Ayn Rand

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I'm siezing your computer Ramo! It was obtained with wealth madevthrough exploitation of the masses!

Why do you think he didn't pay for it with his wages?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Agathon -

You've finally learned your best arguments are the one's you don't post.

Why waste time trying to convert illiterates like you. I've made various claims against Rand in previous posts, none of which seems to have been understood properly. So I can't be bothered writing a whole essay if it won't further the argument

Here's a summary of some of the things that are wrong (some of which I've mentioned) although there are more. This man is also a Libertarian and seems to me, from an initial examination, to be a person well informed on the topic.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html

[Ramo]

Huh? Liberals are trying to find a justification to increase the welfare state to benefit blacks. But how does opposing slave "reparations" constitute hypocrisy (the source of your amusement) on the part of "utlra-capitalists"? Are ultra-capitalists required by capitalism to pay for the sins of the dead?
And how are these liberals enforcing legitimate property rights by handing one group of people money belonging to another group?

Yes, capitalists are required by capitalism to pay for the "sins" of the dead. The idea that property claims should last a generation is totally arbitrary. Why not a quarter of a generation or 4? The only consistent idea is that property claims last indefinitely.

As I asked RB, what do you think of this scenario?:
"Let's say you own billions of dollars. Then I kill you. Then I take the billions of dollars you own. Your kids are left with absolutely nothing and they stay poor, live in a ghetto, etc., etc. I buy the government off so they let me keep all that money. Now, when I die, do my kids have moral rights to those billions of dollars?"

I'm siezing your computer Ramo! It was obtained with wealth madevthrough exploitation of the masses!

Not accepting capitalist ideas on property rights is not the same thing as not accepting any idea of property rights.

I've never been the owner of an authoritarian business.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

mah... capitalist idea is that might makes right... when the USD president becomes a black man, and he declares that reparations have to be paid... they will be paid (unless someone assasinates him first) ... but other than that... people are just too weak... but imagine if blacks can claim reparations what could Indians claim

--- blacks were "only" majority slaves, but Indians were killed in an organised genocide trough generations... by US government no less...

[Ted Striker]

Indians are already getting reparations.

[DuncanK]

I don't have a problem with giving African-Americans a free education of something like that that benefits society, but just giving them a check is bull****.

[Berzerker]

Duncan -

The same reason you do.

Does that mean you've adopted a hypocritical argument?

Agathon -

Why waste time trying to convert illiterates like you.

You'll have to answer that one given your prior efforts.

I've made various claims against Rand in previous posts, none of which seems to have been understood properly.

Maybe the problem is the messenger since Wraith, Rex and I don't "understand" you properly.

So I can't be bothered writing a whole essay if it won't further the argument

Here's a summary of some of the things that are wrong (some of which I've mentioned) although there are more.

Relying on others to make your case, how impressive.

This man is also a Libertarian and seems to me, from an initial examination, to be a person well informed on the topic.

He's the son of Milton Friedman and an anarcho-capitalist, but thx for the link, I like David Friedman.

Ramo -

Yes, capitalists are required by capitalism to pay for the "sins" of the dead.

Why?

The idea that property claims should last a generation is totally arbitrary. Why not a quarter of a generation or 4? The only consistent idea is that property claims last indefinitely.

But they don't, a legal line of ownership must be shown and you cannot show this line from slaveholders 150 years ago to most people today, much less property holdings. That's why property claims can, or should be, limited to 1 or 2 generations unless proof of an older legal line can be shown. So why are the descendents of northernors who died freeing the slaves required by capitalism to pay "reparations"?

As I asked RB, what do you think of this scenario?:
"Let's say you own billions of dollars. Then I kill you. Then I take the billions of dollars you own. Your kids are left with absolutely nothing and they stay poor, live in a ghetto, etc., etc. I buy the government off so they let me keep all that money. Now, when I die, do my kids have moral rights to those billions of dollars?"

Nope.

[Berzerker]

OneFoot - slavery was the legacy of monarchies, feudalism, and even more primitive hunter-gatherer societies. Capitalism combined with Christianity ended the practice wherever those two have met.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Duncan -

Does that mean you've adopted a hypocritical argument?

No, becuase I don't believe that people should be able to transfer property either.

[Ramo]

Why?

Because that's the nature of capitalist property rights. There's no reason why property claims should expire after a generation or two. Just like there's no reason that government-accepted property claims should expire after a generation or two.

But they don't, a legal line of ownership must be shown and you cannot show this line from slaveholders 150 years ago to most people today, much less property holdings. That's why property claims can, or should be, limited to 1 or 2 generations unless proof of an older legal line can be shown.

Why does proof need to be demonstrated only in cases of older than one or two generations?

So why are the descendents of northernors who died freeing the slaves required by capitalism to pay "reparations"?

Well, I've heard of proposals of slavery reparations involving only cases where proof can be shown of a line connecting a descendent of a slave with the descendent of the slave-owner. I'm referring to proposals such as these. So, where proof can be demonstrated, are you saying that reparations are justified?

There are businesses and noble families that have had long histories of exploitation. Is taking away their property and giving it to the descendents of the exploited justified in these cases?

Nope.

Why not? Then you're making people pay for the sins of the dead.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Agathon -

You'll have to answer that one given your prior efforts.

As if I'm going to waste my time producing stuff for you when all you do is endlessly cut and paste and respond with irrelevancies. And to top it off you use a dictionary definition to define a philosophical concept (that breaks rule number 1 in philosophy). And you still never managed to explain how a libertarian is supposed to come up with a substantive conception of coercion if negative liberty is all that counts.

Anyway - for the last time

I've already proposed in essence some of the objections that Friedman raises:

Agathon

They say that complete selfishness is rational and altruistic behaviour is irrational. How are we supposed to understand this assertion?

If it pertains to the rationality of means rather than ends then it is clearly false since we may need to use altruistic means to achieve selfish ends.

If it pertains to ends, then it isn't clear what it means. Wanting to have your cake and eat it too is an irrational end (because it is contradictory) but being altruistic doesn't suffer from this contradiction [the pseudo argument about me always acting in my own interests notwithstanding, for the fact that I act according to the interests I have does not logically entail that these interests are selfish - I can have unselfish interests].

Friedman doesn't deal with this point directly since he is dealing with her fundamental argument (which I mention in the next passage quoted), but it is implied in section 2.

and:

Agathon

What the Randians say is that selfishness is acting in accord with our true nature, which is intrinsically selfish. If you ask for some proof of this claim (metaphysical or scientific) none is forthcoming, Thus if we disagree, we have no reason to believe them.

Friedman

The claim here, quite clearly, is that living things other than human beings automatically act for their own survival. That claim is false. A male mantis, for example, mates, even though the final step of the process consists of being eaten by the female. Female mammals get pregnant, even though (especially in species where the male does not help support female and offspring) doing so substantially reduces their chances of survival. If one is going to ascribe values to non-human living things, the purpose of those values, on both empirical and theoretical grounds, is not survival but reproductive success.

Of course, survival is usually a means to reproductive success, so most living things most of the time are trying to survive. But a living being that put survival above everything else would not reproduce, so its descendants wouldn't be around for Rand to use as evidence in deriving oughts.

Some philosophies, I suppose, could dismiss all of this as irrelevant to metaphysical argument. But Objectivism claims to base its conclusions on the facts of reality--and the "fact" with which Rand starts her argument is false.

Make the appriopriate inference from "survival" to "selfishness" and he's pointed out not only that Randians don't give us good reasons to believe that selfishness is natural (as I argued); but that their reasons are empirically falsified. Most Randians I meet just don't give reasons because they can't - but they still expect me to agree with them.

I'm quite willing to admit that Friedman's arguments are expressed much better than mine are, but then again he spent more than two minutes composing his.

[Berzerker]

Duncan -

No, becuase I don't believe that people should be able to transfer property either.

Then give back all that money your parents spent for your education et al. There sure wouldn't be many family owned farms and businesses if you had your way.

Ramo -

Because that's the nature of capitalist property rights.

You said that, but why? Why are you as a property holder responsible for the actions of a slave owner from 150 years ago unless your property came directly from your ancestor's investment in slavery?

There's no reason why property claims should expire after a generation or two. Just like there's no reason that government-accepted property claims should expire after a generation or two.

I didn't say they expire, I said they become more difficult to trace legal ownership. Once that happens, property rights belong to those in possession of the property regardless of who once owned the property.

Why does proof need to be demonstrated only in cases of older than one or two generations?

Proof is always required, it's just easier to demonstrate the proof from one generation to the next.

Well, I've heard of proposals of slavery reparations involving only cases where proof can be shown of a line connecting a descendent of a slave with the descendent of the slave-owner.

More proof than that is needed. You would need to show that the slave owner's descendent actually acquired their wealth from the ancestor and his investment in slavery, many slave owners lost their wealth during the Civil War. But what you say you've heard is not what the reparations movement is saying. They aren't suggesting only the descendents of slave owners pay reparations because they know there are too few descendents and not enough wealth they can lay claim to.

So, where proof can be demonstrated, are you saying that reparations are justified?

Yes, and the descendents of slaves can pay reparations to the descendents of people who lost wealth in the effort to free the slaves.

There are businesses and noble families that have had long histories of exploitation. Is taking away their property and giving it to the descendents of the exploited justified in these cases?

Once the acquired slave wealth is isolated from all other wealth building activities people engage in, sure. For example, I believe Aetna once insured slaves, but they also insured people not involved in slavery. All of this would require a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the prohibition on ex post facto legislation and would have to be worded specifically for this situation.

Why not? Then you're making people pay for the sins of the dead.

The sin was theft which profited the descendents of the thief, that isn't what the reparations movement wants. Trying to take this discussion out of it's context won't work.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

As if I'm going to waste my time producing stuff for you when all you do is endlessly cut and paste and respond with irrelevancies.

You mean like when I kept responding to your nonsensical claim that a robber has the right under libertarianism to threaten people to get their money only for you to ignore my response and then claim no libertarians here were responding to your question about the robber scenario? Hey, it's easy to argue when you make the opposition's argument for them, but that doesn't change the fact you were debating a strawman as Wraith pointed out. Btw, you're still guilty of hypocrisy, you cut, paste, and respond with irrelevancies quite a bit. But you've never shown me doing this to your arguments.

And to top it off you use a dictionary definition to define a philosophical concept (that breaks rule number 1 in philosophy).

So when debating "philosophy", we can't use the dictionary to define words like freedom, coercion and voluntary? How convenient, do you invite friends to play poker where you get to make up the rules as the game progresses too?

And you still never managed to explain how a libertarian is supposed to come up with a substantive conception of coercion if negative liberty is all that counts.

I gave you the definitions of freedom and coercion (of course, using a dictionary breaks your # 1 rule) and I asked you to show me where in the definition of freedom you found negative and positive freedoms and you ignored that too.

From Friedman:

The claim here, quite clearly, is that living things other than human beings automatically act for their own survival. That claim is false. A male mantis, for example, mates, even though the final step of the process consists of being eaten by the female.

Does the male mantis know they will be eaten? Acting out of "selfishness" is not the same as foreseeing the future.

Female mammals get pregnant, even though (especially in species where the male does not help support female and offspring) doing so substantially reduces their chances of survival.

That doesn't mean "selfishness" isn't natural, it only means other instincts are in play.

If one is going to ascribe values to non-human living things, the purpose of those values, on both empirical and theoretical grounds, is not survival but reproductive success.

Obviously re-production is also a powerful determinant, but homosexuality shows that even re-production does not over ride everything else all the time. If a re-producing female discredits "selfish" survival, then does a "selfish" homosexual discredit re-production?

But a living being that put survival above everything else would not reproduce, so its descendants wouldn't be around for Rand to use as evidence in deriving oughts.

Males can mate with females without dying in the process, and I suspect females don't know mating can result in death. But since I'm not an objectivist, maybe Wraith will come back to discuss this with you.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Then give back all that money your parents spent for your education et al. There sure wouldn't be many family owned farms and businesses if you had your way.

My parents didn't give me anything

[Berzerker]

My parents didn't give me anything

There's an oxymoron, a self-made socialist