Steve Gagne

Since anyone can create their personal categories, I have decided to put me in "premise-checkers" here. Previously, you had asked if a murderer was "selfless" (within the context of O-ism). I showed that. You appear to be laboring under a mistaken impression, that I was engaging not just to describe, but to justify the O-ist appraisal.

All of which was utterly lost on such slavish disciples as Peter Schwartz. Who insisted — in a full-page ad in the freaking New York Times, fer gawdsake — that the Soviets' shooting down of Korean Air Lines Flight 7 warranted "our" immediate nuclear obliteration of the USSR. The logical connections involved ... erhm, well, they escape me. {rueful smile} (A U.S. Congressman died on that plane, we might recall. But Schwartz didn't even refer to that among his litany of excuses.) O'course, genuine disciples aren't prone to using logic. That flight certainly was a strange situation. My uncle & aunt won the Massachusetts state lottery shortly before that flight happened, and decided to spend part of their winnings on a far-east/oceania tour. Their flight left New Bedford & stopped over in (I think) Anchorage; they were supposed to make the connecting flight & head to Hong Kong. They took a detour by way of a church & ended up missing the connecting flight. Wierd.

Do you have a reference on this? There’s still plenty of Joseph Campbell I haven’t read, but I haven’t seen him enunciate a wide theory of perception and concept formation. I do remember him referring to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason in Transformations of Myth through Time, and I think the same material appears in The Hero’s Journey. He talks about modes of perception and categories of thought, culminating in the characterization of religious symbols as metaphors which make reference to the “transcendent”. I think he meant that to apply only to religious concepts. A few years back, Bill Moyers interviewed Campbell on PBS. (Wouldn't recommend it if it was your last chance in your life to watch TV.) He talked about the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, and how the Ouruborous (sp?), the serpent that eats its own tail, was the symbol of life -- live birth -- in ancient Hindu culture. So he added these two together and came up with the conclusion that Judeo-Christian culture was automatically anti-woman & anti-life -- not because of any patriarchal heritage, but because the symbol of the Ouruborous was supposedly hated by the ancient Hebrews. He derived this from these symbols that he divorced from reality, then turned into scrambled eggs in his head, then tried to claim that the scrambled eggs in his head resembled anything in reality. His writing is equally obtuse. Jung and Eliade had far more to say that is relevant. Campbell was a narcissistic fool.

In a sense, yes....maybe.... In the O-ist rulebook, there is a distinction drawn between those who deal with "concepts" (the "thinkers") vs. those who deal only with "concretes" (the "concrete-bound"). One who deals with concepts sees his $egoism (O-ist definition) -- his $selfishness (O-ist definition) -- as an ethical principle that applies not only to himself in the short run, but over the long run as well, not only to himself, but as a matter of consistency, projection, and empathy, to every other human being as well, as a human being ("man qua man"). Recognizing that each person, being a trader as it were, must give value for value to mutual benefit; reflecting a reciprocity and respect in all his dealings. BTW, the only people I have ever met who have actually practiced this consistently, without dissembling or subterfuge, identify themselves as Muslims. The rest have all shown themselves to be hypocrites, liars, and thieves. One who deals with concretes sees his egoism (popular definition) -- his selfishness (popular definition) -- i.e., his egotism & bullying in his relationships / his narcissism & solipsism in orientation -- as a blanket permit to practice predatory, destructive actions against anyone with whom he deals, for his own short-term gain, whether it actually, objectively, aids himself or anyone else over the long run. This means that, although he may be acting for a short-term gain, he cannot conceive of acting for a long term benefit for himself, or for anyone else for that matter, which is an inherently self-destructive course of action. Since it is self-destructive, it is, by definition $selfless (O-ist definition). In Atlas Shrugged, this viewpoint was expressed by the character Cuffy Meigs, in his quasi-/pseudo-military persona, when he snapped, "In the long run, we'll all be dead." So ask yourself, which category does the murderer fit in? And for that matter, how do you see yourself?

At least one of these positions is still open. Did anyone ever bother applying for them?

There's enough story to go around for everybody. You want gravy on that? Rush likes to harp on the religious angle as long as it supports his political shtick, but he only sees half the story still. The other half includes the vision of Thanksgiving as our own American Passover, replete with sacrificial animal (turkey) and the bitter vegetables (turnips), echoing the story of freedom in the Old Testament book of Exodus. ("Why is this day different above all others?" "For it the day the LORD our God delivered us out of bondage in the land of Egypt.") An early sermon even referred to it as "our American Israel". But we'll save that story till next year. It's been my job to make the turnips for 52 years (since I was 4), so off to the kitchen I go. And with that, I bid you all adieu, and may you all enjoy your turkey day. steve btw my turnips aren't bitter but sweet -- maybe I should post my recipe?

I don't know if anyone else has seen this: Lyrics: [sagan] I'm not very good at singing songs. But, here's a try..... If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch You must first invent the universe Space is filled with a network of wormholes You might emerge somewhere else in space Some when-else in time The sky calls to us If we do not destroy ourselves We will one day venture to the stars A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way The Cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths Of exquisite interrelationships Of the awesome machinery of nature I believe our future depends powerfully On how well we understand this cosmos In which we float like a mote of dust In the morning sky But the brain does much more than just recollect It inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes it generates abstractions The simplest thought like the concept of the number one Has an elaborate logical underpinning The brain has its own language For testing the structure and consistency of the world A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way The sky calls to us If we do not destroy ourselves We will one day venture to the stars [Hawking] For thousands of years People have wondered about the universe Did it stretch out forever Or was there a limit From the big bang to black holes From dark matter to a possible big crunch Our image of the universe today Is full of strange sounding ideas [sagan} How lucky we are to live in this time The first moment in human history When we are in fact visiting other worlds A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way A still more glorious dawn awaits Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way The surface of the earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean Recently we've waded a little way out And the water seems inviting

It's about time someone recognized where this topic belongs....

My quote is the first line of Aristotle's Metaphysics : Pantes anthropoi tou eidenai oregontai physei or "All men desire to know by nature." So Dragonfly's response makes even more sense. "BY nature." Aha. (Never did like them prepositions.....)

No (it's a dativus singularis), although I wanted in fact an omega with a iota subscriptum and couldn't find it at first: τῷ. Okay, as I said, nearly 40 years....just thought that it was being used in the sense of a prepositional phrase. BTW how did you get the Greek to begin with?

Πλην οἱ πτωχοὶ τῶ πνεύματι! I haven't read anything like this in nearly 40 years....but shouldn't that have been Πλην οἱ πτωχοὶ τῶV πνεύματι! ? Maybe not...but what I take away from it (very loosely) is this: EH: All men aspire to know what is real (the physical). DF: Except for the poor in spirit.

Just goes to show that Bob (Ba'al Chatzaf) was right in his suspicions all along.

From the GOP Eagle

Gee music is so much easier. If I want to copy something that's already published, all I have to do is pay the mechanicals to Harry Fox in New York.

Never saw this coming? From the Red State blog. Oops? Moe Lane PS: I’d just like to note for the record that the dissenting judges on this one - the ones respectful of private property, in other words - were Judges O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas.

Jeff -- You phrase your post as if you're expecting an argument. Although I was not advocating for any of your points, neither was I denying them. (I don't see the basis for your opening comment. Insurance is money manipulation. Corporations are welfare. Period.) See my answer to Merlin above. Give me better numbers than my anecdotal reports. I don't recall discussing this subject. See my last point to Merlin above. Doctors without malpractice coverage are better doctors and cost less. I agree, these are also factors, but they are not under our control. The things I discussed can be. The vagaries of modern life. First "essential fact", yes, advanced technology is definitely in the mix, but I don't see it as the primary cost driver. Second "essential fact", I would need to see the data on that one. As far as your conclusion, it follows from your unproven premises, but looks a little wobbly on its face due to its supposed dependence upon those premises. But though your premises could be (but may not be) fully supported by reality, your conclusion definitely is real. Part of the problem is that few people recognize that this country has all the material resources it needs to satisfy virtually every whim of every citizen for the next 600-800 years. We have the capacity for universal feeding, universal housing, universal education, universal health care, universal productivity and creativity. We have the capacity to become the head of OPEC, buy all the "carbon credits" the world has to give, and still have plenty to left to spend. This is only visible who those who utilize the "abundance model" of resource management; those who base their understandings on the "scarcity model" common to socialistic systems will find these comments obtuse if not believing them to be outright lies.

Merlin -- Let me apologize to you for taking so long to respond. I can't get a straight answer out of the newsmedia as to where the vote on this healthcare thing stands tonight. I agree with you that the new proposed law is a travesty. I just see it from a different angle than you do. So I can understand your consternation at my pigheadedness when it ***appears*** that we are arguing at cross purposes. You see the health care bill as a disaster waiting to happen. So do I. You think the health care bill will destroy medicine. So do I. You want a free market solution. So do I. You believe we have a free market NOW, which the health care bill will destroy. This is where we differ. So, picky, picky, picky. There is such a thing as a conspiracy in restraint of trade, and the largest one has historically been the government, in collusion with the organizations and corporations of one industry or another. (Think doctors, lawyers, electric utilities, telephones, railroads, trucking, etc.) In response to the abuses in these areas, government has generally been only too willing to step in & regulate someone else, typically, those hurt by the abuses, in the name of "protecting the public interest". Doctors prospered during the 1800's both under the AMA (formed in 1859) & under the state licensing boards. These organizations originally claimed to be enforcing higher education standards to protect the public, but were actually used to prevent the formation of medical schools, and to limit the number of doctors. Because these organizations were recognized as the "experts" by government, their member's opinions bore the force of law, legitimizing allopathic medicine (including bloodletting and deliberate mercury poioning) while effectively outlawing homeopathic medicine (who, while not necessarily more effective, followed Hippocrates more closely, i.e., "First, do no harm."). This situation has eased a little in recent years, with some branches of homeopathic medicine being recognized as legitimate treatment, but allopathic medicine is still touted as the only "real" medicine. Shortly after the War between the States, there was also a federal court ruling that, to paraphrase, insurance companies were not a business, not interstate commerce, and thus free to do whatever they damned well pleased. Which worked well as business model. No special protections, no special governmental favors. Just freedom, privacy, profitability. The private insurance industry grew and prospered to a "natural level" (for lack of a better term; c.f. Adam Smith's "invisible hand"). The industry went on to finance private testing labs for product testing, to insure products worked and did not endanger peoples' safety. These labs, called "Underwriters' Laboratories" (UL) are some of the finest research labs that ever existed, and are a perfect example of private industrial self-regulation. (Their standards later became the foundation for the present-day ISO quality standards.) But insurance coverage was by no means universal, least of all in the area of health care. So the medical field was not dependent on insurance for its solvency. Although the doctors earned more than most within their communities (with good reason), medical care remained affordable. Even during the depression, doctors many times lived by barter, an affordable alternative to all patients dying of sickness and all doctors dying of starvation. But I digress. We come upon WW II; there was a shortage of qualified help, and employers started using the tax-free benefits of health insurance, as an incentive to workers to accept and stay at their jobs. As this situation grew, the coverage that had been sought by organized labor for over a generation became commonplace, either with or without organized representation. And due to the war effort, the government, as the largest source of employment, became the single largest subsidizer of the health insurance companies. Meanwhile, in an unrelated development, the Justice Department came to the conclusion that fire insurance companies were colluding to fix insurance premiums, etc. etc. etc. An action was taken by the antitrust enforcers against the insurance companies; the SCOTUS ruling in US vs. South Eastern Underwriters' Association as summarized below: Suddenly, all these "non-business" insurance businesses found themselves turned upside-down: the coffers of the health insurance companies, overflowing with government money, had all kinds of new strings attached, and they were going to have to start competing in a newly-hostile environment. The insurance company lobbyists appealed to Congress to reverse the effects of the activist SCOTUS justices who had thrown precedent out the window. In 1945, Congress responded with the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which was supposed to restore the previous standing of the insurance companies, but in fact did no such thing. What it did was, rather than restore the previous equilibrium, it had the unintended consequence of turning the existing insurance companies into a protected oligopoly. Locked together with a legally protected profession. This is the position the health insurance industry has held ever since. This is not a free-market system; it has not gotten better but worse in the last 64 years. ==================================================================================== Now, I believe your criticism is made in good faith, so to your specific complaints: So am I and you did not answer my questions in post #21 at all.I am not really sure what you are looking for that I did not address. You asked about investors, then asked me to make it personal, putting myself in shoes of the investors. I responded that, were I in the priviliged position of owning stock in a business corporation, I would be shielded by law from bearing that responsibility, which I would be forced to bear by that same law, were I a general partner or sole proprietor of the business instead. As I stated earlier, this is a statement of fact, law, and social policy. You also asked, "Since when does this sort of government intervention mean 'free market'?" What I had said was that government coersion is already inherent in the system, in the protection of the medical field, in the protections of insurance companies, and in the protection of corporations in general. This is where we differ. You are misled by the illusion of a free market that just isn't there. Note that I did not say this is a delusion on your part. Rather, it is an illusion that is being foisted on you (as well as the rest of the American public), by people who want the defeat of socialized medicine, but see nothing wrong in the expediency of using the Big Lie to effect it. Yes, while omitting other facts that weigh against you. Robert Hessen's In Defense of the Corporation has a far more complete history. What I omitted was a lot of irrelevant data. I didn't realize you needed me to write you a book. Even if you did need it, I'm not going to do it. It just wouldn't be prudent, at this particular juncture (j/k)....But thank you for a new resource. Is the liability of creditors unlimited? No. Should they be?Ummm...I don't understand this comment. I'm not sure how the term "creditors" got in here....did you mean to use a different term, or perhaps you're using it in a manner that I would not. But as I said, I don't understand what you're asking me. Was the liability of creditors and shareholders unlimited? No. Ditto the comment about creditors. As far as the shareholders, the role of an insurance underwriter (e.g., Lloyds') is to absorb a defined amount of monetizable risk for someone else, for a price. I do not question the legitimacy of this as a business proposition. It was not an unlimited liability that caused Lloyds' to go broke, but actuarial errors that caused payouts far in excess of their collectable premiums. And the "shareholders" of Lloyds' that were not incorporated were not protected by law from paying the debts, whereas the incorporated members were protected. False. An insurance company cannot inflate the money supply like a bank can. Banks don't insure risks.Actually, the description as I originally wrote it was true. You just left out half of it. As far as inflating the money supply, a loan from an insurance company follows the same multiplier effect as a loan from a bank, so yes, insurance companies do inflate the money supply, just as a bank does. And as far as "insuring" risks, both insurance companies and banks ABSORB risk, for a price: insurance companies call it a "premium", banks call it "interest". The name is different but the song remains the same.....it's called "Let's play games with YOUR money." This is not a free market philosophy, but the method of a dictator.Do you mean to state that it would be dictatorial to dismantle a current system that is based on government coersion (to which I have already alluded), but perfectly okay to let that system continue, when it could well result in the destruction of any future productivity that this country could have? Would it be dictatorial to eliminate the Fed? Would it be dictatorial to eliminate the IRS? The Education Department? Health and Human Services Department? The Agriculture Department? The Department of the Interior? No? Then why, pray tell, is it dictatorial to eliminate the legal and economic privileges granted to a group of companies, that act as a government-enforced oligopoly, financing a government-protected profession, especially when THEIR "entitlements" stand to bankrupt all of us? I am not familiar with your sources, so if that is what your own research has led you to believe, I have no basis for challenging it. What I do know of it is that I live in an area that has an average age 17 years older than the national average. Because of this, there is an extraordinary number of doctors, hospitals, surgery centers, rehab centers, etc. etc. etc. here. The typical doctor around here makes $800k to $1.25m per annum. (There are some who make more, but it's typically because of investments rather than direct fees-for-services.) Of that amount, that typical doctor is paying $450k to $800k per annum in professional liability (malpractice) insurance premiums. Hard to guess where that money is coming from. Because of the excess expenses, many of the doctors have taken matters into their own hands: they go "bare", i.e., operate WITHOUT malpractice insurance, and they won't accept patients who won't sign a waiver concerning malpractice lawsuits and binding arbitration. (That's why we have independent surgery centers here -- the hospitals won't let these doctors in.) The doctors are more careful, they make fewer mistakes, and they charge less. Now who can argue with that? ===================================================================================== I just got the news...the bill passed. Damnation. House passes health care bill on close vote (AP)

Yep, that's me, a rational human being rationalizing. Sorry; I was referring to Steve Gagne's "Natural outcome ...." --Brant Rationalization? RATIONALIZATION??? What the heck.....?????? You've got me confused now. I made an offhand comment about an element of the plot of a book that GS now tells me he hasn't read, and that is a "rationalization"...Are you now saying that YOU haven't read it either? (I don't believe that.) Or are you saying that I made it up, that there is no such thing as The Fountainhead, or a plot in the story, or the Berne Convention, or intellectual property rights, or what???? What on earth are you talking about?

Well if it's a natural outcome of O-ist theory that you can blow up buildings if you own the design then there is something wrong with O-ist theory. I don't need to know anything about O-ist theory (or watch the movie) to come to that conclusion. I don't believe AR was advocating violent acts like that, just using the motif as part of her storytelling. Although when I think of the cast of heroes in Atlas Shrugged, sometimes I'm not so sure.

Update: 12 dead, 31 wounded The shooter was an American-born Muslim from Virginia. His family had told him not to join the service but he ignored their wishes, and insisted that it was right to serve his country. A psychiatrist by trade, he was transferred from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Fort Hood, and had been treating PTSD among vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. He had thus become quite aware of the dangers of combat, second hand, from his patients. When he was told he was going to be deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, he freaked (about 130 this afternoon local time). Pulled out two weapons and started shooting. The police were called in; they shot him and he was presumed dead. Turns out he was just wounded, and is currently in custody with non-life-threatening wounds. At the time of his arrest there were reports of other shooters. Two other people were taken into custody, questioned, and released. A fourth person was taken into custody later, but details are sketchy right now. more details: New York Times Online, not fully accurate More NY Times NY Times Blog -- updated

Nope. Your statement caught my attention because it sounded so illogical. Natural outcome of O-ist property theory. Also, it's now the basis for latest Berne Convention international agreements concerning intellectual property -- patents and copyrights.

??? He blew up a building because he owned the design?? You haven't read the book, or barring that, at least seen the Gary Cooper movie?

Xray -- I realize that what you have here was only a minor side point, not the main point you were trying to make, but it begs for a comment or two. The general problem with "morally right" is that different ideologies all claim 'rightness' for the moral values propagated by them. Was Roark "right" in blowing up the building? Again, it is always 'right' by which created standard? Does breach of contract give peple the right to commit such acts? If yes, then Lillian would have had the same right, wouldn't she? When Roark blew up the building, he was repossessing property (the design) that belonged to him and for which he had not been paid. He made sure he did it only after ensuring that noone would be physically harmed by his action. After he had taken his action, those who wished to purloin his property no longer had access to it. On the other hand, if Lillian were to blow up Dagny's place, in which she had no property interest, it would not be a repossession but a malicious act of vandalism and/or reckless endangerment. She would not care who else she hurt in the process. Furthermore, it would not interfere in the least with anything Dagny and Hank chose to do that she regarded as being a "breach". These are different in intent, different in the enactment, different in the result. I don't see how you can imply any kind of moral equivalence between these two. steve

Jeff We are all always poorer when someone chooses to take his leave. Unfortunately, you are neither the first nor the last. I recall a young woman from a couple years ago, Virginia Murr (head of the Business Ethics department at my alma mater, Rockford College), who was ridiculed, pointlessly and mercilessly, until she just gave up visiting here. That was sad. I'm sorry you feel you received the same treatment, and apologize if I had anything to do with it. vty steve