rhartford

My knowledge of pension fund issues is minimal, but I would value your thoughts on the following: Take the current state pension fund assets and distribute them into individual 401 k plans to eligible state employees. If the taxpayers allowed those pension funds to be “underfunded” so be it. The distribution would be in accord with current assets and distributed into employee 401 k plans based on appropriate formulas. Advantages: Money will not be taken from future taxes to compensate for “underfunding.” Politicians would no longer have pension fund assets to manipulate. Current employees would get something now without fear of future taxpayer rebellions. Any future state “contributions” to employee plans would be paid out of the current year operating expenses. The immorality of passing underfunded liabilities on to the next generation would end. Politicians could not buy votes by granting benefits while promising to take assets from taxpayers in the future; the takings would occur only in the current year. Disadvantages: The political and legal hassles and challenges to the process and to the distribution formulas.

I second your evaluation. For me, two scenes that are wonderfully written and masterfully acted, provide the sympathy - of a sort - for Salieri. First, the scene where Salieri receives Mozart's original manuscripts, forgets his envy for a moment, and simply revels in the work of the mind of a genius. Second, the scene near the end where Salieri is transcribing Mozart's dictation of the score of the Requiem. Salieri's singular focus on trying to understand Mozart's development of the piece, and Salieri's obvious appreciation for Mozart's genius, were beautifully portrayed by F. Murray Abraham. Those two scenes effectively dramatize Rand's emphasis on the importance of praise for the good as a key element of justice.

I would be happy to mail you a copy of "The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies," Vol 8, No. 2. It contains my paper, "Objectivity and the Proof of Egoism." You can send me your snail mail address by going to my profile entry in the Objectivist Living Members Area, and sending me an email from there.

"The units of ... 'existence' ... are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon that exists" (IOE p.56) I view Existence as the totality of that which exists. Part of Existence consists of regions between entities and characteristics of those regions. Just as one can study attributes of "mental entities," one can study attributes (characteristics?) of a region of space. Those characteristics are determined by the distribution of matter in Existence. So yes, I do argue that a region of space is an existent and that its characteristics justify identifying it as "curved."

I'm a little suprised there are "flat-spacers" on this list, but the evidence against flat-space is not yet as strong, for the general public, as the evidence against a flat-earth. So, it is understandable that someone could be a "flat-spacer," in contrast to the absurdity of being a "flat-earther." The theory of General Relativity is mathematically, physically, and philosophically beautiful. It's success in explaining complex astronomical observations is extraordinary. It is "the only game in town" for explaining how existence can have a finite volume and yet have no boundaries, a solution to Einstein's equation that appeals to me as both a physicist and an amateur philosopher. That particular solution describes a finite size for Existence with no "outside." The Existence described is all there is and its characterisitics are finite. Einstein's explantion of the way that the theory of General Relativity uses the distribution of matter and energy as cause of the spatial and temporal nature of existence, and uses the spatial and temporal nature of existence to explain the motion of matter is truly an astonishing result and a testament to the power of the human mind. I am not an expert in relativity, but I know enough to consider it philosphically beautiful.

Thanks for your work and your correction! I never considered publication dates. When I read Rawls, I was reminded of Vonnegut's work and the close connection of the ideas. If you like the ideas in the paper, I encourage you to email the link to others. "http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8928&view=findpost&p=102791"

The Atlas Society / Free Minds Institute 2010 Summer Seminar was an enjoyable and thought provoking experience. The talk I presented "Social Justice: Restoring Its Proper Meaning" is available as a 4000 word pdf file. I would be happy to email it to you. Please email me at truesj (yes that stands for "true social justice") at the address, carolina.rr.com If you find the ideas valuable, I encourage you to post it wherever you can and email it to others.

You briefly treat Rawls? This makes me think of the joke in flowcharting where you label a step in the process as “a miracle occurs”. Just call me a miracle worker wannabe. Over 10% of my talk is the summary of Rawls. A book by John Rawls, “The Theory of Justice,” supports the current false view of “Social Justice,” with its government controls and subsidies, paternalism, and wealth redistribution. “Veil of Ignorance” Rawls asks the reader to think about justice while standing behind a “veil of ignorance,” not knowing if you are rich or poor, intellectually above average or below average, athlete or couch potato. To stand behind the veil is an interesting technique to eliminate personal bias and promote objectivity. Behind the veil, he asserts we would agree to only “allow” disparities of wealth if those disparities made the “least well-off person better off.” This, in a sense, appeals to our humanity and fairness because the voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions of a just society do benefit everyone. Even the least well-off person is better off. But, Rawls falls into error because he ignores the essence of justice – voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions. His arbitrary assessments of wealth disparities lead too easily to the injustice of the next step, to stamp one’s foot with envy, indignation, or “do-gooder” mentality, take from those with wealth, and redistribute it to make the “least well-off people better off.” “Factors Arbitrary from a Moral Point of View” Rawls also argues that differences in “rights and responsibilities” should not depend on “factors arbitrary from a moral point of view,” factors such as chance and good luck. He concludes you have no moral right to a lucky benefit, but everyone else does. Rawls’ ideal is to have reality shower all with the same degree of luck. As usual, Rawls counts on our humanity and fairness. We do feel genuinely sorry for those born into unlucky circumstances. That we have been fortunate and they have not appeals to our sense of benevolence and charity. But Rawls denies to the lucky the moral right to choose the nature of their benevolence and charity. Instead he advocates stealing from the lucky to benefit the unlucky. “Fair Equal Opportunity” And for Rawls, success is nearly all luck. Those who chose to work hard and succeed were lucky because they were raised to make the choice to work harder. Those unlucky ones, who have less talent, had a deprived childhood, or were raised in a discouraging cultural environment, have a lower chance of success. Even if they have “formal equal opportunity,” they do not have a “fair equal opportunity” to succeed. For Rawls, force must be used to establish “fair equal opportunity.” The subtitle of Rawls’ book should be “Rationalizations for the Forced Transfer of Wealth from the More Productive to Benefit the Less Productive,” or to use Rawls’ mentality, “from the Lucky to Benefit the Unlucky.”

I mostly agree. But in today's cultural environment I think the redundancy is necessary to counter the false views of "Social Justice." I start with Rand's ideas, and specialize them to social philosophy: “Do I need a concept to designate the act of judging a [person’s] character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of all the factual evidence available, and of evaluating it by means of an objective moral criterion?” She answers, “Yes, that concept is ‘justice.’” This is where advocates of “Social Justice” and advocates of “Social Injustice” part ways, they differ on the meaning of “an objective moral criterion.” Advocates of true “Social Justice,” base the moral criterion on self-responsible action in the service of one’s own well-being and happiness, leading to socially just, voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions. On the other hand, advocates of “Social Injustice” base the moral criterion on service to others, by force if they can’t get voluntary consent. They arrogantly proclaim, with the moral righteousness of a slave owner, to have the right and power to force you to bow to their tyrannical wishes. They want to compel forced service - involuntary servitude. That is unjust based on Ayn Rand’s secular view, and is unjust based on commonly held religious views against theft and slavery. I then characterize a socially just society as a society with voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions the norm, and with forced, involuntary servitude banned. The bolded portion, which I repeat a few times, is most important to get right - where right means factually correct and socially persuasive.

I don't know how to embed it, so I made it my avatar. The vertical axis is Personal Responsibility from Irresponsible to Self-Responsible. The horizontal axis is Personal Wealth from Poor to Rich. One of the items on the chart, in the lower right, is Bernie Madoff (Before Prison). A useful feature of the chart is the ability to show social dynamics. The arrow pointing to the left from Bernie represents his change in location as a consequence of the court decision.

I will mention "Harrison Bergeron." ----------------------------------------- The best and prettiest dancers were weighed down with weights and required to wear masks, so no one would feel envious of a “graceful gesture or pretty face.” The smarter and more thoughtful wore headphones that emitted a screech if they started to think too clearly. Announcing one’s superiority was a capital offence. ------------------------------------------ Readers may be interested in "2081" - the movie adaptation of "Harrison Bergeron" - available on DVD from Amazon. Trailer below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6TTNKdgSk

Thank you, George. I will definitely use a Hayek quotation to illustrate the false view of "Social Justice" (a.k.a. "Social Injustice") that permeates our culture. Even criticism prompts one to think, so thank you Mary. Maybe an example will help. Suppose someone came into the kitchen, pointed at the stove, and said, "That's a really nice kitchen table." You would point out and correct the misuse of perfectly valid concepts. Suppose someone points to a government agent forcibly interfering (by means of coercive legislation) with a doctor / patient relationship and suppose that person marvels at this great example of social justice. You would properly point out this is social injustice and the person is misusing the concepts. Justice is applicable in interpersonal, social, and political contexts. One might even say one should treat onself with justice. If every instance of misuse of the term "Social Justice" is met with rejection and explanation of what justice really means in a social context, we can only benefit.

I am presenting a talk with this thread’s title at The Atlas Society / Free Minds Institute 2010 Summer Seminar, July 3. Recent posts on a few threads make me realize I am giving this talk because it needs to be said, not because I have great expertise. Below are several excerpts from the current draft. Any advice or criticism is welcome. In a few days I’ll have to lock down the 4000 words that will fit in my allotted time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My goal today is to begin restoring the term “Social Justice” to its rightful place. My hope - to promote advocacy of true “Social Justice.” My dream - to inspire community organizers to launch a large-scale movement for true “Social Justice.” The current use of the term “Social Justice”, as a slippery, nebulous, misused, abused, and manipulative term, must be countered and corrected. Too many people use the term, “Social Justice,” to promote injustice. I will call them advocates of “Social Injustice.” Human Nature and Human Choice Your life is determined by your actions. Actions are based on motives and goals. Choosing motives and goals requires a science of choice. That science is ethics. Ethics [A few sentences on fundamentals of ethics.] Social Philosophy Ethics, extended to society, guides us to seek voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions that respect each person’s right to pursue his or her own well-being and happiness. That is the essence of social justice. Political Philosophy [The nature of political freedom and tyranny] The foundational ethical, social, and political ideas I have described ground the true meaning of “Social Justice” as a society with voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions the norm, and with forced, involuntary servitude banned. [i briefly treat Rawls, Vonnegut, Sowell, and Rand on justice.] [i contrast the “objective moral criterion” of judgment used by advocates of “Social Justice” and the criterion used by advocates of “Social Injustice.’] The religious and non-religious can and must join forces to promote true “Social Justice,” If the non-religious do not advocate forcing the religious to support their social programs, and the religious do not advocate forcing the non-religious to conform to their religious doctrines, all can join forces to promote a society with voluntary, mutually beneficial interactions the norm, and with forced, involuntary servitude banned. [i Describe David Kelley’s work on benevolence.] [Then some examples of benevolent social activism.] [Then some activism techniques including a Social Justice Analog of the “Nolan Chart”] [A final pep-talk from Don Quixote.]

In Praise of Probing Thought I famous physicist, whose name I don't recall, was told by a famous physics Nobel Laureate, whose name I don't recall, that the laws of conservation of momentum and energy would make it impossible that a gamma ray emitted from a stationary nucleus could have an energy closer to the transition energy than the natural linewidth based on the transition time. Rudolf Mossbauer found a way in 1957 and earned a Nobel prize.

Binswanger shows that plants exhibit automatic goal-directed action and the higher animals exhibit purposeful goal-directed action. "Purpose" is not an attribute of all living things. This description of his book should clarify his view somewhat: [The book] presents a theory to explain the meaning of goal-directed action—i.e., of teleology. As Dr. Binswanger puts it; "I will argue that . . . this new definition (of goal-directed action) justifies the classification of all levels of living action—whether purposeful or automatic—as goal-directed . . . In short, I will show that men, animals and plants act for the sake of obtaining certain ends, but rocks, rivers and machines do not." A more complete description and table of contents is available here

I know the question was addressed to Merlin, but maybe the following is useful: Based on my recollections from "The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts" by Harry Binswanger, plants actions result from the processes of mutation and natural selection. If a given plant's action benefited its life, those actions would be passed to its offspring. The action "by which plants obtain water and sunlight" only exists because of its survival benefit. In that sense the action can be considered "goal-directed." This is not the case for non-living natural electrochemical processes. (My apology to Binswanger if I am misremembering his work.)

In thinking about the facts giving rise to the concept "value," I separate in my mind those conditions that are good for an organism, with no action required by the organism, from those beneficial conditions that the organism's action creates. The former I take to be "a good" for the organism and the latter I take to be "a value" for the organism. Rand emphasizes that a valuing process involves an organism's action to benefit its life. That which is good for the organism simply provides the necessary context for the organism's successful valuing action. For instance, the presence of water for a plant, "a good"; the development of a robust root system, "a value." Is it the case that you do not see a need to distinguish between "a good" and "a value?" Or, that my attempt to distinguish them is an error? I find distinguishing between the referents of those two to be valuable.

For over thirty years I have thought that Rand's use of the term "value" was frequently equivocal. Sometimes she seems to indicate "a value" is that beneficial end toward which an organism's goal directed action is aimed. At other times she uses the term "value" to mean a human conclusion as to the benefit of pursuing some end, i.e. a value principle or a value judgment. The first meaning is applicable to plants, the second not. Please know that many of us enjoy and benefit from your posts. Some of us, more than others, are open to ideas that differ from our own preconceived notions.

Although I think the meaning is clear in the context of the post, the sentence above maybe should have been written: If the person made an error in choice of goal (such that it was harmful to the person's life), even though objective processes were used – then the chosen goal was, in fact, a “disvalue.” (Xray (in her post #328) read that sentence as "If the person made an error in means to achieve the chosen of goal, . . . ")

In response to recent posts on “objective value,” consider the following fact: A person chooses to pursue something he or she thinks will benefit his or her life. The above statement does not say if the pursued goal is, in fact, beneficial or harmful to the person. Objectivity refers to chosen cognitive processes that best lead to true conclusions. If the person used objective cognitive processes, it is likely the goal chosen will, in fact, benefit his or her life. As shorthand, the chosen goal can then labeled as an “objective value” because it was chosen based on objective cognitive processes and was chosen for the goal of benefit to the person’s life. If the person was, in fact, correct – then the chosen goal was in fact a “value.” If the person made an error, even though objective processes were used – then the chosen goal was, in fact, a “disvalue.” If a person chooses a goal, without using objective cognitive processes or with a purpose other than benefit to life (“benefit” here includes the possibility of ending life if it has become unbearable), the chosen goal can be labeled a “subjective value.” If you find error in anything above, please use your own words and arguments, not Rand’s. The above is not intended to be consistent with Rand, it is intended to be consistent with truth.

Precisely so! And, that is why her ethics is incomplete. For a valid ethics, the following question must be answered in the affirmative. Is there a cognitive principle from which one can derive the foundational principle of the ethical system? I answer in the affirmative in “Objectivity and the Proof of Egoism,” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, Spring 2007, pp. 291-303. To present that proof, I reformulate the novelist’s formulation of the foundational principle, “the choice to live,” into the philosopher’s formulation, “holding one’s own life as the motive and goal of one’s action.” I argue that logical consistency with the nature of the evolved human mind requires “Holding one’s own life as the motive and goal of one’s action” (p. 293) Not to do so leads one to hold mutually contradictory premises, a logical contradiction. I would like to see that argument countered or strengthened.

Although my Ph.D is in physics, and I know less about philosophy than George, I agree with his comment above and with the substance and spirit of his other comments on the paper. P.S. I have skimmed the Conway/Kochen article, "The Free Will Theorem," and saved it for study of the technical details.

I am not certain ( ) the above statement is true. I can't quite put my finger (or maybe my neurons) on it, but it seems that the very meaning of knowledge presupposes the fact of existence. Maybe identification of the fact of existence is knowedge about which one cannot be in error? (i.e. "infallible knowledge") To assert otherwise seems to involve the "stolen concept" in some way.

I agree that "probable 'beliefs' " and well justified "knowledge" fall on the continuum indicated. I am curious about your view of "absolute certainty," which I take to be knowledge of a different "kind" in the sense that a fallible consciousness cannot be wrong about the identified fact. Does absolute certainty, in the sense I defined it, exist? If it does, is this not different than the "certain 'knowledge' " on the continuum?