maf
User
Karma: 41
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 11:32
An extemsion of my mind? You mean like engrams and psychic energy? That sounds rather spiritualist, I presume you can state that in a way that does not require my blind faith.
HAHA, NO. Objectivism does not accept mysticism of any type. Extension of the mind means that it is something you created by using your mind.
Do you agree that property rights are part of individual rights? If so, I made my point. If no, let me know why you do not think they are part of individual rights.
You have to understand the nature of money to understand why money counterfeiting is a violation of property rights as well. Originally by counterfeiting I thought you meant copying your customer's product through non-forceful means. My mistake. Counterfeiting money would be a violation of property rights, as far as I can reason.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
dgandhi
User
Karma: 1
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 12:18
maf wrote:
An extemsion of my mind? You mean like engrams and psychic energy? That sounds rather spiritualist, I presume you can state that in a way that does not require my blind faith.
HAHA, NO. Objectivism does not accept mysticism of any type. Extension of the mind means that it is something you created by using your mind.
Why? I understand that people use their minds to invent things, but how do you reason that that makes the inventions part of their mind?
Do you agree that property rights are part of individual rights?
possesion rights are individual rights(it's in my hand, taking it from me requires accosting me), property is, at best, only sometimes entangled with individual rights.
If so, I made my point. If no, let me know why you do not think they are part of individual rights.
I don't see how the point is made, even if physical property is a RIGHT (a position which I find self controdictory) it would not follow that created => property.
My position on property is that property is a SERVICE, not a RIGHT. Goverments enforce and deny the service of property according to whatever method they please. For the service to exist, the goverment must enforce it, by selectively denying it to those who trespass on the property of others.
property boundries are ALWAYS grey, and so the government uses eminent domain (which objectivists hate) as a hack to fix the internal controditcion in the service of property which they provide.
If property were a RIGHT, then it could not be suspended for retalitaion, or punishment. Since property is nothing other then the service of retalitaion and punishment by denying property or liberty it countervenes itself. property as a right is a paradox.
please pwn.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
maf
User
Karma: 41
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 12:35
dgandhi, I am not sure how to explain it any other way, but property is a right. The effort that it takes for you to obtain property gives you a right to it, just like anything you use effort to create or own.
This is a complicated subject because you have to understand basic Objectivist epistemology and ethics to understand where I am coming from. I suggest you brush up on these subjects as Ayn Rand describes it more succinctly than I could in forum format. Please read this to get started:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
dgandhi
User
Karma: 1
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 12:40
TheKen wrote:
dgandhi wrote:
You run in to a bootstraping problem here, somebody has to print the "official" money, which is economically the same as printing bills that can pass for the "real" thing. If you CAN get a DVD player with the bill I hand you then I have not stiffed you in the exchange. This all causes inflation, but so does the official printing proccess.
That's a completely diferent issue. I never said the state should control the money supply. My point was on if they are using an agreed upon currency (it makes no difference if they agree to use US money, Australian money, ounces of silver, etc), then using the fake money would be a property crime.
We have a definiton disagreement here. I submit that whomever controls the making of the money is the governmet, by definiton.
Those who make the money, control, and can fabricate value in the market. They can tax through inflation, and the value of their service (currency) is that it is a recognized medium for exchange.
If I make an indistinguishable product, that appears for all the world to be the same money as the mint makes it has the same value. The market says it is worth the same amount, and is based on the same promise of value as the official bill.
If the bills I print are reproductions of feit currency (which is what most capitalist markets run on) then they have exactly the value of the official bills, namely that people will exchange them for goods and services.
You might make better headway if you argue that the images on the bills are intillectual property, but I'm still in the middle of that debate on this thread, so we shall see how that track turns out.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
maf
User
Karma: 41
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 12:52
Here's an intro to Objectivism that I give to people sometimes who are curious. It is a little too cut down for most, but it gives a basic look at the philosophy:
Objectivism is a philosophy that:
Metaphysics: considers reality to be independent of our own minds (eg. objective reality).
Epistemology: Humans acquire knowledge through our senses and can grasp the objective reality around us using our mind (logic).
Ethics: Morality is derived from rational self interest (selfishness). The selfish desire to live is the basis of morality, not anything mystical like god.
Politics: Limited government (protection only), capitalist system, law enforcement only exists to protect individual rights and uphold contracts.
Esthetic's: Value judgments expressed through art.
Here's a good intro to Objectivism that an acquaintance of mine wrote:
Objectivism deals with five branches of philosophy, though these fields certainly do not exhaust its teachings:
Note: When I refer to "man", I mean humans in general, man and woman.
Another Note: If you don't know a word that I typed here, LOOK IT UP, hehe.
METAPHYSICS: A philosophy's worldview. Is reality objective, i.e. does it exist independently of people's thoughts about it; or is it subjective, i.e. man's(or God's) mind CREATES reality. This is essentially the "Primacy of Existence" vs. "Primacy of Consciousness" deal.
Objectivism holds that reality(All of that which exists, the External world, etc.) exists independently of man's thoughts, wishes, urges, passions, desires, or fears. Man's thoughts ALONE have no effect on things that exist at all. It holds that there are three inespacable axioms that one must take for granted as valid: Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. Axioms are statements, words, or propositions that form the base of a formal system, and in this case, it forms the base of this philosophy; another way to put it is that axioms are irreducible primaries.
The axioms of Existence and Consciousness can be summed up in two sentences:
Existence exists: meaning that something exists which can be perceived(Existence), and someone exists possessing a consciousness, which is the mental faculty of perceiving that which exists(Consciousness). Existence must precede consciousness, because before it can recognize itself as consciousness, it must be able to differentiate itself from something else. A consciousness conscious of only itself is a contradiction, one conscious of nothing is a contradiction. The third axiom, Identity, is summed up in Aristotle Law of Identity, "A is A". To be(Existence) is to be SOMETHING(Identity), in comparison to the nothing of non-existence. Sorry, but Rand simplified this, so I have to use it: "Existence is Identity: Consciousness is Identification". This means that it is NOT the job our consciousness to create reality, but to perceive and identify the aspects of it. A corollary of the Law of Identity are the Laws of Contradiction, Excluded Middle(Either/Or), and Causality. Metaphysically speaking, there are no contradictions; they cannot exist. An existent cannot both have a specific attribute and not have it at the same time(Law of Contradiction). An existent either has that specific attribute or it doesn't (Either/Or). i.e. Either a stone is all gray, or all black. Law of Causality basically states that to exist is to have a certain nature, and that the existent cannot act against its nature, its Identity. Essentially, Causality is simply the Law of Identity in terms of actions.
EPISTEMOLOGY: A philosophy's study of knowledge. Is knowledge possible? If so, by what mean(s) can knowledge be gained? Can knowledge be objective, meaning that the same kind of knowledge can hold true for in a particular relationship in a certain context, or is it subjective, i.e. "What's true for me, is not true for you."
Objectivism holds that: Yes, knowledge is possible, and that reason is man's only means to gaining it. Before elaborating on that, I must state three things, and I will elaborate on them when asked:
-Sense perception is axiomatic, and is a corollary of the fact of consciousness. Man being conscious of that which exists, means that the MEANS(senses) of awareness are the means of AWARENESS(consciousness).
-The combination of sensations into perceptions is done by the brain automatically.
-Every conceptual consciousness(i.e. Humans) has volition(Axiomatic), i.e. Free Will, and the fundamental choice is to focus(mentally) or not.
Now that I'm through with that, I must say that sensory material is merely the base of knowledge, because man cannot do anything with it in terms of cognition unless he conceptualizes it. Concept Formation: Finding differences between entities, and integrating similarities among them into groups, allows man to think of entities as UNITS of a paricular group, something that other animals cannot follow. Both forming concepts and measurement consist of man's mind's grasping of mathematical associations amongst concretes; alike concretes connected by a concept are different only quantitatively, only in their characteristics' measurements, and therefore concepts are formed by OMITTING THOSE MEASUREMENTS. This does not mean that the measurements don't exist; they simply are not specified. Basically, measurements exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. The final step in forming concepts is definitions, the purpose of which is to differentiate particular units from all other entities in a given context of knowledge.
Objectivity is volitional adherence to reality by means of logic. Logic is the art of identifying anything through a non-contradictory manner. Knowledge is both hierarchal and contextual. Concepts are formed in a context, by relating concretes to a field of dissimilar entities; this means that on every level, knowledge is RELATIONAL.
Reason, to sum it up, is the faculty that takes sensory data, and integrates mathematical relationships among concretes into concepts, all by means of non-contradictory identification(logic).
ETHICS: Are values necessary, and if so, what are their base? Is morality necessary, and if so, why? What about virtues? Should we be concerned primarily with the many, or the individual?
The fundamental alternative, existence or non-existence(Applies only to living organisms), is the pre-condition of every value. If one chooses to exist, to live, then values must be chosen and achieved. The base of values and standard of morality is the long-range survival of man-body and mind; which means: through reason. Long range survival can be thought as consistently adhering to moral principles.
There are three moral principles in particular that Objectivism holds is necessary for man to preserve his life: Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem.
Value, as defined in Objectivism, means that which one acts to gain and/or keep.
Reason, as being the prime value, does not mean rejecting it, nor accepting it as some sort of duty. Values must be CHOSEN, and reason is no different. In order to achieve values, one must practice virtues, virtures being the actions which allow one to gain and/or keep values. In this since, the ultimate virtue, the one which is the precondition for all others, is rationality. Rationality is the action of recognizing and accepting reason as one's source of knowledge, one's judge of values, and one's guide to action; which means applying reason in all areas of one's life; his work, his love, his decisions, his opinions; which means accepting that reason, as a principle of man's self-preservation, is an absolute.
Because man must chose his own values and actions in relation to man's life, Objectivism advocates Egoism, the pursuit of self-interest, as a corollary of man's life as its moral standard. Egoism doesn't mean that man should isolate himself, or become indifferent to others; in fact, it means that one should identify the roles of those one interacts with and evaluate them as needed. Here are the other six main virtues that Objectivism specifies:
Independence-accepting the responsibility of establishing one's own judgment and living by the products of one's own mind. The essence of his learning and work is his process of thought, which corresponds with reality. As such, independence means the orientation of man to reality, and the rejection of the second-hander, i.e. one who willfully becomes dependent on others, and orients oneself to others, which means becoming a parasite. This type of man doesn't think; he takes the thoughts of others as primaries, without every questioning them, simply because they are not his own thoughts.
Integrity-loyalty to one's knowledge, to the ideas which one can logically prove, to one's convictions. This means a rejection of a compromise of one's moral principles, as would be the case in surrendering to a armed robber's demands.
Honesty-The recognition that the unreal is unreal, and has no value; it is the refusal of pretending that reality is something other than it is. In another sense, Rationality is the recognition that existence exists, and Honesty is the recognition that ONLY existence exists. The man who becomes dishonest, places those he lies to above reality, where he now must depend on their gullibility, pray for their stupidity, and hope for their failure to discover the truth. However, like I've said, knowledge is contextual, and this applies to moral principles as well. For instance, lying to protect one's values from a criminal would not only be right, but morally right.
Justice- Using reason in the evaluation of men. This involves proclaiming moral judgments on men by the criterion of one's own mind. It allows one to seek out the virtues one wants to see in others, such as courage, effort, and integrity, while avoiding and being on alert when confronted with men who are the opposites.
-Productiveness- summed up as the process of creating material values, goods or services. Man lives by adjusting nature to himself, which requires first a process of thought. This virtue alone rejects the "Theory/Practice" dichotomy. Dichotomies are separations of two mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive ideas. This virtue corresponds to the value of Purpose.
-Lastly, there's Pride, which in the Objectivist sense means moral perfection; which means an unbreached rationality, not the amount of one's intelligence, but the consistent use of one's mind, not the reaches of one's knowledge, but acceptance of reason as one's means of gaining knowledge, and acting upon it. In this manner, Pride is the sum of all virtues, as it presupposes the others, and leads to the third highest value, Self-Esteem.
The moral purpose of man's life is to achieve happiness.
There is only one act of evil that can never be allowed or endorsed: The initiation of physical force against others. It is the antithesis of rationality, and is also the destroyer of all other virtues and chosen values. It becomes impossible for a man to be honest when he is forced to lie at gunpoint.
POLITICS: What type of society coincides with man's life? What type allows for the virtues I mentioned to be practiced consistently? What type allows for reason to be supreme?
The essential principle of politics, is INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Namely the fundamental right, the right to life, and its derivatives, the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The government, according to Objectivism, has ultimately only one purpose: the self-defense of its citizens. As such, it possesses a monopoly one the use of force; citizens willfully give up their ability to use physical force, even in self-defense(Except in emergencies, such as a break-in, where the police will not make it in time.) The defense of citizens for governments entails three functions: A police force-to deal with criminals, an Armed Forces-to deal with foreign transgressors, and an objective court system-to settle disputes among men using objective laws. As such, the proper form of government would be a "republic", meaning a system restricted to the protection of rights, NOT a "democracy", which is unlimited Majority Rule, and is really a form of Collectivism.
A corollary to a free mind, is a free market; therefore the ONLY economic system that corresponds to man's life in reality is full, laissez-faire Capitalism. It is a complete separation between between State and Economics. Taxes would not be coercive, but voluntary.
AESTHETICS: The philosophy of art. What is art? What is its role in man's life? On what basis should art work be judged?
This is the area I still don't have too much knowledge about, as I have yet to read "The Romantic Manifesto". I can, however, tell you that Objectivist Aesthetics is Romantic Realism. This type of art projects people as they might and ought to be. Is this sense, the "might" means realism, as opposed to fantasy, while the "ought" refers to the moral vision as man the heroic being. Art is a concretization of a person's metaphysical value-judgments. Romantic Realism can serve as emotional fuel for man's consciousness, because it makes concrete a man's particular view of what reality is, or ought to be. Art work should be judged by one's SENSE OF LIFE: one's pre-conceptual(subconscious
sly integrated) emotional evaluation of man and of existence. If a man's sense of life is chaos, confusion and destruction, do not be surprised if those images appear in his art.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
dgandhi
User
Karma: 1
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 12:56
maf wrote:
dgandhi, I am not sure how to explain it any other way, but property is a right. The effort that it takes for you to obtain property gives you a right to it, just like anything you use effort to create or own.
labor == value? If rights derive from effort we have marxism, Rand HATED marxism
This is a complicated subject because you have to understand basic Objectivist epistemology and ethics to understand where I am coming from. I suggest you brush up on these subjects as Ayn Rand describes it more succinctly than I could in forum format. Please read this to get started:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
I have read Rand, I am not trying to be difficult, but it all seems to be grounded on bare assertions. I know lots of intelligent people who are into objectivism, but the books I've read by Rand and the discussions I've heard seem to be missing the first few steps.
It appears to me like a house built in mid-air, I just want to know what you think is under it. If property=right is a first principle, with no reason at all, then it seems to be designed without the sligtest chance of being buildable.
My main critique of what I have read is that their seems to be alot of doublespeak. When regulations are bad, but we don't call them regulations if they apply to property seems purely semantic to me.
I would like someone to explain how they think property can exist without an entity who enforces it, as a service, by denying the same service to others. I see no way that objectivism can be considered seriously without answering that basic question.
please pwn
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
maf
User
Karma: 41
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 13:17
labor == value? If rights derive from effort we have marxism, Rand HATED marxism
You obviously haven't throughly read Rand if you are making statements like that.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
dgandhi
User
Karma: 1
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 13:42
maf wrote:
labor == value? If rights derive from effort we have marxism, Rand HATED marxism
You obviously haven't throughly read Rand if you are making statements like that.
you think Rand didn't hate marxism? or that laber == value is not marxist?
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
maf
User
Karma: 41
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 13:51
No, I just think your understanding of Objectivism is poor. Rand was a huge supporter of owning what you earn. That is anything but Marxism.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
dgandhi
User
Karma: 1
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 14:04
maf wrote:
No, I just think your understanding of Objectivism is poor. Rand was a huge supporter of owning what you earn. That is anything but Marxism.
My understanding of objectivism lacks only your answer to one question.
You have asserted that property is a right. I have explained how that does not seem to be the case, you have not provided any rational for it being the case.
Since this is in the Skeptic forum, please humor my skepticism and tell me in a paragraph or two WHY you think property is a right.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
maf
User
Karma: 41
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 14:57
The argument goes like this:
Assuming you agree that an individual has a right to their own life then this right implies other rights. Property is one of these implied rights because if one is not free to own land or personal property then one has no freedom. If the government owns the land, then it controls the person who inhabits it.
This is why trying to dissociate self-ownership and free action (civil liberties) from free trade and free property (capitalism) is futile and ultimately self-destructive : without one, the other cannot exist. They are all consequences of the right of life.
SOURCE:
http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/17330/588/3
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
dgandhi
User
Karma: 1
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 15:28
maf wrote:
The argument goes like this:
Assuming you agree that an individual has a right to their own life then this right implies other rights. Property is one of these implied rights because if one is not free to own land or personal property then one has no freedom.
You assert that property is an implied right of the right to live, but you have not explained WHY you think this is the case. I will readily accept that people have the rights of life and liberty, and the persuit of happiness. You need to make some argument that connects these fundamental rights (which require no enforcement of themselves) with property ( which does require enforcement) above and beyond that objectivism or rand, or you, say it is so. I just want a reason.
If the government owns the land, then it controls the person who inhabits it.
If all land is already owned ( as it is ) then this is still true, it matters not at all if you call the collection of owners a government or an orchastra.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
maf
User
Karma: 41
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 16:03
If you don't have a right to own your own land, then you are subject to the control of whoever does own that land (eg. the government). Thus, without the right to own land, without any restrictions, is an infringement on your personal rights. I don't know how to make it any clearer. If someone else can help me make this argument clearer, be my guest.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
dgandhi
User
Karma: 1
|
Re:Objectivism - 2007/02/22 18:24
maf wrote:
If you don't have a right to own your own land, then you are subject to the control of whoever does own that land (eg. the government). Thus, without the right to own land, without any restrictions, is an infringement on your personal rights. I don't know how to make it any clearer. If someone else can help me make this argument clearer, be my guest.
How does this problem arise in a situation where there is no property and no owners?
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
