other words people are what they are.
Most people feel that the threat of overwhelming and virtually inescapable retribution, such as only a government with a standing army and organized police force can provide, is what it takes to keep people honest.

The problem which you are rightly pointing out is what if a government is not honest?

The government destroys security and creates chaos, in fact it has a very high incentive to do so because such actions give it an excuse to expand.
Government is always, under any circumstances, useless unless one is interested in the mass fleecing of productive individuals by human leeches or mass murder via wars. There is no such thing as a 'good' or 'stable' government. All states grow, and they grow exponentially. The only stable order is that of the free market.
Hmm this is all getting interesting

[Philboid Studge]

If A is not A then nothing is what it is. That chair you sit on becomes a table becomes a car becomes a........
I see that you didn't read the Trotsky link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-abc.htm), which is too bad. I wish you had, because I'd be interested to hear your take on it as a criticism of A=A. I wonder if that's possible, though: you seem rather locked in to a "truism" that brooks no dissent. Again, that's too bad. Personally, I see some problems with Trotsky here (saying he makes mincemeat of Aristotle was overstating it), but he does expose cracks in the foundation of your world-view, which is no small thing for a paradigm supposedly resting on absolutes. At least I think he does, and hearing your take might have been illimuniating. Anyway, if you have time give it a look (it's not long or dense). Unless you are content, as he would say, "with motionless imprints of a reality which consists of eternal motion. "

[LogicMan]

If A is not A then nothing is what it is. That chair you sit on becomes a table becomes a car becomes a........
I see that you didn't read the Trotsky link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1939/1939-abc.htm), which is too bad. I wish you had, because I'd be interested to hear your take on it as a criticism of A=A. I wonder if that's possible, though: you seem rather locked in to a "truism" that brooks no dissent. Again, that's too bad. Personally, I see some problems with Trotsky here (saying he makes mincemeat of Aristotle was overstating it), but he does expose cracks in the foundation of your world-view, which is no small thing for a paradigm supposedly resting on absolutes. At least I think he does, and hearing your take might have been illimuniating. Anyway, if you have time give it a look (it's not long or dense). Unless you are content, as he would say, "with motionless imprints of a reality which consists of eternal motion. "
Alright I have a long 4 day weekend so I will take a look. However I normally do not take time looking into things once a correct answer is found. That is because there can be an infinite amount of incorrect answers to any given question and sifting through them all gets tediuos. Will be back with a critique later...

later...

Hegel frequently refers to a concept being “Self-identical” or “equal to itself”. By this he means that the concept is lacking in any internal contradiction and is therefore abstract and motionless and generally isolated from connection with other things. Science tells us today that such an idea is impossible. For example, a body of water in which the temperature has become equal throughout (something which is impossible in reality) will have no convection currents within it; a society with no internal contradictions would be static and lifeless, etc., etc. Since all things are in motion and occupy different places in space/time, "self-identical" is impossible.
Wrong... even as something that exists changes over time it is still itself. (more on that below)

This equal to itself is is a metaphoric screw up. It is A is A. That is a thing is itself.

Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this 'axiom', it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word 'moment'? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that 'moment' to inevitable changes. Or is the 'moment' a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time?

But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom 'A' is equal to 'A' signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
The point of this part is moot as he has the axiom wrong and consequently everything that he brings forth from this mistake is wrong.

It is as simple as that. He mis defined the axiom and then proceeded to use non relative metaphors to try to make the point.

As an example I will use the drilling tolerance metaphor he tried to use incorrectly.

First the drill (drill press) is what it is. That is a tool with a specific structure that is capable of what it is capable of as far as accuracy goes. And if you try to throw in the fact that mass produced machine even if they are the same model yield slightly different results; That is because the machine use to make these tools are what they are and each is capable of what it is capable of (and I might as well add here) at any given time due to wear etc. The changes over time (the wear and tear) are part of the nature of the tool.

Not only do machines wear out but the people running them will very as far as skill and focus. The skill and focus is part of the nature of each individual. Each individual is who they are. They are what they are physically and intellectually and both of these two states of being change with time. So Person A is person A and the changes person A goes through are part of the nature of what person A is. A is always A. But now you corrupt the axiom by changing it to A = A and he runs fast and loose, distorting the facts as he goes. So what he is doing is isolating particular traits that in the process removes the trait in question from it's proper context. Without proper context you have what others have called floating abstractions.

Or I could simply point out that A is A is a tool for identification and not for measurement per say. What the two gentleman did was to co-opt the axiom and change it to A = A and use it for measurement. The difference is critical.

[nthn200]

If you knew shit, you would know that rational objectivism was in advent of the Enlightenment and was not even considered a popular worldview until the beginnings of globalism.
I do not know what you mean by the "Enlightenment"

Also I am not a philosopher per say. I am a scientist. That is I only deal with things that are geared toward reality with correct scientific methodologies. Therefore anything that stands the test of reality (actual verification) is acceptable to me.

If all of human existence can only be described using metaphors (prove to me that it can't I dare you),
I am not sure what you are getting at here?

If however like other religious people you are saying ..."prove god does not exist". The proper response is...It is not up to anyone to disprove a negative. That is anything which has no actual evidence and contradicts proven facts.
As an example: If someone back in history may have said prove there is no thunder god. Well you can not prove something does not exist, however you can prove how things in reality actually work and in the process destroy that which is made up (the thunder god)...in this case by figuring out what actually caused thunder and lightning.

who are you to say that a scientific hypothesis is more relative to human existence than the ancient mythologies that grew into religion.
You seem to miss a critical word I used..."fact". Hypothesis as I am sure you know are ideas for directions in which to find the actual facts. So at least a hypothesis has potential where as myths do not...that is in the context of dealing with our environment.
Again proven facts and contextually accurate concepts are that which allow us to exist in our environment. Ancient mythologies and current mythologies are fine as entertainment but are in no way to be considered relative to science.
If you are a scientist and you don't know what the Enlightenment is...go back to school. Damn...

We may have gone far in our understanding of the natural world, but mythology did not exist merely as a primative scientific rationale. Mythology was living and breathing and integral in the lives of these ancient tribes, not capricious the way science can be.

Facts are relative to human interpretation. I challenge you to define a fact.

Myths have aching potential, they do not exist in a vacuum. Look at art...very little of it has not been influenced by mythology in one way or another. Science is not the pivotal point on which most human beings evaluate their existance...sorry.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

Adam Smith devised laissez-faire economics in the 1700's before…
Well, that proves not only your ignorance of capitalism in particular, but of the entire science of economics. What makes you think that Capitalism begins and ends with Adam Smith? So much for the greatness of public education.

Here's how capitism would work without any government: No Human Rights.
That is supposed to be an indictment on capitalism? Why don’t you tell me then what “other” sorts of societies are able to work without a proper government … I’d also suggest that you open up a dictionary and learn the difference between politics and economics.

The closest we came to that was the industrial revolution. All of that bullshit climaxed into a world wide depression and was followed by two world wars.
Why don’t you prove that – i.e., how did capitalism cause “a worldwide wide depression [that] was followed by two world wars?”

Point out the post where either Philiboid or I spoke out against nuclear power.

Show me the post where either Philiboid or I decried dependance on foreign fuels.

Quote the post where Philiboid or I whined about the Alaskan drilling plan.

Oh wait, you can't, because we never said those things.
That’s just hilarious. This is like a Christian asking me to “quote” where he said that he believes in god. You’re an envirofreak for god’s sake!

we worry when companies dump Mercury directly into our rivers.
(Emphasis mine)

Your rivers? Do you own the rivers? Clearly not. Now, you wouldn’t have this “problem” if this were a capitalist country, would you? – As dumping unwanted materials on someone’s property without his consent is a violation of that person’s right to property, and would be punishable by law in any free country. I suggest you address your complaints elsewhere.

Here in Portland, there's a problem with sewer tunnels that just empty directly into the Willamette river.
Who do you think owns and built the sewer tunnels – the city/state, isn’t it?

And I really don’t see the point of this complaint, if clean water is what you’re worried about : only evasion on a massive scale can permit one to ignore the positive relationship between Industrial Civilization and the quality of water consumed by individuals from said societies. You ought to try drinking “natural” water from third world countries some day.

Nuclear plants, despite cleanliness, do in fact create some waste, and this waste is fairly dangerous.
“Some waste”? How much waste? Because I know that the amount of radiation that a worker in a nuclear plant is subjected to all year, is far less than the amount one is exposed to by going only once under an X-ray machine for a medical procedure. That nuclear power plants rank among the safest places to work today, should be enough to make the point.

It's probably not a good idea to just toss it into an empty lot by the side of the road, although this would be the cheapest option.
As I am speaking within the framework of a free market, private-property society, I will ask again: who would be the owner of those roads?

Why companies follow complicated and expensive cleanup procedures, when they could just dump their waste in somebody else's back yard?
And why on earth would they do that? What happened to that person’s property rights anyway – or do you just enjoy inventing scare-mongering scenarios?

As always, the Objectivists have little to say about real life.
Not only is that an empty sentence, it’s getting really old.

Yeah, made possible by the Clean Air Act, among other regulations passed in the 1970s (God bless Nixon!). Even your "better technology + cleaner fuel" equation is driven more by regulations and (omigod, what'll we tell the children?) government subsidies than by some magical function of capitalism.
[Emphasis mine.]

That reference to magic is a confession of your utter misunderstanding of economic science.

As for the logical aspect of your claim, it is at best, a post hoc fallacy – to be added to such myths as “capitalism caused WWII” and “FDR saved us from the Great Depression.” All of them are crude perversions of history. The fact is, air pollution was being reduced in the U.S decades before the passing of the Clean Air Act – which if anything, served only to hamper things … as government intervention in the economy always does.

It is a known historical fact that pollution has always been a nuisance in cities where there is a relatively high concentration of population. This began being corrected only with the advent and advance of science and industry, which brought new methods of construction and the manufacture of such metals as steel – this first permitted the construction of low cost sewers which helped diminish the high amount of horse manure and urine in the streets; and later the invention of the automobile did away completely with animal pollution. And it is the competition of car manufacturers to construct still better cars that is the efficient cause behind the reduction of car pollution. And now with the existence of air conditioning, indoor plumbing, and all other modern methods of ventilation and air purification, you actually live and work at places with better air quality. Not to forget the advance of medicine which helped nearly eradicate such deadly respiratory diseases as pneumonia and tuberculosis.

The simple fact that capitalism increased both your standard of living, and your life expectancy [from under 3 decades before the Industrial Revolution to over 7 decades today], instead of reducing it, clearly flies in the face of every form of evasive complaint that you may have. Capitalism however, cannot be subjected to envirofreak standards and wants, that is to say: capitalism does not “protect” the environment from man; capitalism protects – and improves – the environment for man.

As for your “externalites” doctrine … well, I have to say that it is a stupid doctrine appropriate exactly for non-entities that advocate the existence of round squares. Keep it up.

[NihilistThug]

I would just like to thank the resident egoist for replying to nthn, saving me the pain of beating my head against the desk in frustration.

Adam Smith was only quasi-capitalistic, he was essentially a statist. If you want to see the real beginning of capitalism check out Frederic Bastiat and Gustave De Molinari.

The problem is that these people have been educated by the government schools, using government approved text-books, any further education has come by state controlled academia. State-controlled academia publishes the 'popular' politico-economic books, and these are given publicity by the state controlled media. This has been happening for at least eighty years, and thus their knowledge and further their ability to deal rationally and factually with economics is virtually nonexistent.

[Amazonis]

Capitalism destroys the environment. It creates poverty for more people than it creates wealth. And their wealth will be temporary because they exploit their resorces so fast that in 50 years time they will have none left to exploit. VOR you say it improves the environment for man? 99.8 percent of rainforests cut down are not replanted, and the soil is eroded away and left useless. This is not for the benefit of man - it is the benefit of some MEN.

[NihilistThug]

Capitalism destroys the environment. It creates poverty for more people than it creates wealth. And their wealth will be temporary because they exploit their resorces so fast that in 50 years time they will have none left to exploit. VOR you say it improves the environment for man? 99.8 percent of rainforests cut down are not replanted, and the soil is eroded away and left useless. This is not for the benefit of man - it is the benefit of some MEN.
Bullshit, but like I said educating people is not something I am particularly concerned with. Learn some real facts about the market and the enviroment, instead of regurgitating some nonsense your Statist professor told you whilst he cashed his check of stolen money from the EPA.

[nthn200]

Adam Smith devised laissez-faire economics in the 1700's before…
Well, that proves not only your ignorance of capitalism in particular, but of the entire science of economics. What makes you think that Capitalism begins and ends with Adam Smith? So much for the greatness of public education.

That's not what I said, is it? I was referring to laissez-faire economics because you brought it up. It's current manifestation has completely undermined the Keynesian model, which I tend to agree with more. So much for you proving a point at all.

Here's how capitism would work without any government: No Human Rights.
That is supposed to be an indictment on capitalism? Why don’t you tell me then what “other” sorts of societies are able to work without a proper government … I’d also suggest that you open up a dictionary and learn the difference between politics and economics.

Am I supposed to infer that they are mutually indepedent of each other? I was merely challenging your contention that a free market system could work without government because it's horribly absurd and awkward. You really don't know how to argue, do you?

The closest we came to that was the industrial revolution. All of that bullshit climaxed into a world wide depression and was followed by two world wars.
Why don’t you prove that – i.e., how did capitalism cause “a worldwide wide depression [that] was followed by two world wars?”
The Industrial Revolution relegated the working class to near slavery. There was no socio-political responsibilty (just look at the textile mills where Irish and Italians were working under intolerably inhumane conditions). If you want a more elaborate description of this, I suggest you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Surely you are also familiar with all of the dangerous products produced within the United States passed off as medicine, and so on, and so forth. With no liabilty towards society, the system collapsed in what is referred to as the collapse of the First Global Economy. The major economies of the world were in a depression and suceptable to fascism which took a stranglehold over much of Europe in what became the beginnings of World War II.

But being a person who knows about economics, you probably knew all of this fundamental stuff, right?

[nthn200]

I would just like to thank the resident egoist for replying to nthn, saving me the pain of beating my head against the desk in frustration.

Adam Smith was only quasi-capitalistic, he was essentially a statist. If you want to see the real beginning of capitalism check out Frederic Bastiat and Gustave De Molinari.

The problem is that these people have been educated by the government schools, using government approved text-books, any further education has come by state controlled academia. State-controlled academia publishes the 'popular' politico-economic books, and these are given publicity by the state controlled media. This has been happening for at least eighty years, and thus their knowledge and further their ability to deal rationally and factually with economics is virtually nonexistent.
So the State deliberatelty undermines it's own economic models by limiting these "government approved texts". That makes perfect sense (By the way we have a free press which means that the only thing controlling the media is whoever invests money in it).

By the way, I wasn't challeging how much you know about the history of capitalism - - Adam Smith did devise laissez faire economics, and frankly, you sound like a prick.

[Amazonis]

Capitalism destroys the environment. It creates poverty for more people than it creates wealth. And their wealth will be temporary because they exploit their resorces so fast that in 50 years time they will have none left to exploit. VOR you say it improves the environment for man? 99.8 percent of rainforests cut down are not replanted, and the soil is eroded away and left useless. This is not for the benefit of man - it is the benefit of some MEN.
Bullshit, but like I said educating people is not something I am particularly concerned with. Learn some real facts about the market and the enviroment, instead of regurgitating some nonsense your Statist professor told you whilst he cashed his check of stolen money from the EPA.
I know a shitload more about the environment that you do obviously. None of my infomation comes from a proffessor, i learn for myself. Saying capitalism is good for the environment is bullshit. Name one fucking way in which it helps the environment.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Point out the post where either Philiboid or I spoke out against nuclear power.

Show me the post where either Philiboid or I decried dependance on foreign fuels.

Quote the post where Philiboid or I whined about the Alaskan drilling plan.

Oh wait, you can't, because we never said those things.
That’s just hilarious. This is like a Christian asking me to “quote” where he said that he believes in god. You’re an envirofreak for god’s sake!
Ah, I see. The fact that I support any government regulation at all by definition makes me an enviromental freak. And not just an environmental freak, a hypocritical one. You should tell that to Brick in a Wall; he seems to think he's fairly libertarian.

we worry when companies dump Mercury directly into our rivers.
(Emphasis mine)

Your rivers? Do you own the rivers? Clearly not. Now, you wouldn’t have this “problem” if this were a capitalist country, would you? – As dumping unwanted materials on someone’s property without his consent is a violation of that person’s right to property, and would be punishable by law in any free country. I suggest you address your complaints elsewhere.
Because clearly, I'd be able to pay more for a river then a giant industrial plant.

And what happens if they dump in their part of the river, and it flows into mine? Is that illegal? What if they spew smog into their part of the sky, and then it gets into my part of the sky? Is that illegal?

Because pollution from other people's property, such as cars and so forth blowing on to my property, and my fucking lungs, whichI definately own, is a large part of what I'm complaining about.

Here in Portland, there's a problem with sewer tunnels that just empty directly into the Willamette river.
Who do you think owns and built the sewer tunnels – the city/state, isn’t it?
And a private company would build them differently because?

And I really don’t see the point of this complaint, if clean water is what you’re worried about : only evasion on a massive scale can permit one to ignore the positive relationship between Industrial Civilization and the quality of water consumed by individuals from said societies. You ought to try drinking “natural” water from third world countries some day.
Of course there's a benefit. Maybe if you read what I actually write instead of making up stupid things for me to believe in, you'd realize this. But I also believe that government regulations also often improve environmental conditions.

Nuclear plants, despite cleanliness, do in fact create some waste, and this waste is fairly dangerous.
“Some waste”? How much waste? Because I know that the amount of radiation that a worker in a nuclear plant is subjected to all year, is far less than the amount one is exposed to by going only once under an X-ray machine for a medical procedure. That nuclear power plants rank among the safest places to work today, should be enough to make the point.
Jesus fucking christ, don't you know anything?

I'm talking about the stuff they plan to store inYucca Mountain. This stuff (http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=14).

It's probably not a good idea to just toss it into an empty lot by the side of the road, although this would be the cheapest option.
As I am speaking within the framework of a free market, private-property society, I will ask again: who would be the owner of those roads?
The nuclear power plant?

Why companies follow complicated and expensive cleanup procedures, when they could just dump their waste in somebody else's back yard?
And why on earth would they do that? What happened to that person’s property rights anyway – or do you just enjoy inventing scare-mongering scenarios?
I guess that's fair. But what about transportation? Why pay to insulate the driver from the radiation when you coul just hire a desperate person whp is willing to work for peanuts?
As always, the Objectivists have little to say about real life.
Not only is that an empty sentence, it’s getting really old.
Alost as old as sayings like "A is A" or "That's hilarious!"

[LogicMan]

If you are a scientist and you don't know what the Enlightenment is...go back to school. Damn...
A school in almost any instance would be a best my second choice if I wanted real education (such is the state of the system).

That said I am a science based thinker ...not a dedicated historian. Checked web...nothing I have not seen before back as a kid.

Now I will address the original point about popular world views....I DO NOT CARE ABOUT POPULARITY. Consensus (popular view) is meaningless unless it happens to miraculously coincide with that which is factually correct. Adhering to that which is correct is an individual act and not a group action. Each individual mush understand the facts that make the concepts that make the complex concepts that are contextually in proper order. There is no shortcut to proper knowledge.

We may have gone far in our understanding of the natural world, but mythology did not exist merely as a primitive scientific rationale. Mythology was living and breathing and integral in the lives of these ancient tribes, not capricious the way science can be.
No mythology is a very poor substitute for real knowledge.

Facts are relative to human interpretation. I challenge you to define a fact.
A fact is an objective observation of existence or that which exists.

Myths have aching potential, they do not exist in a vacuum.
In fact they do. They can not be place in proper context into a fully realized (scientifically verified against reality) concept. The reason...The do not deal with reality...existense.


Look at art...very little of it has not been influenced by mythology in one way or another. Science is not the pivotal point on which most human beings evaluate their existance...sorry.
The point you are making about art is really a market consideration. The reason for the mythology is it is what a lot of people were (are) willing to buy.

No need to apologize for the last part. We all have free will to make such choices, and the choices we make say a lot about ourselves.

[Philboid Studge]

VoR, I agree that technological innovations have in many ways improved mine and everyone else's lives. I agree that they have played an important role in reducin