My first gripe with ayn rand

[Peter]

On 12/3/2018 at 2:19 PM, S-E said:

Peter do you believe that is a true picture you have painted of the average Arab?  I’m not going to argue with  you, I just want to clarify that you see them as a bunch of savages who are after Jewish blood.

 Are you being literal, or are you exaggerating for effect?

I was just quoting old letters and may not agree with particular points. However, I will defend Israel, the last and farthest outpost of America. Who shares our objective, Western values? Israel.  What would John Galt do? What would Ayn Rand do? Would she stand next to Francisco and John Galt on the borders of Israel with a gun in each hand, shooting the terrorists? Yes she would. The quote at the end reminds me of "Give me liberty, or give me death."  Peter

Some quotes from the speeches of Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel is the last and farthest outpost of America . . . . You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire . . . . . And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past . . . . We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why -- this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. end quote 

And I am edited this to add, watch the movie, "Laurence of Arabia' for an interesting historical presentation of Arabia.

[S-E]

What do you mean by  ''our objective, Western values'' 

Conscription?      is that an objective, Western value? dose a state that endorses conscription deserve standing as a moral state?

 

and yes the article I liked is actually pro Israeli, but by my judgment it is biased, and quite morally offensive.                                                                                                                             

 

 

''I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine'' except for Ayn Ran.

 

[S-E]

Maybe this is a wider question the the Israeli/Palestine one.

 The question I'll put to you now is,  should one defend the lesser of two evils?

[Jonathan]

3 minutes ago, S-E said:

what do you mean by  ''our objective, Western values'' 

conscription?      is that an objective, Western value?

 

Yes, that what he meant. And, yes, conscription is indeed an objective Western value. Conscription is cool. Everyone loves it.

 

4 minutes ago, S-E said:

dose a state that endorses conscription deserve standing as a moral state?

If anyone, or any group of anyones, disagrees with us on any single issue, then they are immoral, deserve no standing whatsoever, and deserve immediate death.

 

5 minutes ago, S-E said:

...but by my judgment it is biased, and quite morally offensive.                                                                                                                             

Oh, no! You've been offended?! How horrific!

 

6 minutes ago, S-E said:

''I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine''

You left out Rand. You swear by your life and your love of it that you will never live for the sake of another man, except for Ayn Rand. You'll live for her sake.

J

[Jonathan]

2 minutes ago, S-E said:

Maybe this is a wider question the the Israeli/Palestine one.

The question I'll put to you now is,  should one defend the lesser of two evils?

Um, context?

If we have a choice between siding with Hitler or siding with a pretty decent guy who once stole a pack of gum, we might want to not treat the two as being the same in kind and only different in mere degrees.

J

[S-E]

1 minute ago, Jonathan said:

 

You left out Rand. You swear by your life and your love of it that you will never live for the sake of another man, except for Ayn Rand. You'll live for her sake.

J

How did I let that happen, how inconsiderate of me, Ive  Corrected it.

Thanks you for pointing that out Jonathan.

[S-E]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Um, context?

If we have a choice between siding with Hitler or siding with a pretty decent guy who once stole a pack of gum, we might want to not treat the two as being the same in kind and only different in mere degrees.

J

You just escalated that context war.

Yes, But were not talk about pieces of gum, we're talking thousands of human lives. If you have decided that Israeli is the ''lesser evil'' shouldn't you support them for the virtues, while condemning them for there vices?

[Jonathan]

1 minute ago, S-E said:

You just escalated that context war.

Yes, But were not talk about pieces of gum, we're talking thousands of human lives. If you have decided that Israeli is the ''lesser evil'' shouldn't you support them for the virtues, while condemning them for there vices?

Who is not condemning them for their vices?

J

[Jonathan]

4 minutes ago, S-E said:

How did I let that happen, how inconsiderate of me, Ive  Corrected it.

Thanks you for pointing that out Jonathan.

You're very welcome.
J

[S-E]

This will be interesting.

Will all the supporters of the Israeli state name one thing they think the Israeli government is wrong about, and they should improve.

or do you feel its perfect just the way it is?

[Jonathan]

13 minutes ago, S-E said:

This will be interesting.

Will all the supporters of the Israeli state name one thing they think the Israeli government is wrong about, and they should improve.

or do you feel its perfect just the way it is?

I don't know. Who are "supporters of the Israeli state"? What does that mean?

J

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

28 minutes ago, S-E said:

Will all the supporters of the Israeli state name one thing they think the Israeli government is wrong about, and they should improve.

S-E,

Too much collectivism.

Michael

[S-E]

53 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I don't know. Who are "supporters of the Israeli state"? What does that mean?

J

 

Ok. Sorry, I was unclear,  I was using the wrong word, what I meant was people who self identify as supporters of the current Israeli government policy. 

What can I say, I was using the word state and the concept government policy interchangeably, but you can see how it happened policy's are made by governments that are sometimes named right after the word state (for example) ''the state of Israel'' that's what happened.

 

[Peter]

I have some sympathy for the time lapse argument of history. “Wait a sec. That was a long time ago and things are different now.” Slavery happened a long time ago in America but it ceased in 1865. Americans remember and will never repeat that mistake. Wait until the first sentient robot is developed. Laws will be passed, by golly. The internment of Japanese Americans happened in 1941 but it quickly ceased. No Japanese American’s were treasonous. Yet many may have had concerns about the land of their ancestors where relatives were still living. How could they not? Of course, we were leery of Muslims after 9/11 and some dumbasses even tried to persecute Sikhs, but we did not put American citizens in jail or internment camps because of their religion. Illegal aliens? Ditto. People with AIDS or other diseases who might be contagious? Ditto. Just don’t cough around me.  Legitimate asylum? Yup, but I agree with our President. No borders? No country.

Americans are some of the best people on this earth. And we barely have to try to keep that distinction. It is part of our nature.           

[anthony]

On 12/20/2018 at 11:25 PM, S-E said:

What do you mean by  ''our objective, Western values'' 

Conscription?      is that an objective, Western value? dose a state that endorses conscription deserve standing as a moral state?

 

and yes the article I liked is actually pro Israeli, but by my judgment it is biased, and quite morally offensive.                                                                                                                             

 

 

''I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine'' except for Ayn Ran.

 

There's seldom even a pretence at innocent lack of knowledge any more: The facts of the situation there have become too plain to evade any longer. About every time I hear a "moral" argument against Israel (especially from the Left, Left-libertarian and very rarely, from Christians) I wait for the tacit or stated follow-on - "Why does Israel have the right to exist?" (Unasked of any other nation existing).

 Conscription is immoral and you don't have conscription in your country. Bully for you! Holding to a floating principle, i.e., one which disposes of context and reality, works against anyone's rational self-interest - and then, is "immoral". A principle serves its owner, not the reverse.

Perhaps your country is bordered by other long-time peaceable countries or by oceans? Perhaps it has a large enough population to ensure a sizable, voluntary, standing military force? Or it's population centers are not a stone's throw from belligerent neighbors on all sides wishing to kill citizens, and planning for the country's downfall? 

IOW, a country which has the luxuries of peace, isolation, location, distance and numbers - so, allowing the intervening time in which a goverment may carefully consider taking defensive/retaliatory action against aggressors. But not one which stays constantly at war readiness, at the very best of times in a low level state of emergency, and evidently from the past has had to be.

Perhaps moral skeptics of Israel's legitimacy will feel justified/pleased if it became a vassal state of Iran? From some I've heard, I can bet my boots on this.

[Brant Gaede]

11 hours ago, Peter said:

I have some sympathy for the time lapse argument of history. “Wait a sec. That was a long time ago and things are different now.” Slavery happened a long time ago in America but it ceased in 1865. Americans remember and will never repeat that mistake. Wait until the first sentient robot is developed. Laws will be passed, by golly. The internment of Japanese Americans happened in 1941 but it quickly ceased. No Japanese American’s were treasonous. Yet many may have had concerns about the land of their ancestors where relatives were still living. How could they not? Of course, we were leery of Muslims after 9/11 and some dumbasses even tried to persecute Sikhs, but we did not put American citizens in jail or internment camps because of their religion. Illegal aliens? Ditto. People with AIDS or other diseases who might be contagious? Ditto. Just don’t cough around me.  Legitimate asylum? Yup, but I agree with our President. No borders? No country.

 

 

Americans are some of the best people on this earth. And we barely have to try to keep that distinction. It is part of our nature.           

 

 

Slavery ended in 1865? That's a naïve statement. It wasn't even a "mistake" to begin with unless it was an Arab/Muslim mistake. It was historical inertia powered by pre-industrial economics. To call this monstrosity a mere mistake begs the question of whose mistake? The white man's?

The difference between Muslims and Japanese is wider than the Pacific. It's 1500 years of on again off again conflict, mostly on.

---Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Peter said:

Americans are some of the best people on this earth. And we barely have to try to keep that distinction. It is part of our nature.

Peter,

Amen.

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

We'll fight anybody. 

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

We'll fight anybody. 

--Brant

Brant,

And we'll give tons of money to anybody, too.

 

(But that part is ending.  )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Our only competition is ourselves. Not any foreign country or even the Muslim degenerate religion. This means it's imperative that we beat the left into metaphorical pulp.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

And I would go easy on the metaphorical.

 

My real problem is elitists who don't believe in freedom for all except as a verbal smokescreen for them to bolster their power over others. They are on the left and right.

However, at the hoi polloi level, the left does get awfully crazy, even in the mainstream at times (just look at the goddam PC culture right now). The fringe right is just as bad, but the mainstream is saner than the mainstream left.

Michael

[Jonathan]

14 hours ago, Peter said:

Slavery happened a long time ago in America but it ceased in 1865. Americans remember and will never repeat that mistake..  

No, they'll repeat it. They'll just do it a little differently next time. The defining characteristic of those assigned to the status of less-than-human will likely be something other than race this time. It's bad to enslave based on race, but virtuous to do so based on X. X might be ability, productivity, intelligence, "privilege," adherence to a specific ideology or religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.

J

 

[Peter]

Americans will not repeat the enslavement of people. The war on human trafficking is evidence as is a President who is upholding The Constitution. Old joke. Who was the best black president ever? Morgan Freeman.  I think there is a strong majority of Americans who are against privilege, kick backs. preferential treatment and elitism of all types, except in sports venues. 

[Jon Letendre]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Slavery ended in 1865? That's a naïve statement. It wasn't even a "mistake" to begin with unless it was an Arab/Muslim mistake. It was historical inertia powered by pre-industrial economics. To call this monstrosity a mere mistake begs the question of whose mistake? The white man's?

The difference between Muslims and Japanese is wider than the Pacific. It's 1500 years of on again off again conflict, mostly on.

---Brant

Thank you, Brant.

I have seen credible estimates there are more slaves alive right now than ever have been in human history. The rights orgs have some pretty crazy heart-wrenching estimates on numbers of sex and household slaves, in just Saudi alone, for example. Girls and boys for sale in Libya, openly.

[Peter]

A blast from the past, expounding on Rand’s ideas. Is there such a thing as economic coercion? Peter
From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:29:41 -0500. a.d. smith wrote: "Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. I was wondering how my fellow Atlanteans would reply to this argument I think I did a fairly good job in elucidating the differences between physical force and "economic coercion," but I could have done better. What would you guys have said in this situation?”

I find that well-constructed examples and counter-examples can sometimes communicate the distinction better than abstract arguments, or at least serve as an introduction to them. Many years ago, during a college seminar on Marxism, my professor gave the following popular example: Suppose I am stranded in the middle of the desert, and I run across the only oasis in my vicinity. It is privately owned, and the owner tells me that I must (a) work for him at fifty cents per hour, or (b) stay off his property. And since he is charging $5,000 for the food and water that are required to sustain my life during the remainder of my journey, this means that I am being economically coerced -- indeed, enslaved -- since I must either accept the offer or face certain death.

I responded by changing one condition of the example. The same oasis owner has more money than he knows what to do with, so (as before) he tells me that I must take a job to earn my supplies, but he now offers me $10,000 per hour instead of fifty cents. So now I can earn what I need in 30 minutes (during which the owner, who is starved for intellectual companionship, only requests that I talk to him about philosophy) and even walk away with a handsome surplus.

The professor then protested, "But that's not a realistic example." "Neither is your example," I replied, "but that's not the point. The purpose of the example is to isolate the key elements that generate what you call economic coercion. If your example, in which I am economically coerced to work for 50 cents an hour is valid, then so is my example where I am economically coerced to work for $10,000 per hour by discussing philosophy. I didn't change anything essential in the hypothetical; all I did was change some details, which should be irrelevant to the point you are making. So if you claim that my example doesn't qualify as economic coercion, then why doesn't it? I will die just as surely if I turn down the offer for $10,000 as if I refuse to work for fifty cents. What's the difference? According to your definition, I am being coerced in either case -- but it sounds a little strange to say that I am being 'forced' to work at the higher wage. You are loading the example in your favor by including very low wages, but the amount of the wage is immaterial to the point you wish to make. Surely the validity of your argument should not depend solely on its emotional appeal, so it should make equal sense to take about a wage-slave who is forced to discuss philosophy at $10,000 per hour."

I don't remember my exact words, of course, but the preceding is a fair representation of my argument. It took the discussion in some interesting directions that might otherwise have been overlooked – such as whether the CEO of a multinational corporation is also economically "coerced" to accept his multi-million dollar salary -- and the discussion ended when the Marxist professor said, "Well, I'll have to give some additional thought to your example." That's about as close to an unconditional surrender as a student is ever likely to get from a professor. Ghs

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:40:33 EDT A. D. Smith wrote: << Recently, I was arguing with an anarcho-socialist friend about fundamental political and ethical principles. I had stated that I was opposed to the use of force in social relations (except in retaliation). He said that I was inconsistent in that I was not opposed to the use of "economic coercion" (e.g., the threat of firing someone) as well as physical force. >>

There is no such thing as "economic coercion." We owe it to people not to use force against them; we do not owe it to them to supply them with employment nor to keep them employed if we do not choose to. People have a right to seek jobs; they do not have a right to *have* jobs if the employer finds them unsuitable. So to threaten an employee with firing is in no sense of the term "coercion." The job is not his by right, but only by the decision of the owner of the business. Barbara

From: "a.d. smith" To Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:06:07 -0400 (EDT) On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, George H. Smith wrote: George, The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later. These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it.(I pointed that historically most examples of land speculation of this type were made possible by the state, but his point was that even in a stateless society, this type of engrossing could be possible. My reply was that under a system of competing governments, a protection agency that enforced an obviously illegitimate claim to unimproved natural resources would likely arose the anger of the community at large).

From: "William Dwyer" To: Atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: sophistry Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:02 -0700. a.d. smith wrote, >The example of the oasis brings up my friend's second basic argument --- the possibility that first-comers may claim all the natural resources in an area to the detriment of people who arrive in the area later.  These people may hold their property without improving or with mixing only a token portion of their labor with it. >

I fail to see how this is an argument against capitalism, since capitalism doesn't sanction this kind of unearned appropriation.  In order to acquire property under capitalism, you need to mix your labor with a previously unowned resource, or acquire the property from its previous owner by mutual consent.  Obviously, there are issues with regard to the specifics of acquiring previously unowned land, but these cannot form the basis of any serious argument against capitalism.

In any case, the Coase Theorem in economics (for which Ronald Coase was given the Nobel Prize) states that if property rights are clearly defined and transaction costs are low, resources will tend to flow towards their highest valued uses, regardless of who owns them. In other words, even assuming that people could appropriate land without mixing their labor with it, in a free-market economy, the land could be bid away in exchange for money. The highest bid would tend to reflect its most profitable uses, by reflecting what consumers would be most willing to spend their money on.  Thus, under capitalism, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference how the property is initially acquired.  It will eventually be allocated toward its most popular and desired uses.

If laissez-faire capitalism existed in Latin America, for example, the large landed aristocracies would not last, because they would either be induced to sell their land at an exorbitant price, or to use it in ways that are the most profitable and consumer-friendly. Bill