KorbenDallas

Foxnews covering the mailers today, about 2:25 in: Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Nonsense. Saying "destabilizes/stabilizes naturally" does not say it behaves unnaturally, the latter estimate is your own. I didn't say that. I said "naturally" means leave it alone. To interfere with that is the unnatural thing. I suppose if you want to be nice about it you can call it artificial. --Brant Gotchya, my mistake

ie. you're using the term "consequence" wrong when it comes to Objectivism

That's the scope here

I think it's going to be very tough to discuss if AR's ethics are consequentialist by taking the approach that they are consequentialist, and then using consequentialist concepts and terminology to try to disprove that assertion. In fact, that's impossible to do. Consequence is defined and used differently in Objectivism and consequentialism. And in my estimation, that could be a differentia that might lead to untangling the two.

That's hilarious! I had this guy in my thoughts the other day, but in a disassociative way.

Peikoff mentioned this in a lecture. An Objectivist would need to understand the consequences of his actions, but it as a means of understanding the law of causality. He acts on purpose, by means of virtue, to achieve value. So, the Objectivist would need to know the consequences of his action(s) to achieve purpose, but doesn't necessarily act on consequence alone.

Nonsense. Saying "destabilizes/stabilizes naturally" does not say it behaves unnaturally, the latter estimate is your own. A subsidized, regulated market is inherently distorting of optimum investment of resources. It doesn't matter whether it's the financial or housing sector, the energy sector, or the agricultural sector. It causes malinvestment and wastefulness. I get this from reading Rand, Branden, Friedman, Rothbard, Adam Smith, Henry Hazlitt - but also from my experience. (Thank god I didn't own a house when I was getting ready to move from California 6 years ago. That was a bubble I'm glad I wasn't part of.) ... Yes, I know this principle. Logically, it's not the subsidy that is the cause for the corruption, it's the people. I don't think you were making that mistake. In your first hand experience, it sounds like there are many undue hardships endured by you and yours at the effect of those corrupt farmers. That's no good of the corrupt farmers, and amoral. There is definitely a problem that needs addressing. --- I offered a very solid refutation of Cruz and his stance on ethanol, logically laid out and clear. I have formal education in this area, performed a lot of my own research (rejecting the spoon-feed liberal junk that subsidies are empathetic), and of course Rand, Peikoff, etc. In other markets I researched I found a subsidy to be unjustified, but in the farming market I found it justified. That's not a contradiction, that's an identification that it doesn't behave the same as the others in the class. In my previous post about it, I laid out a proof. That doesn't mean that I agree with the implementation of the subsidy, how it is maintained, or the corruption that has taken place. Anyway, that's my position on it, and I understand Cruz's position.

Fun with hypotheticals! Your whole comment was hypothetical and stuck in an epistemological bubble. Did you even watch the debate? Cruz handled the (to Iowa voters) very crucial issue of ethanol subsidies - and he handled it well. (I thought Rubio did the best job tonight, also Paul, while Cruz did passably well.) Cruz said not only that there shouldn't be ethanol subsidies, but that there shouldn't be ethanol regulations that hampered the market's development of it as an alternative fuel, AND that in general the government should not be picking winners and losers with subsidies. He knocked that particular one out of the park. Cruz's answer was so specific in dealing with the question and yet so well integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues, it did not at all resemble the surrealistic template you accuse him of using. I have to wonder what alternate dimension you draw your material from - and you are the one who accuses *Cruz* of "rationalism." Amazing. REB Of course my whole statement was in an epistemological bubble, that's the nature of the modality I was using Technically, the debate happened after my previous post, so I guess you got me there. I didn't watch the debate before posting it. But I definitely watched the tail end of the Fox debate after I posted, and know of the Cruz ethanol comment you speak of. No, it doesn't fit the template, but that doesn't change the estimate. REB, don't make the mistake of concretizing Cruz's statements for him. When Cruz speaks he might be pinging on your Objective hierarchies, which are grounded to reality, but Cruz's, the majority of the time, are not. You're almost defining rationalism in your reply here, "specific.. yet so integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues,"--but that doesn't mean he concretized it. A rationalist will have integrations--often wide hierarchies--concepts, and so on, but that doesn't mean they are concretized, and Cruz's, are not. It is distinct, no alternate dimension. When I hear Cruz I hear a rationalist, when I hear Rand I hear an Objectivist. Big difference in the use of their mind. What "amazes" me, however, is how Cruz is an avowed mystic and you go to bat for him. Not sure what to make of that contradiction. Cruz was presenting a consistent, principled position, it was connected to specific facts, and it was applied across the board to other specific cases. Inductive, deductive. Connected to specific facts is what concretized means. So I really don't get this bit you keep saying about how Cruz is not concretized or grounded in reality. Perhaps you are just equating his belief in God with not having valid, reality-derived knowledge whatsoever? I find it hard to believe you would make that equation, but I know some Objectivists do. (In the old days, they made exceptions for people like von Mises and Goldwater.) Even wild-eyed mystics come up with really rational, reality-based, true generalizations and principles. Leonard Peikoff extolled Isaac Newton as a prime example of his I (Integrative) category in his book The DIM Hypothesis - yet, if you look into Newton's life story, you find that he had a lot of wacky historical-religious notions. (There's another exception Objectivists like to make in their usual relegation of theists to the epistemological rationalist garbage bin.) On the other hand, Immanuel Kant, the favorite Objectivist whipping boy and categorized as Disintegrative (D2) by Peikoff, not only failed to straighten out the empiricist-rationalist split and Hume's wreckage, but was actually a brilliant theoretical physicist during his younger years - in some ways, as insightful and brilliant as Newton. Read up on him, too. His nebular hypothesis (of the formation of the galaxy) and his theory about the tides are amazing. I'm not sure where along the DIM continuum to place Cruz, but I'd imagine he is M1, considering his respect for free market economics, rather than market interventionism. He sounds like someone who has read a lot of von Mises, Rand, Hazlitt, etc. Rand Paul, also a Christian, but a more consistent libertarian, is somewhere between M1 and I (Integrative). Huckabee and Santorum, however, are way off towards M2, Santorum for sure. They're both pretty scary. Actually, all three of them (Paul excluded) scare me with their evangelical-tinged hawkish foreign policy. But interestingly and scarily, way too many Objectivists for my comfort *also* like the idea of sending troops over to kick ISIS's ass (with not a few of those troops coming back in body bags or with body parts missing). So, that to me is a very important issue on which I do *not* stick up for Cruz. I actually prefer Paul's and Trump's approach to immigration and foreign intervention (assuming Trump is serious about letting Iran and Russia beat up on ISIS and not sending our troops and money over). I give Cruz a C-minus in foreign policy, Trump maybe a B, Paul an A. But on the *economy*? Cruz gets an A-minus at worst - and Trump maybe a C-plus. In economics, Cruz is the real deal. So is Paul (an A for him). In regard to personal liberties, Paul is considerably better than Cruz, but I don't like either of their pro-life positions (nor Trump's). Overall, I give Paul an A-minus for civil liberties, Cruz a C-plus, Trump...I have no idea, but no higher than a B. To me, the bottom line on the whole "mystic" (code for proud Christian) is that even those who believe in God have valid, reality-based concepts and principles. Their knowledge is not fully integrated, but very large clumps of it are. What matters to me is: are they correct, do they know they are correct, do they mean what they say, and do they back up their correct opinions with action? In the areas Cruz has correct, he gets an A. So does Paul. Trump...he doesn't have enough of a track record for the *good* stuff he says to give him a grade for "talks the talk, walks the walk." He's really a blank check, asking us to trust him. Heard that one before... REB The problem I have with a mystic is that each one has a psychological condition, a delusional disorder. Being a common delusion doesn't make it okay, and Cruz sends a shiver down my spine when he take a pause then speaks in intonation. I believe Cruz takes god as an axiom, that he's consumed by it. He has a space in his head were the concept of god is, but to him it's not a concept: it is a consciousness inside his head. This consciousness is always there, watching him (omnipresent), and helping guide his thoughts (omniscience). Cruz, metaphysically, can sense god (interoception)--that's scary. And I do not want the President of the United States to have a delusional disorder like Cruz's. My first question to Cruz when he "prays" would be, "has god talked back?" I know what you mean about estimating mystic by a matter of degree, though. Rubio, up until the last week or so when campaigning for the evangelical vote, has kept it grounded. When he speaks, he does concretize and seemingly keeps his faith for "insurance" after he dies and to have a "decent" morality (probably because it's widely accepted) for while he's here--and while "on earth" he seems to get the process of identity; psychologically, metaphysically. I'd say that Paul is further out on the mystic spectrum, just for comparison. I haven't read The DIM Hypothesis, these are my own integrations, but it sounds like I'd enjoy it. I'd like to go back to Cruz and ethanol. Here is the clip from the debate: First, for this argument Cruz makes a concept out of the EPA mandate, farming subsidies, and the state of Iowa. He calls it "not picking winners and losers." Fine. But has to be broken apart as they are separate concepts, and I'm sure Cruz knows this and can do this. As for the EPA mandate, it's nonsense. It's not a mandate at all, it's more of a suggestion, without any regulation or oversight. It was Obama fluff, and as a conservative, I'm okay with it being a suggestion--but it needs to be repealed anyway. Separately. Farming subsidies. The basic economic principles of land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship are important here. Barriers of entry are low with farming. Resources (land) aren't considered scarce in economics and with farming, in fact they are considered to be easy to obtain. Entrepreneurship is considered a low factor here (education and ability of the individuals). Capital is medium. Obviously the labor is low. Farming is considered to be easy to get into, so many people enter the market. What kind of competitive advantage can be had? None--at least, as considered in economics. To concretize that, the land will only produce so much. Only so much technology can be had in the farming equipment. So where farming is concerned, it's almost a level playing field where economics is concerned, where reality is concerned. Next comes some causations and dynamics. Because farming is easy to get into, many people want to get into it. The better businessmen and farmers will have some intellectual advantage, maybe some efficiency advantage--but what comes next is that because the land and equipment are easy to obtain, more people enter the market than the market will bear. Demand stays relatively constant, supply increases, prices drop, and they drop below the cost to produce the goods. This is where most people claim "subsidy", but this isn't why the subsidy is there. All I've described so far is an aspect to capitalism. Next you'll have farmers drop out, the ones that stay are likely the better businessmen and more efficient farmers. The supply market fluctuates, the demand likely stays the same and buyers will pay more for the product once supply drops--but a soon as that happens--and because the barriers of entry are low--new farmers enter the market, and then more farmers than the market will bear, and again people are losing money, farmers drop out, only to be the beginning of another cycle. (Again, no subsidy yet..) Now one neglected aspect to the previous three paragraphs needs to be mentioned: the set up time for these new farmers. Though the barriers of entry are low, it does take some set up time, which once intermixed with the aforementioned cycle, almost perpetuates it, as a varying level of farmers will always be in the queue, entering it, which leads to a destabilization, then leaving--this is the cause for the subsidy. I should mention again that the free market, and capitalism, implies there are competitive advantages that can be had with land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship--and entrepreneurship here includes invention, or use of, technologies, and efficiencies--but efficiencies that don't exist from the aspect of concretized economics and the farming market, without an advantage that can be had in technologies. And finally, to state the conclusion: farming subsidies exist, fundamentally, as a matter of suppliers. (QED) The subsidy helps increase the barriers to entry, which helps stabilize the market (the supplier end). The subsidy also helps regulate, as the number of suppliers enters and leaves the market, prices. Fundamentally, though, subsidies exist as a matter of suppliers. Second (continuing from six paragraphs ago), Cruz wants to eliminate farming subsidies to have a completely "free market"--but this just isn't factually how the farming market works and the flaw in Cruz's argument. Eliminating the farming subsidies will completely destabilize the farming market. The farmers of Iowa know this. The Governor of Iowa knows this--and this is the reason why he spoke out against Cruz. It is basic/intermediate economics--concretized economics--and proven not only in theory but practically. The farmers have a real worry about this, because they know how the market really works out there. Third, Cruz tries to cover for the elimination of farming subsidies destabilizing the farming market--as I suspect he knows it will destabilize it--by citing his fair tax. This is a non-sequitur. Again, that's not the fundamental of the farming subsidies, they exist, fundamentally, as a matter of suppliers. Taxes might be a consideration for creating the business, as a condition, but taxes do nothing in stabilizing the natural stabilization/destabilization of a non-subsidized farming market. So as a conservative, I would normally be against a government handout or regulation, but in the case of farming, I look at reality, at the facts, and the facts are that the farming market destabilizes/stabilizes naturally. It necessarily needs something to stabilize it.

Fun with hypotheticals! Your whole comment was hypothetical and stuck in an epistemological bubble. Did you even watch the debate? Cruz handled the (to Iowa voters) very crucial issue of ethanol subsidies - and he handled it well. (I thought Rubio did the best job tonight, also Paul, while Cruz did passably well.) Cruz said not only that there shouldn't be ethanol subsidies, but that there shouldn't be ethanol regulations that hampered the market's development of it as an alternative fuel, AND that in general the government should not be picking winners and losers with subsidies. He knocked that particular one out of the park. Cruz's answer was so specific in dealing with the question and yet so well integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues, it did not at all resemble the surrealistic template you accuse him of using. I have to wonder what alternate dimension you draw your material from - and you are the one who accuses *Cruz* of "rationalism." Amazing. REB Of course my whole statement was in an epistemological bubble, that's the nature of the modality I was using Technically, the debate happened after my previous post, so I guess you got me there. I didn't watch the debate before posting it. But I definitely watched the tail end of the Fox debate after I posted, and know of the Cruz ethanol comment you speak of. No, it doesn't fit the template, but that doesn't change the estimate. REB, don't make the mistake of concretizing Cruz's statements for him. When Cruz speaks he might be pinging on your Objective hierarchies, which are grounded to reality, but Cruz's, the majority of the time, are not. You're almost defining rationalism in your reply here, "specific.. yet so integrated in connecting it to related and wider issues,"--but that doesn't mean he concretized it. A rationalist will have integrations--often wide hierarchies--concepts, and so on, but that doesn't mean they are concretized, and Cruz's, are not. It is distinct, no alternate dimension. When I hear Cruz I hear a rationalist, when I hear Rand I hear an Objectivist. Big difference in the use of their mind. What "amazes" me, however, is how Cruz is an avowed mystic and you go to bat for him. Not sure what to make of that contradiction.

I watched the Trump event, too, and switched over to the Foxnews broadcast and was struck by the contrast. I have to admit, the Trump event had me chanting U S A along with them a few times. In one of his statements, he said he was "greedy" in making his money, but he wants to be "greedy" for our country, to bring back all that money to the USA, for everyone. And I believe him. U S A

Na, not confused, disinterested. Your original argument, Rand->Goldwater->Trump, had zero transitivity to begin with. I replied to your arbitrary, but probably shouldn't have (you know, the whole reject arbitraries thing in Objectivism). And as for your final epithet, I reject the ad hominem.

I'll bite. Cruz would begin by saying, "see, what we have in America right now is <insert some meaningless pseudo-induction that fails to get at the essential>, and that's why when <insert whatever piece of legislation> got called to vote, I <insert his vote> because what we need now in Washington is proven leadership, and that's why when <he voted yay/nay> it showed that I stood for <whatever issue he stands for> and <now tie it back to the meaningless pseudo-induction (premise) from before>." That's rationalism, and that's Cruz. Disconnected from reality. When I was younger I used to call these politicians "issue men" because they can only speak about whatever issues come across their desk and don't know much outside of it. Cruz is stuck in an epistemological bubble that doesn't go outside the voting floor. Fun with hypotheticals!

Why would I want to understand Goldwater? He's your arbitrary

A recent Trump tweet: "Even though I beat him in the first six debates, especially the last one, Ted Cruz wants to debate me again. Can we do it in Canada?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2016"

Lukewarm at best--and dismissive. "A lot"?--not, not "a lot." On that I'd bet the farm. You see, she'd think of Barry Goldwater and how Trump is comparatively. I remember Barry too. --Brant Well, Trump made a lot more money than Goldwater and Trump also has built many buildings with architectural appeal... Well, Trump made a lot more money than Rand and . . . . --Brant appeal to whom? It wasn't my point to judge someone's efficacy (moral virtue of productiveness) by looking at their net worth. My point was that Rand highly valued businessmen who earn their money by virtue, and Goldwater isn't close to being the same kind of businessman using this standard. Nor was I saying that Rand would give full moral approval to Trump, she'd have a lot to value, including (some, to whatever degree) his architectural aesthetics that Goldwater didn't possess. (Reminder that Rand wept when she saw the skyscrapers of NYC...) Patent stealing doesn't have the same hierarchical root as imminent domain. If imminent domain is used correctly, as Trump has adequately shown over the years after responding to attacks, I don't have a problem with it.

Lukewarm at best--and dismissive. "A lot"?--not, not "a lot." On that I'd bet the farm. You see, she'd think of Barry Goldwater and how Trump is comparatively. I remember Barry too. --Brant Well, Trump made a lot more money than Goldwater and Trump also has built many buildings with architectural appeal...

Like this video: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/01/26/donald-trump-reporter-clash-quote-sot.cnn Trump catches this reporter trying to commit a logical fallacy of accenting against him, calls him out on it, and correctly goes after the reporter's amorality. Then, Trump doesn't apologize (and it probably never occurred to him). That's self esteem. And moral.

With Trump, I'm seeing an Independent man, a capitalist, with an earned and deserved self esteem and someone who isn't going to allow others to knock his morality through inference or whatever. I'd bet Rand would have a lot of positive things to say about Trump.

Gah, milking that misericordiam

Agreed, I'm going through these and they are incredible. I have them in MP3 format (purchased from The Culture of Reason Center) and listening to them at 1.5x speed helps the pacing.

That's a primacy of conscousness statement. Those two are a reversal of causation. "I am, therefore I can eat," is the correction, etc.

Coming with something that might be proved is the creative act in mathematics. The bright idea leaps out of the mathematicians head like Athena from the brow of Zeus. All important advances in mathematics have been driven by artistic creation, not by grinding out propositions mechanically. Intuition is not outside the realm of Logic, of deduction or induction. What you're describing is a psycho-epistemological process, of the conscious mind tasking the subconscious, and later at the "moment of intuition", the subconscious is serving up the conclusion to the conscious mind after having made the appropriate connections.

There’s more in the article. Seems my Ted Cruz/Benny Hinn connection wasn't so far off earlier:

It's rationalism to make a statement, then abstract anything away that is inconvenient to the statement, or add in things to support it that won't ground to reality. It's also rationalism to do the opposite, to make a large floating argument that seems to be based off of rational principles (& integrations), but then ignore that which would invalidate it in some way. That's no misinterpretation of rationalism. It's my estimation that Cruz does the latter quite a bit. This isn't an attack on you REB, it's not my intention. I hope it's not coming across that way. I read a lot of your posts for a couple of years before joining and highly respect you.