Samson Corwell

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    634

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Samson Corwell

    My Cato Essays

    in George H. Smith Corner

    Posted

    On July 16, 2016 at 4:58 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

    Another triumph for the Passive-Aggressive strategy.  Frankl painted his concentration camp hell to look like a comfortable room,  and god-damn if it didn't work!

    That seems a little harsh.

    My Cato Essays

    in George H. Smith Corner

    Posted

    On July 16, 2016 at 7:04 PM, George H. Smith said:

    If you think that QM is all there is in the world, then you live a very barren life.

    I never said that facts cannot refute a theory. I specifically referred to economics. Mises was not referring to physics and experiments that can be conducted under controlled conditions. He was referring to the study of complex social phenomena in which there cannot be controlled experiments. 

    Your use of the term "science" is quite arbitrary. For centuries the label "science" (scientia) was applied to any sustained and systematic discipline that can yield knowledge. Lots of disciplines other than the "hard" sciences meet those criteria. You are using "science" in an honorific sense, as a value judgment to express your opinion that the knowledge of physics, etc., is somehow of a higher status that other types of knowledge. That's nonsense.

     

    This doesn't seem to fit in with Lawrence Krauss giving the foreword to your book on atheism.

    My Cato Essays

    in George H. Smith Corner

    Posted

    On July 16, 2016 at 7:04 PM, George H. Smith said:

    If you think that QM is all there is in the world, then you live a very barren life.

    I never said that facts cannot refute a theory. I specifically referred to economics. Mises was not referring to physics and experiments that can be conducted under controlled conditions. He was referring to the study of complex social phenomena in which there cannot be controlled experiments. 

    Your use of the term "science" is quite arbitrary. For centuries the label "science" (scientia) was applied to any sustained and systematic discipline that can yield knowledge. Lots of disciplines other than the "hard" sciences meet those criteria. You are using "science" in an honorific sense, as a value judgment to express your opinion that the knowledge of physics, etc., is somehow of a higher status that other types of knowledge. That's nonsense.

     

    Well, I happen to think that Mises' proposition is nonsense. Perhaps he meant it in a broader sense. Could counter-examples "falsify" a theory in some way?

    How are non-Objectivists subjectivist?

    in 3 - Ethics

    Posted

    Ayn Rand a particular habit of referring to people who weren't Objectivists as "subjectivist". Lots of Objectivists seem to have picked this up. One on here, for instance, said Christian morality is "subjectivist". Given Christians and most other non-Objectivists will say that some things are immoral or wrong, why are called that?

    My Cato Essays

    in George H. Smith Corner

    Posted

    On 2/25/2016 at 11:35 AM, George H. Smith said:

    Two points come to mind. First, in Kant's version of the social contract, consent is purely hypothetical. If a rational person should have consented to be ruled by a particular government, then his consent is taken for granted, even if he never did actually consent or would never have consented. Second, Kant denied the rights of resistance and revolution even against an unjust government. Those two rights were pillars of the classical liberal tradition, at least in Kant's day.

    Ghs

    Oh, yeah. I remember that. It was a rather interesting and unique argument for it. Something about being non-universalizable, instead of the usual stuff about social instability, obedience to authority, and so forth. Could you elaborate on his social contract theory and what you mean by consent being hypothetical? I know that his view of it was that the CI morally compelled everyone to set up an "ethical commonwealth". Aside from that, though, would you say that his view of actions, them needing to treat people as ends, is inspiring?

    Golden Rule

    in 3 - Ethics

    Posted

    On 2/15/2016 at 6:04 PM, merjet said:

    Which form?

    - One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
    - One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).
    - What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form).  Link.

    The second form far outranks the others in my opinion.

     

     

    I think the first is meant to contain the second.

    New Hampshire Primary Socialist Alarm


    in Ed Hudgins Corner

    Posted

    On 2/16/2016 at 0:07 PM, dldelancey said:

    Adam, try this article...

    https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/socialism-vs-social-democracy-whats-the-difference/

    There's a lot of "wishing" going on in that article, though.  I'd still like to hear what practical differences Samson can share.  For instance, how does a social democrat differ in his actions from a socialist by being reflective rather than emotional? 

    Social Democrats are just supportive of welfare and labor as far as I understand it. If the Scandinavian countries are social democracies, as is commonly held, then I don't see much resemblance to socialist countries that used to exist. (Cuba is probably the last socialist country. I don't know what to call the Hermit Kingdom, which looks like some bizarre hybrid of monarchism, military rule, and other things. It's a fascinating polity, in a morbid sort of way. North Korea certainly is not Marxist, since it holds man to be the shaper of history instead of the other way around.)

    It's not that social democracy is anything of particular interest to me. I find all politics and forms of government interesting. One difference I can spot between social democracy is that it is comfortable with the existence of businesses and that socialism aims at worker-organized industry. Or something like that. Labels abound. I should note I have never felt comfortable with the oh so popular sliding scale of capitalism and socialism.

    On 2/16/2016 at 1:39 PM, MereMortal said:

    Samson, is being a social democrat a good thing?  What's the benefit?   

    Never said being a social democracy is a good thing, Mortal, only that there is a difference between being one and being a socialist "republic". Sanders is wrong, I believe, to call himself a socialist. The general public doesn't seem keen on the details of certain labels. It's kind of like how free market capitalism and crony capitalism are another source of confusion, wouldn't you agree?

    Golden Rule

    in 3 - Ethics

    Posted

    6 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

    Exactly.  The Golden Rule depends on what the person values--the person might think it is "good" to treat people badly, as he expects people to do this unto himself.  This type of person enjoys conflict, uses the Golden Rule as a maxim.  How about a Heraclitian mentality, of strife and change--meaning he creates the strife and you change?  He would expect this kind of treatment from others, of the fight, the predator/prey.  The masochist, the person who enjoys seeing people suffer, that attempts to make other people suffer as he expects this unto himself.

    The Golden Rule is too bromidic, and needs to be cast out.  It's unprincipled, says nothing to the nature of man, of why we need values, and an Objective value system, in the first place.

    Wait, so other people do not believe in objective morality?

    The Most Evil Fictional Characters

    in Objectivist Living Room

    Posted

    Boy, it's been a while since I've been here. Anyway, I wanted to start a thread about evil fictional characters, to see who you guys would nominate. There are gut wrenching villains like Hannibal Lecter and Ragyo. Then there are the more, I guess, iconic bad guys who are more about being the best villains out there. Rand's villains were pretty original, but I just don't think they were really evil. Here's someone who I think looks pretty damn cruel and hellish:

    wTftUkn.jpg

    No taxation equals no government?

    in 4 - Politics

    Posted

    I ran across this idea recently and it's left me scratching my head. One person I was reading said that no taxation means that there is no government. This seems a little counter-intuitive to me. Do you think taxation is an necessary to that government exists? I can easily imagine, say, a small town with town hall meetings that might not have taxes. Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if some or many of the initial settlements in America were without taxation given the lack of infrastructure.

    My Cato Essays

    in George H. Smith Corner

    Posted

    The Roots of State Education, Part 1: The Spartan Model

    George H. Smith discusses how the educational system of Sparta influenced later advocates of state education.

    The Libertarianism.org podcast of my Cato Essay #16 is now up.

    Ghs

    I think it's erroneous to call the Spartan model "state education". The divide between society and state, something which I think is flawed, didn't exist as a concept back then. I don't know, it just seems to strange to project our understanding of "public" and "private" onto a situation that existed before it. If you go up to most people and talked to them, I don't think they'd see much of a divide between government and their community.