Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Objectivism & Economics, Part 19

Rearden/Mouch dichotomy. It is well known—nor would Objectivists disagree—that many businessmen want government help. What are all these bailouts and stimulus plans that we have seen in recent months but crony capitalism at its most perfervid? Nevertheless, Rand and her disciples have given this unappetizing phenomenon a strange twist. They claim that only businessmen of “lesser ability” go to the government for help. There are, in the Objectivist world-view, mainly two types of businessmen: Rearden types who only wish to be left alone, and Mouch types who are incompetent and require government help to get on in the world. “It is only with the help of government regulations that a man of lesser ability can destroy his better competitors,” claimed Rand—”and he is the only type of man who runs to government for economic help. [CUI, 108, emphasis added.]

The facts, however, tell a different story. Businessmen, whether competent or not, generally have no scruples about seeking government favors. Nor are they doing so merely for defensive reasons, to protect themselves from harmful government interference, as Rand herself suggested. Nearly all businessmen, whether competent or incompetent, brilliant or mediocre, seek government favors and largesse. Indeed, in the 19th century, it’s difficult to find any major ones that aren’t, at least in some degree, “tainted.” Rand mentions Vanderbilt, James Hill and Edward Harriman as examples of competent businessmen who did not seek government favors. She defends Vanderbilt’s bribery of the New York state legislature as merely “to buy the removal of some artificial restriction.” Yet that is hardly the case: Vanderbilt often bribed politicians to get special privileges or to gain an edge against his competition. And he also actively sought government business during the Civil War, hiring out dangerously sub-par and undermanned boats to transport Union troops.

Raising capital, particularly for capital intensive industries such as railroads and steelworks, is an extremely difficult and arduous task. It was impossible for capitalists in the nineteenth century to raise the capital from purely private sources, so various methods, often involving government largesse in the form of tariffs and land grants, were used. Other popular methods involved various forms of financial chicanery, such as watering down stocks, or seizing a business by intentionally sabotaging it, as James Hill and his cronies did with the Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company. In a sense, the old charge of nineteenth century industrialists being “robber barons” has a grain of truth in it. Yet, whatever their level of spoliation, whether through government aided means or through sheer fraud, they nevertheless are responsible for building the country, using their ill gotten gains to capitalize their respective industries.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

I never post here, primarily because I'm definitely over any sort of Rand-fetish I might have entertained at one point.

Having said that, lemme just add a few points:

1. Libertarians/Objectivists don't like to think about it, but the mere existence of corporations is ample evidence that the "businessman" does not -- and likely, never has, wanted a genuinely "free" market.
Without the State to create such "legal persons", these sharks in suits wouldn't have the luxury of a "veil" between their "personal assets" and those of the corporation. So much for the Republican/Libertarian/Objectivist fetishization of "responsibility" and "paying the price for one's own mistakes."

2. To quote Rand: "Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden metal?"
It is only the mighty might bootheels of the State which are capable of "enforcing" so-called "Intellectual property" monopolies. In fact, such forms are explicitly created as a sort of "bribe" or State-granted "incentive". This is particularly obvious with patent "protection" -- the State acts to punish "unauthorized" competition, ostensibly so that the patent-holder can (for example) recoup their R&D costs.

So no, Rand was completely and utterly wrong about businessmen not excepting State 'help': any/all forms of corporation/limited liability/"intellectual property" act as State-granted subsidies.

(BTW, as you can probably tell, I no longer take most Libertarians/Objectivists very seriously.)

Good site, BTW.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

1. Libertarians/Objectivists don't like to think about it, but the mere existence of corporations is ample evidence that the "businessman" does not -- and likely, never has, wanted a


genuinely "free" market. - anon
___________________________________





Can you give the definition of

genuinely "free" market?






___________________________________

(BTW, as you can probably tell, I no longer take most Libertarians/Objectivists very seriously.) - anon
___________________________________




Neither do I.

Anonymous said...

Red Grand:

Read any of Rand's stuff. Her whole economic "theory" hinges on the government taking no part in production and trade.

In particular, pay attention to her book "Capitalism, the Unknown ideal", and the end of Atlas Shrugged. Judge Narragansett is stated to be drafting a constitutional amendment explicitly prohibiting governmental interference in "production and trade".

I honestly dunno what you were going for here, Red.

gregnyquist said...

Anon: "Rand's ... whole economic 'theory' hinges on the government taking no part in production and trade... Judge Narragansett is stated to be drafting a constitutional amendment explicitly prohibiting governmental interference in 'production and trade'."

"Prohibiting interference" in "production and trade"? Sounds great—but what does it mean? Such a standard is both too vague and too sweeping. Does the government "interfere" in trade when it frames corporation laws? Does it "interfere" in trade when it prohibits grocery stores from fraudulently selling bad meat? Does it "interfere" in trade when it prohibits the enforcement of certain types of contracts (such as contracts involving voluntary enslavement)? Does it interfere in trade when it enforces strict regulations regarding nuclear power plant safety? Does it interfere in trade were it to enforce a regulation against fractional reserve banking?

The laissez-faire non-interference standard is either too vague or inadequate to deal with these troublesome details.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red Grand:

Read any of Rand's stuff. Her whole economic "theory" hinges on



the government taking no part in production and trade.

In particular, pay attention to her book "Capitalism, the Unknown ideal", and the end of Atlas Shrugged.




Judge Narragansett is stated to be drafting a constitutional amendment explicitly prohibiting governmental interference in "production and


trade". - Anon
___________________________________






So the government would not have the power to forbid slave trade in Randian Capitalism?

JayCross said...

Red,

You asked:

"So the government would not have the power to forbid slave trade in Randian Capitalism?"

No - they would have the power and obligation to ban slavery because involuntary servitude is a violation of individual rights. So there would be no slaves to trade.

(At least, no legally permitted slaves.)

BTW: I will finally be responding to your long-ago-asked questions tonight in the old thread. School and writing has kept me quite busy!

JayCross said...

Greg,

"The laissez-faire non-interference standard is either too vague or inadequate to deal with these troublesome details."

Maybe so. The standard needs to be intelligently adapted to the specific details of this or that situation. However, if we are using history and the actual consequences of different ways of organizing society as our guide, it's tough to find a better model than laissez-faire.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red,

You asked:

"So the government would not have the power to forbid slave trade in Randian Capitalism?"

No - they would have the power and obligation to ban slavery because involuntary servitude is a violation of

individual rights.

So there would be no slaves to trade. - Jay
___________________________________






Who decides the individual rights in Randian capitalism?





___________________________________

(At least, no legally permitted slaves.) - Jay
___________________________________




Who would decide what is legal in Randian capitalism?




___________________________________

Red,

You asked:

"So the government would not have the power to forbid


slave trade in Randian Capitalism?"





No - they would have the power and obligation to ban slavery because involuntary servitude is a violation of individual rights. So there would be no slaves to trade. Jay
___________________________________





Didn't Aristotle state

slavery

was natural based on

reason and fact?


Isn't Randian capitalism based based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, which was ultimately based on

Aristotle's philosophy?


Where and when had Ayn Rand denounced Aristotle's position on slavery?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

...it's tough to find a better model than

laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________




What is the universally objectively valid defintion of

laissez-faire economic/political system?


and who decides it as such?


and if there is no universally objectively valid definition of laissez-faire economic/political system, then


how would one know

objectively

what is laissez-faire economic/political system for a given situation?




___________________________________

...it's tough to find a better model than

laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________




Please give me an example of laissez-faire economic/political system in history you can use for objective comparison purpose.


If not, then

how would you know it's tough to find a better model than

laissez-faire?

Jay said...

Red,

"What is the universally objectively valid defintion of

laissez-faire economic/political system?

and who decides it as such?"

There is no "universally objectively valid definition" of laissez-faire. There is only the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way which we now denote with the term "laissez-faire."

Can you give me a "universally objectively valid definition" of anything? And tell me who decided that definition as such?

You also asked,

"Where and when had Ayn Rand denounced Aristotle's position on slavery?"

Nowhere that I know of, but that's not relevant. Her statement here (and others like it) supersede Aristotle's views:

"In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade."

Also, free-market thinking does not begin and end with what Ayn Rand wrote. I don't think Milton Friedman, for example, would say that a free market means it's okay to enslave people and trade them for money.

Jay said...

Red,

You asked:

"Please give me an example of laissez-faire economic/political system in history you can use for objective comparison purpose.


If not, then how would you know it's tough to find a better model than"


There has never been a completely laissez-faire society nor a completely socialist society - nor any society that was in total harmony with the principles of any one theory.

(This is why asking for examples of complete, unfettered laissez-faire societies is a red herring.)

There have, however, been societies that are much closer to the ideal of one theory than others.

For example:

The United States exemplifies what most people think of as "laissez-faire" better than probably any society in history.

The USSR and Cuba represent that most people think of as "socialism" better than probably any society in history.

We would be hard-pressed to find a historian or anyone outside of Michael Moore who says people in the USSR or Cuba have had better lives than US citizens.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

There is no "universally objectively valid definition" of

laissez-faire. - Jay
-----------------------------------
There is only the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way which

we

now denote with the

term "laissez-faire." - Jay
___________________________________


So "laissez-faire" is the term

"you"

denote with the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way?

If so, then

is that definition (unwittingly yours) of "laissez-faire" universally objectively valid?

If so, then

are you not contradicting yourself with one of your statements above?

___________________________________

There is no "universally objectively valid definition" of

laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________



If your unwitting definition of the term "laissez-faire" is not universally objectively valid, then

your statement above

___________________________________

There is only the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way which

we

now denote with the

term "laissez-faire." - Jay
___________________________________


is not necessarily valid, either?





___________________________________

...this way which

we

now denote with the term "laissez-faire." - Jay
___________________________________





Who are this 'we'?



___________________________________

Can you give me a "universally objectively valid definition" of

anything? - Jay
___________________________________




Sure enough, Jay, try derivative in calculus!



and here it goes,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative




___________________________________

And tell me who decided that definition as such? - Jay
___________________________________





Easy, Jay, they were Newton and Leibniz.







___________________________________

You also asked,

"Where and when had Ayn Rand denounced Aristotle's position on slavery?"

Nowhere that I know of, but that's not relevant.

Her statement here (and others like it)

supersede

Aristotle's views:
___________________________________




Obviously, do you not understand what 'supersede' means?


Here's a definition of 'supersede'




1 a: to cause to be set aside b: to force out of use as inferior
2: to take the place or position of
3: to displace in favor of another
synonyms see replace


from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supersede




and here's Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' in relation to Aristotle's philosophy from a self-proclaimed admirer of both Aristotle and Ayn Rand and an objectivst web site:




___________________________________

Aristotle: Ayn Rand's Acknowledged Teacher
by Edward W. Younkins

Ayn Rand, whose philosophy is a form of Aristotelianism, had the highest admiration for Aristotle (384-322 B.C.).

She intellectually stood on Aristotle’s shoulders as she praised him above all other philosophers.

Rand acknowledged Aristotle as a genius and as the only thinker throughout the ages to whom she owed a philosophical debt.

According to Rand, Aristotle, the teacher of those who know, is the fountainhead behind every achievement in civilized society including science, technology, progress, freedom, aesthetics (including romantic art) and

the birth of America itself.

Aristotle’s philosophy has underpinned the achievements of the Renaissance and of all scientific advances and technological progress to this very day.


He is the most significant thinker and most successful individual who has ever lived.



from http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Aristotle_Ayn_Rands_Acknowledged_Teacher.shtml
___________________________________




and here's what Aristotle had to say about slavery:


___________________________________

Slavery -- natural or conventional?

Aristole's theory of slavery is found in Book I, Chapters iii through vii of the Politics. and in Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics

Aristotle raises the question of whether slavery is natural or conventional.

He asserts that the former is the case.

So, Aristotle's theory of slavery holds that some people are naturally slaves and others are naturally masters. Thus he says:

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of

reason and of fact.


For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.


from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html
___________________________________




How can Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' supersede Aristotle's

without explicitly denouncing Aristotle's view on slavery?






___________________________________

"In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade." as quoted by Jay from Ayn Rand?
___________________________________




Is that definition of free market economy universally objectively valid?

If not, then why not?



___________________________________

Also, free-market thinking does not begin and end with what Ayn Rand wrote. - Jay
-----------------------------------
I don't think Milton Friedman, for example, would say that a free market means it's okay to enslave people and trade them for money. - Jay
___________________________________






So any definition of Free Market would have to be approved by Milton Friedman besides Ayn Rand?





___________________________________

Red,

You asked:

"Please give me an example of laissez-faire economic/political system in history you can use for objective comparison purpose.


If not, then how would you know it's tough to find a better model than laissez-faire."

There has never been a completely laissez-faire society... - Jay
___________________________________




Okay, then, what would be a completely laissez-faire society?




___________________________________

(This is why asking for examples of complete, unfettered laissez-faire societies is a red herring.) - Jay
___________________________________




Jay, here's the meaning of red herring. (and I'm only including it because you obviously do not know the meaning of red herring, otherwise you would not have attributed my questions regarding unfettered, complete laissez-faire societies as red herring.)

___________________________________

Red herring

Similar to ignoratio elenchi, a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring"

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)#Red_herring
___________________________________





Now, as for Jay's accusation that my questions regarding complete laissez-faire societies and examples of such constitute as red herring,

here's how originally it started in this thread.


I want everyone to take a clear look as to whether I am engaging in red herring.



___________________________________

...it's tough to find a better model than laissez-faire. - Jay

2/18/2009 05:04:00 PM
-----------------------------------

What is the universally objectively valid defintion of

laissez-faire economic/political system?


and who decides it as such?


and if there is no universally objectively valid definition of laissez-faire economic/political system, then


how would one know

objectively

what is laissez-faire economic/political system for a given situation?




___________________________________

...it's tough to find a better model than

laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________




Please give me an example of laissez-faire economic/political system in history you can use for objective comparison purpose.


If not, then

how would you know it's tough to find a better model than

laissez-faire?

2/18/2009 05:31:00 PM
___________________________________





Now, am I engaging in red herring?

or

am I asking questions germane to the topic brought by Jay himself?


Another word, is Jay making a false accusation?




___________________________________

The United States exemplifies what most people think of as "laissez-faire" better than probably any society in history. - Jay
___________________________________



Does this mean then you believe U.S. is a laissez-faire society?

If so, then on what basis?

If not, then why not?

and if unwilling to answer the question, then

why and what are you hiding?

___________________________________

The USSR and Cuba represent that most people think of as "socialism" better than probably any society in history.

We would be hard-pressed to find a historian or anyone outside of Michael Moore who says people in the USSR or Cuba have had better lives than US citizens. - Jay
___________________________________





Jay, how is your post above relevant to the topic you brought to this thread:

___________________________________

However, if we are using history and the actual consequences of different ways of organizing society as our guide,

it's tough to find a better model than laissez-faire. - Jay

2/18/2009 05:04:00 PM
___________________________________



when you have so far refused to give deliberate, intentional universally objectively valid definition(of course, here I am excepting that unwitting definition you provided earlier, unless you want to officially make it a universally objective valid defintion of lassez-faire) of lassez-faire model or even a concrete, deliberate example for comparison purpose?

another word, are you not engaging in red herring yourself while falsely accusing me of engaging in one?





___________________________________

Red,

You asked:

"So the government would not have the power to forbid slave trade in Randian Capitalism?"

No - they would have the power and obligation to ban slavery because involuntary servitude is a violation of

individual rights.

So there would be no slaves to trade. - Jay
___________________________________






Who decides the individual rights in Randian capitalism?





___________________________________

(At least, no legally permitted slaves.) - Jay
___________________________________




Who would decide what is legal in Randian capitalism?

JayCross said...

Red,

I have not refused to give you anything. I am asserting that there is no universally, objectively valid definition of laissez-faire. It's not like calculus. You could line up 10 people and ask them what laissez-faire meant and I would not be surprised if you got 10 different answers. The general idea is that laissez-faire means a society that is predominantly free from government control. Beyond that I don't think I myself am qualified to proclaim what the one true definition is.

I also don't think it needs to be any more specific than that to advance this debate. This is where you and I diverge. There is no question that some societies have come closer to the "predominantly free from government control" ideal than others, and we can plainly see the results of what has taken place in those societies vs. other ones.

Whether we call that "laissez-faire" or not is meaningless to me. I thought we were trying to discuss the merits or demerits of the underlying social structure, not what we verbally call it.

JayCross said...

Red,

You have a point RE: red herring. I was under the impression that a red herring was anything that needlessly delayed the debate from continuing. The word "filibustering" would've probably more accurately described what I meant.

And I say that because rather than discussing the merits and demerits of mostly-free societies, you are pressing me for non-existent examples of totally free societies which have never existed.

JayCross said...

Red,

I am fully aware of what supersede means.

2: to take the place or position of

Your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) was:

1) Aristotle stated slavery was natural
2) Objectivism was inspired in many ways by Aristotelian philosophy
3) Therefore, Ayn Rand had no problem with slavery

To which I countered by citing an explicit statement of hers which contradicted your reasoning.

In the task of determining Ayn Rand's opinion, her own stated views on the matter obviously supersede the opinion of the philosopher she admired.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

You could line up 10 people and ask them what laissez-faire meant and I would not be surprised if you got 10 different answers. - Jay
-----------------------------------
I am asserting that there is no universally, objectively valid definition of laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________






Does this mean then you believe what you believe to be a laisse-faire society may not necessarily be regarded as laissez-faire society by others

and

vice versa?


If so, then


how would you and others know what is and what is not a lassez-faire society in objective sense?



___________________________________

I am asserting that there is no universally, objectively valid definition of laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________





Jay, below is the definition you provided earlier for 'lassez-faire' within this thread (however, unwittingly, and here I remind you of the viking proverb,

"A man is a prisoner of his own words.")






___________________________________

There is only the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way which

we

now denote with the

term "laissez-faire." - Jay
___________________________________






So the definition of "laissez-faire"(at least according to you) is that

it is the term

"you"[Jay and who else?]

denote with the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way?


If so, then

is that definition (unwittingly yours) of "laissez-faire" universally objectively valid?

If so, then

are you not contradicting yourself with one of your statements above?



___________________________________

There is no "universally objectively valid definition" of

laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________









If your unwitting definition of the term "laissez-faire" is not universally objectively valid, then

your statement above

___________________________________

There is only the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way which

we

now denote with the

term "laissez-faire." - Jay
___________________________________








is not necessarily valid, either?

and if and when not valid, then why not?

and under what condition(s)?

and if and when valid, then

why?

and under what condition(s)?









___________________________________

...this way which

we

now denote with the term "laissez-faire." - Jay
___________________________________








Who are this 'we'?







___________________________________

The general idea

is that laissez-faire means a society that is predominantly free from government control. - Jay
___________________________________








The general idea by whom?



and according to your statement above,

does U.S. qualify as lassez-faire society?

If not, then why not?

If yes, then since when?

and till when if U.S. no longer qualifies as lassez-faire society?






___________________________________

Red,

I have not refused to give you anything. I am asserting that there is no universally, objectively valid definition of laissez-faire.

It's not like calculus. - Jay
___________________________________




Jay, are you performing another switchroo?

I only used an example from calculus to state that yes one can find an universally objectively valid definition of something to counter your rhetorical question which presumed one cannot find an universally objectively valid definition of anything and the definer(s).




___________________________________

There is no "universally objectively valid definition" of laissez-faire. There is only the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way which we now denote with the term "laissez-faire."

Can you give me a "universally objectively valid definition" of anything? - Jay
===================================

Sure enough, Jay, try derivative in calculus!



and here it goes,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative - Red Grant


___________________________________

And tell me who decided that definition as such? - Jay
===================================

Easy, Jay, they were Newton and Leibniz. - Red Grant
___________________________________


___________________________________

There is no "universally objectively valid definition" of laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________




How do you know that?







___________________________________

I also don't think it needs to be any more specific than that to advance this debate. - Jay
___________________________________







Please explain why you don't think it needs to be any more specific than that to advance this debate.







___________________________________

This is where you and I diverge. There is no question that some societies have come closer to the


"predominantly free from government control" ideal

than others, and we can plainly see the results of what has taken place in those societies vs. other ones. - Jay
___________________________________








How do you know when a society reaches this

"predominantly free from government control" ideal?


If you are unable to explain when a society reaches this state,

then how would you know whether a society has come closer to this

"predominantly free from government control" ideal?








___________________________________

I thought we were trying to discuss the merits or demerits of

the underlying social structure,

not what we verbally call it. - Jay
___________________________________








Jay, how can you identify the merits and demerits of the underlying social structure,

if you cannot give the universally objectively valid definition of the underlying social structure

or at least your deliberate/official version of the definition of such structure?














___________________________________

Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM
___________________________________







Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread?





___________________________________

However, if we are using history and the actual consequences of different ways of organizing society as our guide, it's tough to find a better model than

laissez-faire. - Jay

2/18/2009 05:04:00 PM
-----------------------------------
There has never been a completely

laissez-faire

society... - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM
-----------------------------------
The United States exemplifies what most people think of as

"laissez-faire"

better than probably any society in history. - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM
-----------------------------------
Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is

meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM
___________________________________








___________________________________

The United States exemplifies what

most people

think of as

"laissez-faire"

better than probably any society in history. - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM
___________________________________






Is U.S. a lassez-faire society?

If so, since when?

If not, then since when?


So most people decide what is and what is not a lassez-faire society?


and if so, then based on what basis?










___________________________________

Red,

You have a point RE: red herring. I was under the impression that a red herring was anything that

needlessly

delayed the debate from continuing. The word "filibustering" would've probably more accurately described what I meant. - Jay
___________________________________





My questions asking you to define the universally objectively valid definition of lassez-faire is needlessly delaying the debate?

or

you are hiding your ignorance of what concrete/explicit attributes what you denote as lassez-faire societies need?





___________________________________

And I say that because rather than discussing the merits and demerits of

mostly-free societies,

you are pressing me for non-existent examples of

totally free societies which have never existed. - Jay
___________________________________




I also asked for you to give an universally objectively valid definition (or at least your deliberate/official version) of lassez-faire societies, not just an example of one.




How could you identify

mostly-free societies

without knowing the universally objectively valid definition of

totally free society?





___________________________________

Your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) was:

1) Aristotle stated slavery was natural
2) Objectivism was inspired in many ways by Aristotelian philosophy
3) Therefore, Ayn Rand had no problem with slavery - Jay
___________________________________



Correct you gladly I am willing to.


Please show me where and when did I ever state that

"Therefore, Ayn Rand had no problem with slavery".


Unless you can find one, your counter-argument falls apart.





___________________________________

In the task of determining Ayn Rand's opinion, her own stated views on the matter[slavery] obviously supersede the opinion of the philosopher she admired. - Jay
___________________________________






Then why didn't she denounce Aristotle's position on slavery using either Aristotlian logic or logic dervied from it(since she claimed to be a follower/admirer of Aristotlian logic)?


If her 'philosophy' supersedes Aristotle's, then must she have not denounced Aristotle where her 'philosophy' superseded Aristotle's (either using Aristotlian logic and/or logic derived from it)?

If she did not denounce (using either Aristotlian logic and/or logic derived from it) Aristotle's philosophy where her 'philosophy' superseded his, then


why not?



If Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' is based on Aristotle's, and

she proceeded to announce her 'philosophy' in clear contradiction to Aristotle's without denouncing his where hers superseded his using either Aristolian logic and/or logic derived from it, then

doesn't that make her an intellectual charlatan/fraud?


___________________________________

To which I countered by citing an explicit statement of hers which contradicted your reasoning. - Jay
___________________________________



Jay, below is that explicit statement of hers you claim contradicted my reasoning?


___________________________________

"In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade." as quoted by Jay from Ayn Rand?
___________________________________



I am glad, you brought it up if that post above is that explicit statement you claim refuted my reasoning.

Because I'll show you another statement of hers to show Ayn Rand was an intellectual fraud and contradicted her own statement above you yourself supplied.


___________________________________

Thursday, October 04, 2007
Ayn Rand Quote of the Week - 4/10/07

Ayn Rand on the American Indian:

"They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."- Address to West Point, 1974
___________________________________



There, Jay, her own words!


___________________________________

Red,

I am fully aware of what supersede means.

2: to take the place or position of - Jay
___________________________________





But, not fully aware enough to avoid faulty argument since Ayn Rand never philosophically refuted Aristotle on slavery.

If her 'philosophy' refuted Aristotle on slavery, then

please show me how she refuted Aristotle on slavery using either Aristotlian logic and/or logic derived from it instead of merely stating her half-baked, self-contradictory opinions.

Please notice opinions do not by themselves necessarily make a philosophy.

Ayn Rand claimed to be a philosopher, and the follower/admirer of Aristotlian logic, so she must have phiosophically proved (using Aristotlian logic and/or logic derived from Aristotlian logic) how Aristotle errored on slavery.

Otherwise she did not supersede Aristotle on slavery, you are merely deluding yourself.









___________________________________

Red,

I have not refused to give you anything. - Jay
___________________________________




But you have. Please take a look at following posts of yours and my questions you have so far refused to answer some of them more than once.



___________________________________

"In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade." as quoted by Jay from Ayn Rand?
===================================

Is that definition of free market economy universally objectively valid?

If not, then why not? - Red Grant
___________________________________






___________________________________

Also, free-market thinking does not begin and end with what Ayn Rand wrote. - Jay
-----------------------------------
I don't think Milton Friedman, for example, would say that a free market means it's okay to enslave people and trade them for money. - Jay
===================================

So any definition of Free Market would have to be approved by Milton Friedman besides Ayn Rand? - Red Grant
___________________________________






___________________________________

Red,

You asked:

"Please give me an example of laissez-faire economic/political system in history you can use for objective comparison purpose.


If not, then how would you know it's tough to find a better model than laissez-faire."

There has never been a completely laissez-faire society... - Jay
===================================

Okay, then, what would be a completely laissez-faire society? - Red Grant
___________________________________




Notice I am asking what would be a completely laissez-faire society, not an example of laissez-faire society in this question.



___________________________________

The United States exemplifies what most people think of as "laissez-faire" better than probably any society in history. - Jay
===================================

Does this mean then you believe U.S. is a laissez-faire society?

If so, then on what basis?

If not, then why not?

and if unwilling to answer the question, then

why and what are you hiding? - Red Grant
___________________________________








___________________________________

Red,

You asked:

"So the government would not have the power to forbid slave trade in Randian Capitalism?"

No - they would have the power and obligation to ban slavery because involuntary servitude is a violation of

individual rights.

So there would be no slaves to trade. - Jay
===================================

Who decides the individual rights in Randian capitalism? - Red Grant
___________________________________





___________________________________

(At least, no legally permitted slaves.) - Jay
===================================

Who would decide what is legal in Randian capitalism? - Red Grant
___________________________________

Jay said...

Red,

In an attempt to find a "universally, objectively valid" definition of laissez-faire, I did some web research.

From LaissezFaire.com:

"The theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs."

From Princeton.edu:

"The doctrine that government should not interfere in commercial affairs."

This is essentially the same as what I said and what most people would regard as "laissez-faire." What I meant when I said there was no universally, objectively valid definition is that laissez-faire is a man-made theory and as such, people are bound to describe it somewhat differently.

It's not like a dispute over how much a rock weighs where you can throw the rock on a scale and it tells you the weight. There's no "scale" that spits out the exact, 100% true definition of a theory.

You asked:

"how would you and others know what is and what is not a lassez-faire society in objective sense?

By observing the society in question and determining whether government intervention was minimal or significant. For example: can you own property or start a business without bribing government officials and currying favor with bureaucrats? If not, it's probably not a laissez-faire society. The US has certainly drifted far away from this ideal.

You also asked:

"Does U.S. qualify as lassez-faire society?

If not, then why not?

If yes, then since when?

and till when if U.S. no longer qualifies as lassez-faire society?"


No, the US is not a completely laissez-faire society. Why not? Because there is a significant amount of government intervention far beyond what is necessary to protect individual rights.

My statement "The US exemplifies what most people think of as laissez-faire better than probably any society in history" means that despite its current lapse from that ideal, it began very close to it and remains the closest thing to it.

The day when (hopefully!) the US eliminates these unnecessary interventions - such as subsidies, protectionism, and forcing banks to lend to uncreditworthy minorities among many others - the US will be more in line with the ideal of a laissez-faire society. Sadly, I don't expect this day to actually come.

You also asked:

"Please explain why you don't think it needs to be any more specific than that to advance this debate."

Everyone commenting here knows laissez-faire means freedom and I felt you pressing me to define the one, objectively, universally true statement of this obvious fact served no purpose but delaying the real debate about the merits or demerits of laissez faire itself.

You also asked:

"How do you know when a society reaches this

"predominantly free from government control" ideal?


By first-hand experience (living in the society) or research into whether most actions can be freely undertaken or whether they require permission, bribery, etc.

You also asked:

"Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread?"

Did I say the activity within this thread was meaningless? No - I said whether we referred to the general idea of a free society with the term "laissez-faire" was meaningless to me.

You also asked:

"My questions asking you to define the universally objectively valid definition of lassez-faire is needlessly delaying the debate?

or

you are hiding your ignorance of what concrete/explicit attributes what you denote as lassez-faire societies need?"


Yes, I think they were needlessly delaying the debate, because there was no confusion here about what people mean when they said "laissez-faire." If people were seriously struggling to define what it meant it would be a different story, but I saw no evidence of that struggle other than your asking me.

You also asked:



If Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' is based on Aristotle's, and

she proceeded to announce her 'philosophy' in clear contradiction to Aristotle's without denouncing his where hers superseded his using either Aristolian logic and/or logic derived from it, then

doesn't that make her an intellectual charlatan/fraud?


No, I don't believe it does. There's a difference between being based on Aristotlian logic and being an exact, unmistakable echo of it. She broke with Aristotle on numerous philosophical questions (if my copy of OPAR wasn't packed in storage I would get it and cite examples, but there are several, perhaps others could chime in) and is not under obligation to square her every doctrine with his.

Regarding the quote you cited from her West Point speech, I don't really agree with it. However, it's not entirely relevant to the matter at hand. The quote I cited was:

"In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade." as quoted by Jay from Ayn Rand?"

Were the Natives participating in a free economy? Nope. Therefore, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Mind you, I still don't agree that Europeans had the right to slaughter Natives, but that's a different issue than whether Ayn Rand condoned slavery in a free society.

You said:

"Ayn Rand claimed to be a philosopher, and the follower/admirer of Aristotlian logic, so she must have phiosophically proved (using Aristotlian logic and/or logic derived from Aristotlian logic) how Aristotle errored on slavery."

Again, I don't see how this is true at all. I admire plenty of people, but that doesn't mean I stop before thinking or speaking and ask myself whether what I'm about to think or say is in line what what the person I admire would think or say. I'm sure other philosophers held views divergent from philosophers they admired. Are all of them frauds too?

Or am I still deluding myself?

You also asked:

"So any definition of Free Market would have to be approved by Milton Friedman besides Ayn Rand?"

No - I was simply stating that Ayn Rand was not the sole arbiter of free market philosophy.

You asked:

"Okay, then, what would be a completely laissez-faire society?"

A society where the government is limited to protecting individual rights like right to own property, speak freely, peacefully associate with others and act on their own initiative so long as they were not harming or decieving others.

Finally, you asked:

"Who would decide what is legal in Randian capitalism?"

Elected officials would determine the law by reference to a Constitution (much like ours, which is now largely ignored by gov't) spelling out the rights government exists to protect.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red,

In an attempt to find a "universally, objectively valid" definition of laissez-faire, I did some web research.

From LaissezFaire.com:

"The theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs."

From Princeton.edu:

"The doctrine that government should not interfere in commercial affairs."

This is essentially the same as what I said and what most people would regard as "laissez-faire." - ay
___________________________________







So most people decide what is "laissez-faire"?






___________________________________

What I meant when I said there was no universally, objectively valid definition is that

laissez-faire is a man-made theory and as such, people are bound to describe it somewhat differently. - Jay
___________________________________





Does this mean then just because people can describe a theory differently, there is necessarily no universally objectively valid definition of the theory?

Isn't that a little lame?

___________________________________

What I meant when I said there was no universally, objectively valid definition is that

laissez-faire is a man-made theory and as such, people are bound to describe it somewhat differently. - Jay
-----------------------------------

It's not like a dispute over how much a rock weighs where you can throw the rock on a scale and it tells you the weight. There's no "scale" that spits out the exact,

100% true definition of a theory. - Jay
___________________________________





That's such a sophmoric argument.

Derivative in calculus is a man-made theory as well

and

people can describe the derivative in calculus differently, using different notations,

but

that doesn't mean there is no universally objectively valid definition of the derivative in calculus.




___________________________________

You could line up 10 people and ask them what laissez-faire meant and I would not be surprised if you got 10 different answers. - Jay
===================================

Does this mean then you believe what you believe to be a laisse-faire society may not necessarily be regarded as laissez-faire society by others

and

vice versa?


If so, then


how would you and others know what is and what is not a lassez-faire society in objective sense? - Red Grant
===================================

By observing the society in question and determining whether government intervention was minimal or significant. - Jay
___________________________________





Well, Jay, you've just contradicted your statement.

Your answer above would depend on who does the observing and determining.

Another word, it would be subjective, not objective.


Just below is your own statement supporting my response.



___________________________________

You could line up 10 people and ask them what laissez-faire meant and I would not be surprised if you got 10 different answers. - Jay
___________________________________






___________________________________

For example: can you own property or start a business without bribing government officials and currying favor with bureaucrats?

If not, it's probably not a laissez-faire society. - Jay
___________________________________





Does this mean then you believe it is possible for you to own property or start a business only with bribing government officials and currying favor with bureaucrats

in a laissez-faire society?





___________________________________

For example: can you own property or start a business without bribing government officials and currying favor with bureaucrats?

If not, it's probably not a laissez-faire society. - Jay
-----------------------------------
The US has certainly drifted far away from this ideal. - Jay
___________________________________




Are you implying then it's not probable for you to own property or start a business without bribing government officials and currying favor with bureaucrats


in U.S. today?




___________________________________

No, the US is not a completely laissez-faire society. Why not? Because there is a significant amount of government intervention far beyond what is necessary to protect

individual rights. - Jay
___________________________________







Who decides individual rights in U.S.?



___________________________________

My statement "The US exemplifies what most people think of as

laissez-faire better than probably any society in history"

means that despite its current lapse from that ideal, it began very close to it and

remains the closest thing to it. - Jay
___________________________________






Jay, please take a look below.



___________________________________

A controlled experiment in the field of economics? The last fifty years of history have provided just that.

The free economy: Hong Kong.

The mixed economy: the United States.

The socialist economies: Great Britain and Israel.

Nobel laureate and Hoover fellow Milton Friedman evaluates the results.


http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3532186.html
___________________________________




So does this mean you believe Milton Friedman, whom you have quoted as one of the arbiters of free market philosophy is in error

or

you are in error?




___________________________________

My statement "The US exemplifies what most people think of as

laissez-faire better than probably any society in history"

means that despite its current lapse from that ideal,


it began very close to it and

remains the closest thing to it. - Jay
___________________________________




So most people decide what is laissez-faire?



Is that why U.S. had race-based slavery

and

commited the mass murder and the robbery of the Natives

because it was very close to laissez-faire economy?



If you were a black, would you live in U.S. today when she's not as close as she began to laissez-faire (as you have called it.)

or

in U.S. when she began when she was closer to what you call laissez-faire?



If you do not have universally objectively valid definition of laissez-faire,

then

how do you know whether U.S. was very close to laissez-faire when she began?






___________________________________

My statement "The US exemplifies what most people think of as laissez-faire better than probably any society in history" means that despite

its current lapse from that ideal,... - Jay
___________________________________





Since when the current lapse of U.S. from that ideal [laissez-faire] has begun?

and

how do you know that lapse has begun since then?




___________________________________

The day when (hopefully!) the US eliminates these unnecessary interventions - such as subsidies, protectionism, and forcing banks to lend to uncreditworthy minorities among many others - the US will be more in line with the ideal of a laissez-faire society.

Sadly, I don't expect this day to actually come. - Jay
___________________________________





Why do you not expect that day to actually come?









___________________________________

You also asked:

"Please explain why you don't think it needs to be any more specific than that to advance this debate."

Everyone commenting here knows laissez-faire means freedom - Jay
___________________________________




How do you know everyone commenting here knows laissez-faire means freedom?

and freedom from and/or for what?


and even if everyone commenting here decided to accept laissez-faire means freedom, then

I just have to go along with them?

just because

that's what everyone else accepted?

Another word, the truth by consensus?





___________________________________

...and I felt you pressing me to define the one, objectively, universally true statement of this

obvious fact.... - Jay
===================================



Fact? Did you just say, obvious fact?

I would like to remind you of your statement regarding what you just called

obvious fact.



___________________________________

You could line up 10 people and ask them

what laissez-faire meant

and I would not be surprised if you got

10 different answers. - Jay
-----------------------------------
Everyone commenting here knows laissez-faire means freedom - Jay
___________________________________




Jay, why do you keep embarrassing yourself by contradicting your own statements?

Don't you realize you're digging yourself deeper and deeper?




___________________________________

Everyone commenting here knows laissez-faire means freedom and I felt you pressing me to define the one, objectively, universally true statement of this obvious fact served no purpose but delaying the real debate about

the merits or demerits of

laissez faire itself. - Jay
___________________________________








But here's a problem.

If you do not have the universally objectively valid definition of laissez-faire,

then

how would you know you're debating

the merits and demerits of laissez-faire?

instead of something that may or may not be laissez-faire?












___________________________________

The general idea

is that laissez-faire means a society that is

predominantly free from government control. - Jay
-----------------------------------
You also asked:

"How do you know when a society reaches this

"predominantly free from government control" ideal?

By first-hand experience (living in the society) or research into whether most actions can be freely undertaken or whether they require permission, bribery, etc. - Jay
-----------------------------------
You could line up 10 people and ask them

what laissez-faire meant

and I would not be surprised if you got

10 different answers. - Jay
___________________________________




Again, your answer above encounters the same problem as before addressed.

It would depend on

the individual doing the living and the research.

Another word, what you would consider as

laissez-faire

or

"predominantly free from government control" ideal"

may not be accepted as such by another person

and

vice versa.








___________________________________

Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM
===================================

Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread? - Red Grant on 2/24/2009 01:56:00 AM

===================================

Did I say the activity within this thread was meaningless? No - I said whether we referred to the general idea of a free society with the term "laissez-faire" was meaningless to me. - Jay on 3/02/2009 06:12:00 PM
___________________________________





Another false accusation from Jay!


Jay, my question was about

why you engaged in an

activity you consider as meaningless,

not

whether the activity you engaged within this thread was meaningless!



I'll recap below how this began:



___________________________________

Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM
===================================

Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread? - Red Grant on 2/24/2009 01:56:00 AM




___________________________________

However, if we are using history and the actual consequences of different ways of organizing society as our guide, it's tough to find a better model than

laissez-faire. - Jay

2/18/2009 05:04:00 PM
-----------------------------------
There has never been a completely

laissez-faire

society... - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM
-----------------------------------
The United States exemplifies what most people think of as

"laissez-faire"

better than probably any society in history. - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM
-----------------------------------
Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is

meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM
___________________________________






Indeed, Jay, if you believed whether you call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is

meaningless to you,

then

why had you engaged in what you called meaningless activity?






___________________________________

My questions asking you to define the universally objectively valid definition of lassez-faire is needlessly delaying the debate?

or

you are hiding your ignorance of what concrete/explicit attributes what you denote as lassez-faire societies need? - Red Grant
===================================

Yes, I think they were needlessly delaying the debate, because there was

no confusion

here about what people mean when they said "laissez-faire." - Jay
___________________________________




Another contradiction from Jay!


Jay, take a look below:

___________________________________

You could line up 10 people and ask them

what laissez-faire meant

and I would not be surprised if you got

10 different answers. - Jay
___________________________________




Ha, Ha! Your own words!



___________________________________

If people were seriously struggling to define what it meant it would be a different story, but I saw no evidence of that struggle other than your asking me. - Jay
___________________________________




Does this mean then I'm not one of the people?

or

you think a question is only worthy of being answered to when asked by at least everyone here minus one person?


Since when was a question worthy of being answered to when only asked by at least everyone here minus one person?



Is this the kind of philosophy you espouse to?

A philosophy that only values questions asked simply by the virtue of being asked by most people or majority?

A philosophy that would not value questions just because it was asked by minority

or

one person?






___________________________________

If Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' is based on Aristotle's, and

she proceeded to announce her 'philosophy' in clear contradiction to Aristotle's without denouncing his where hers superseded his using

either Aristolian logic and/or logic derived from it, then

doesn't that make her an intellectual charlatan/fraud? - Red Grant
===================================

No, I don't believe it does. There's a difference between being

based on Aristotlian logic and being an exact, unmistakable echo of it. - Jay
___________________________________




That is why I had said:


___________________________________

... either Aristolian logic and/or logic derived from it... - Red Grant
___________________________________


in my post above you quoted from!



Or are you going to say Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' was not derived from Aristotlian logic?


___________________________________

She broke with Aristotle on numerous philosophical questions


(if my copy of OPAR wasn't packed in storage I would get it and cite examples,... - Jay
___________________________________




How convenient, Jay!

Another word, please excuse my sardonic humor,

"My dog ate my homework!"?


Seriously, when and where and most importantly (since her pretension of being a 'philosopher')

how did Ayn Rand broke away from Aristotle

on slavery issue employing her 'philosophy'?



___________________________________

... but there are several, perhaps

others could chime in)

and is not under obligation to square her every doctrine with his. - Jay
__________________________________



Wow! Looks like Jay is really being pushed into a corner!

He wants

others to chime in!

Jay needs HELP!


Yo! Michael Prescott, I believe you were an Objectivist once,

can you help Jay on this?







___________________________________

Regarding the quote you cited from her West Point speech, I don't really agree with it. - Jay
___________________________________




How come?





___________________________________

However, it's not entirely relevant to the matter at hand. The quote I cited was:

"In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade." as quoted by Jay from Ayn Rand?"
-----------------------------------

Thursday, October 04, 2007
Ayn Rand Quote of the Week - 4/10/07

Ayn Rand on the American Indian:

"They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."- Address to West Point, 1974
===================================


Were the Natives participating in a free economy? Nope. Therefore, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. - Jay
___________________________________







Another sophmoric logic from Jay!

So following your interpretation of Ayn Rand's logic, it's okay to kill and rob people(s) if they are not part of free economy?

Is U.S. a free economy as defined by Ayn Rand?

If not, then

would it be okay for other countries to invade and kill, plunder the peoples of U.S.?


___________________________________

Mind you, I still don't agree that Europeans had the right to slaughter Natives,... - Jay
___________________________________




How come?

and if you believe that Europeans didn't have the right to slaughter Natives, then

should the land that was taken by force/treachery/violation of treaties

be given back to the Natives?


If not, then

why not?



and why do you think Ayn Rand believe that white men had the right to kill and rob the Natives?




___________________________________

.... but that's a different issue than whether Ayn Rand condoned slavery in a free society. - Jay
___________________________________







Did I ever say that Ayn Rand condoned slavery in a free society?

If you think so, then

please provide the quotes when and where I said it.




___________________________________

Or am I still deluding myself? - Jay
___________________________________




Yes, you are, I'll explain below.








___________________________________

"Ayn Rand claimed to be a philosopher, and the follower/admirer of

Aristotlian logic

, so she must have phiosophically proved (using Aristotlian logic and/or logic derived from Aristotlian logic) how Aristotle errored on slavery. - Red Grant
===================================

Again, I don't see how this is true at all. I admire plenty of people, but that doesn't mean I stop before thinking or speaking and ask myself whether what I'm about to think or say is in line what what the person I admire would think or say. - Jay
___________________________________





Well, you are being deluded.


I'm not asking about you on this particular topic.

I am primarily asking about Ayn Rand, and to a lesser extent, Aristotle.



The issue is not simply about whether Ayn Rand admired Aristotle.

It is about Ayn Rand admiring Aristotle for

his logic.


and her logic was either Aristolian logic and/or based on Aristotlian logic.

Therefore, if where her logic superseded Aristotle's logic,

she should have corrected Aristotle's

using her interpretation of Aristotlian logic and/or her logic derived from Aristotlian logic.



and she didn't on slavery.

If she reached conclusion that slavery was immoral either using Aristotlian logic or using her logic dervied from Aristotle's logic, and Aristotle believed that slavery was not necessarily immoral using his logic,

then

she must have corrected Aristotle's view on slavery either using her logic derived from Aristotle's logic or her interpretation of Aristotlian logic.


Since she didn't, what does that make her

if not a fraud/charlatan?



___________________________________

I'm sure other philosophers held views divergent from philosophers they admired.

Are all of them frauds too? - Jay
___________________________________





Are you performing another switchroo?



Did I call Ayn Rand a fraud/charlatan because she held divergent views from Aristotle whom she admired for his logic?


or

Did I call Ayn Rand a fraud/charlatan because she admired Aristotle for his logic and developed her 'philosophy' based on his logic

but

refused to denounce/correct Aristotle where

her 'philosophy' superseded Aristotle's

using her 'philosophy'?






___________________________________

Also, free-market thinking does not begin and end with what Ayn Rand wrote. - Jay
-----------------------------------
I don't think Milton Friedman, for example, would say that a free market means it's okay to enslave people and trade them for money. - Jay
===================================

So any definition of Free Market would have to be approved by Milton Friedman besides Ayn Rand? - Red Grant
===================================

No - I was simply stating that Ayn Rand was not the sole arbiter of free market philosophy. - Jay
___________________________________






Then who are the arbiters of free market philosophy?







___________________________________

"Okay, then, what would be a completely laissez-faire society?"

A society where the government is limited to protecting

individual rights

like right to own property, speak freely, peacefully associate with others and act on their own initiative so long as they were not harming or decieving others. - Jay
__________________________________





Who decide(s)



what should be individual rights


in completely laissez-faire society?




___________________________________

"Okay, then, what would be a completely laissez-faire society?"

A society where the government is limited to protecting

individual rights

like right to own property, speak freely, peacefully associate with others and act on their own initiative so long as they were not harming or decieving others. - Jay
___________________________________





Is that definition of laissez-faire you just gave

universally objectively valid?


if not, then

why not?

if only conditionally valid, then

under what condition(s)?





___________________________________

Who would decide what is legal in Randian capitalism? - Red Grant
===================================

Elected officials would determine the law by reference to a

Constitution

(much like ours, which is now largely ignored by gov't) spelling out the rights government exists to protect. - Jay on 3/02/2009 06:12:00 PM
___________________________________







And the Constitution spelling out the rights government exists to protect

is to be written by

whom?


___________________________________

Your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) was:

1) Aristotle stated slavery was natural
2) Objectivism was inspired in many ways by Aristotelian philosophy
3) Therefore, Ayn Rand had no problem with slavery - Jay
===================================

Correct you gladly I am willing to.


Please show me where and when did I ever state that

"Therefore, Ayn Rand had no problem with slavery".


Unless you can find one, your counter-argument falls apart. - Red Grant
___________________________________



Since you couldn't come up with the quotes that I used an argument that Ayn Rand had no problem with slavery,

does this mean that

you lied?

Red Grant said...

Jay, below are questions you have refused to answer.

Does this mean then

you lied

when you said:

___________________________________

Red,

I have not refused to give you anything. - Jay
___________________________________

?







___________________________________

I am asserting that there is no universally, objectively valid definition of laissez-faire. - Jay
===================================


Jay, below is the definition you provided earlier for 'lassez-faire' within this thread (however, unwittingly, and here I remind you of the viking proverb,

"A man is a prisoner of his own words.")
___________________________________






___________________________________

There is only the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way which

we

now denote with the

term "laissez-faire." - Jay
===================================

So the definition of "laissez-faire"(at least according to you) is that

it is the term

"you"[Jay and who else?]

denote with the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way?


If so, then

is that definition (unwittingly yours) of "laissez-faire" universally objectively valid?

If so, then

are you not contradicting yourself with one of your statements above?



___________________________________

There is no "universally objectively valid definition" of

laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________









If your unwitting definition of the term "laissez-faire" is not universally objectively valid, then

your statement above

___________________________________

There is only the general idea of a society in which people are more free than unfree and the various societies that have operated this way which

we

now denote with the

term "laissez-faire." - Jay
___________________________________








is not necessarily valid, either?

and if and when not valid, then why not?

and under what condition(s)?

and if and when valid, then

why?

and under what condition(s)?









___________________________________

...this way which

we

now denote with the term "laissez-faire." - Jay
___________________________________








Who are this 'we'?







___________________________________

The general idea

is that laissez-faire means a society that is predominantly free from government control. - Jay
___________________________________








The general idea by whom?







___________________________________

There is no "universally objectively valid definition" of laissez-faire. - Jay
___________________________________




How do you know that?






___________________________________

Red,

I am fully aware of what supersede means.

2: to take the place or position of - Jay
___________________________________





But, not fully aware enough to avoid faulty argument since Ayn Rand never philosophically refuted Aristotle on slavery.

If her 'philosophy' refuted Aristotle on slavery, then

please show me how she refuted Aristotle on slavery using either Aristotlian logic and/or logic derived from it instead of merely stating her half-baked, self-contradictory opinions.

Please notice opinions do not by themselves necessarily make a philosophy.

Ayn Rand claimed to be a philosopher, and the follower/admirer of Aristotlian logic, so she must have phiosophically proved (using Aristotlian logic and/or logic derived from Aristotlian logic) how Aristotle errored on slavery.

Otherwise she did not supersede Aristotle on slavery, you are merely deluding yourself.





___________________________________

"In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade." as quoted by Jay from Ayn Rand?
===================================

Is that definition of free market economy universally objectively valid?

If not, then why not? - Red Grant
___________________________________








___________________________________

Red,

You asked:

"So the government would not have the power to forbid slave trade in Randian Capitalism?"

No - they would have the power and obligation to ban slavery because involuntary servitude is a violation of

individual rights.

So there would be no slaves to trade. - Jay
===================================

Who decides the individual rights in Randian capitalism? - Red Grant
___________________________________

JayCross said...

Red,

I'm just curious why you feel the need to insult me? I'm probably not as smart as you and I don't have all the answers, but I have respectfully come back (when I have had time) to answer your questions as best I can. In return I get mocked, such as:


Ha, Ha! Your own words!


and


Wow! Looks like Jay is really being pushed into a corner!

He wants

others to chime in!

Jay needs HELP!


and my personal favorite


How convenient, Jay!

Another word, please excuse my sardonic humor,

"My dog ate my homework!"?


Then there is you asking if I lied to you for not answering every last one of your many questions yet. Guess what? I'm busy. I'm taking 6 classes while simultaneously consulting 3 separate businesses. I don't devote every waking hour (nor do you, I'm sure) to Internet debates. So pardon me if I haven't replied in a manner the Almighty Red Grant considers timely.

But seeing as I have come back and answered most of your questions (respectfully, I might add), how about showing me some respect?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

But seeing as I have come back and answered most of your questions (respectfully, I might add), how about showing me some respect? - Jay on 3/03/2009 03:55:00 PM
___________________________________





Jay, I could show utmost respect with people who do not agree with me,

even with people who I can prove wrong

even with people who I think know they are in the wrong.



But not with those who contradict their own statements repeatedly after being pointed out explcitly, but politely. (Take that half-baked wannabee Objectivist Herb for an example, what a pathethic joke!)




But not with those who try to put words into my mouth that I had never uttered, especially under the context we are talking about.


especially, after I pointed out their "error" (I'm giving them benefit of doubt.) firmly, but politely.


Take John from Pasadena, I don't agree with him most of times,

I could prove him wrong,and have,

but I also even agreed with him on occasion, when I thought he was on the right track.


Has John from Pasadena ever tried to put words into my mouth that I had never said?

Has John contradicted himself as often as you have?





Okay, just one thing at a time.



Please provide me quotes regarding 3) you attributed to me below.


___________________________________

Your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) was:

1) Aristotle stated slavery was natural
2) Objectivism was inspired in many ways by Aristotelian philosophy
3) Therefore, Ayn Rand had no problem with slavery - Jay
===================================

JayCross said...

You didn't say that. I was incorrect to attribute that to you. I apologize.

However, I was not attempting to slander you, I misinterpreted what you said (perhaps without taking enough time to think it through.) I still don't feel that warrants you childishly insulting me.

I also don't think I contradicted myself that many times. When I said "you could ask 10 people and get 10 different answers" I honestly meant they would phrase it differently or mean slightly different things. When you ask me for a "universally valid definition" I assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that you mean a precise definition with exact wording that every single person who says "laissez-faire" would use without fail.

Hence, my saying different people would give different definitions. I did not mean different people would say laissez-faire means something other than an economy with minimal government intervention, just that they would express it differently.

If that's "sophomoric" of me then so be it, guess I'm an idiot.

JayCross said...


Is this the kind of philosophy you espouse to?

A philosophy that only values questions asked simply by the virtue of being asked by most people or majority?

A philosophy that would not value questions just because it was asked by minority

or

one person?"


Not my philosophy at all. I have repeatedly stated that I don't think you asked what laissez-faire means sincerely. I think you did it as a stall tactic.

That's why I downplayed your asking, not because I have a philosophy that minority questions don't matter.

So let's see - does this mean you made a false accusation against me, like you were oh-so-offended at my doing to you?

Let's see:


Did I say the activity within this thread was meaningless? No - I said whether we referred to the general idea of a free society with the term "laissez-faire" was meaningless to me. - Jay on 3/02/2009 06:12:00 PM
___________________________________


Another false accusation from Jay!


I asked a question assuming something you never actually said. I am slammed for making a false accusation.

You asked a question:

"Is this the kind of philosophy you espouse to?

A philosophy that only values questions asked simply by the virtue of being asked by most people or majority?"


...assuming something I never actually said. Does that mean you are making a false accusation?

Looks like it.

Get off your high horse.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Let's see:


Did I say the activity within this thread was meaningless? No - I said whether we referred to the general idea of a free society with the term "laissez-faire" was meaningless to me. - Jay on 3/02/2009 06:12:00 PM
===================================

Another false accusation from Jay! - Red Grant
===================================



I asked a question assuming something you never actually said. I am slammed for making a false accusation.

You asked a question:

"Is this the kind of philosophy you espouse to?

A philosophy that only values questions asked simply by the virtue of being asked by most people or majority?"

...assuming something I never actually said. Does that mean you are making a false accusation?

Looks like it.

Get off your high horse.

3/03/2009 07:26:00 PM
===================================



Was that a nice try?

or

pathethic one?


I'll recap the entire episode below how it began and what was it about:




___________________________________

Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM
===================================

Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread? - Red Grant on 2/24/2009 01:56:00 AM

===================================

Did I say the activity within this thread was meaningless? No - I said whether we referred to the general idea of a free society with the term "laissez-faire" was meaningless to me. - Jay on 3/02/2009 06:12:00 PM
___________________________________





Another false accusation from Jay!


Jay, my question was about

why you engaged in an

activity you consider as meaningless,

not

whether the activity you engaged within this thread was meaningless!



I'll recap below how this began:



___________________________________

Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM
===================================

Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread? - Red Grant on 2/24/2009 01:56:00 AM




___________________________________

However, if we are using history and the actual consequences of different ways of organizing society as our guide, it's tough to find a better model than

laissez-faire. - Jay

2/18/2009 05:04:00 PM
-----------------------------------
There has never been a completely

laissez-faire

society... - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM
-----------------------------------
The United States exemplifies what most people think of as

"laissez-faire"

better than probably any society in history. - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM
-----------------------------------
Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is

meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM
___________________________________






Indeed, Jay, if you believed whether you call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is

meaningless to you,

then

why had you engaged in what you called meaningless activity?




3/03/2009 01:34:00 PM

Jay said...

Red,

I'm aware - I falsely accused you of saying I called the thread meaningless. This is not what you said. You're right. I was wrong to accuse you of it.

However, you then proceeded, tonight, to falsely accuse me in almost exactly this same way. By asking if I had a philosophy that questions asked by minorities don't matter, when I never said that.

Will you admit you were wrong to accuse me of holding that philosophy?

Or, will you continue to insult me, laugh at me, etc. while doing one of the very things you are insulting and laughing at me for?

Jay said...

why had you engaged in what you called meaningless activity?

Good question. I did not think it would last so long. I thought you would eventually:

A) State your criticisms of free markets (if you have any), and
B) If you have criticisms, propose a better alternative

Your relentless questioning of free markets without suggesting a better alternative reminds of a quote:

"Nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections. I am amazed at how many people devote themselves to that task."
- Thomas Sowell

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red,

I'm aware - I falsely accused you of saying I called the thread meaningless. This is not what you said. You're right. I was wrong to accuse you of it.

However, you then proceeded, tonight, to falsely accuse me in almost exactly this same way. By asking if I had a philosophy that questions asked by minorities don't matter, when I never said that. - Jay on 3/03/2009 08:17:00 PM
___________________________________




Jay, there is a profound difference between what I accused you of false accusation

and

what you accused of me of false accusation in your post above.


In my example:

I had asked you a specific question.

To which, you replied, and in turn asked me a question and made a statement, falsely (implying/accusing me of) I asked you a question that I never did.

and

I posted all the statements you had made to back up my assertions as well at the same time I asked you the question.

So there could not have been any misunderstanding on your part, had you read them. (and I posted those statements more than once, just to make sure)

Here's a recap:

___________________________________

Whether we call that ["predominantly free from government control" ideal]

"laissez-faire"

or not is meaningless to me. - Jay on 2/19/2009 05:44:00 PM
===================================

Then why did you engage in what you consider as meaningless activity within this thread? - Red Grant on 2/24/2009 01:56:00 AM

===================================

Did I say the activity within this thread was meaningless? No - I said whether we referred to the general idea of a free society with the term "laissez-faire" was meaningless to me. - Jay on 3/02/2009 06:12:00 PM
___________________________________




and here are the statements you had made:



___________________________________

However, if we are using history and the actual consequences of different ways of organizing society as our guide, it's tough to find a better model than

laissez-faire. - Jay

2/18/2009 05:04:00 PM
-----------------------------------
There has never been a completely

laissez-faire

society... - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM
-----------------------------------
The United States exemplifies what most people think of as

"laissez-faire"

better than probably any society in history. - Jay on 2/18/2009 06:29:00 PM
___________________________________








and now, here's a recap of what you accused me of false accusation:




___________________________________

If people were seriously struggling to define what it meant it would be a different story, but I saw no evidence of that struggle

other than your asking me. - Jay
___________________________________




Does this mean then I'm not one of the people?

or

you think a question is only worthy of being answered to when asked by at least everyone here minus one person?


Since when was a question worthy of being answered to when only asked by at least everyone here minus one person?



Is this the kind of philosophy you espouse to?

A philosophy that only values questions asked simply by the virtue of being asked by most people or majority?

A philosophy that would not value questions just because it was asked by minority

or

one person? - Red Grant
___________________________________




My questions above were in reply to the statement you had made.

Not just any statement,

but a conditional statement.



The reason you had given in your conditional statement for not willing to give the universally objectively valid definition of laissez-faire was simply based on your "fact" that

no one else had been struggling to ask for the definition except me.

Not because you could prove my question was invalid,

but simply based on your "fact" that no one else had been struggling to ask for it.


So my question/accusation of your premise was throughly valid.

If I asked the questions that I had asked without you providing that conditional statement,

then

your complaint would have been valid. (at least by my standard).


But you had given me a reason that made my questions/accusations valid.

Jay said...

Red,

You may have provided support for your accusation, but you ignored previous statements of mine contrary to that support.

I repeatedly said I felt you were filibustering by asking for definitions of laissez-faire. Whether this is, in fact, what you were doing is a separate issue. The point is this is the reason I gave for downplaying you asking for a universally valid definition. And I was quite clear about it.

Therefore, it is false to attribute my downplaying your question to a philosophy that questions from minorities don't matter.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

why had you engaged in what you called meaningless activity?

Good question. I did not think it would last so long. I thought you would eventually:

A) State your criticisms of free markets (if you have any), and
B) If you have criticisms, propose a better alternative

- Jay on 3/03/2009 08:30:00 PM
___________________________________





Isn't that why I'm asking people who are pro-free market to give the universally objectively valid definition of free market?

and

furthermore asking in detail?

simply to see what it really is?

instead of what its proponents like it to be portrayed as such.





___________________________________

Your relentless questioning of free markets without suggesting a better alternative reminds of a quote:

"Nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections. I am amazed at how many people devote themselves to that task."
- Thomas Sowell as quoted by Jay on
3/03/2009 08:30:00 PM
___________________________________





First of all, what is Sowell's definition of free market?



Second of all, I believe I stated at one time I'm working on my ideal economic system:


a hint:

It was inspired by the example of South Korean Economy from mid 60's till mid 80's.

It is also partially inspired by Howard Roark from "The Fountainhead".

A question that I asked before, and I will ask again,


Which should be the relevant question in terms of microeconomics?

1. Whether a factor is owned by private or public?

or

2. Whether a factory is as profitable as it can be on a sustainable basis (for the foreseeable future)?

Jay said...

Red,

You said:

"Second of all, I believe I stated at one time I'm working on my ideal economic system."

I wonder: if I said that, would you accuse me of using a "dog ate my homework" excuse?"

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

I repeatedly said I felt you were filibustering by asking for definitions of laissez-faire. Whether this is, in fact, what you were doing is a separate issue. - Jay on 3/03/2009 09:32:00 PM
___________________________________



You felt?

but you didn't prove it, did you?




My rebuttals for your accusing me of false accusation is based on

the explicit statement you had made.

Not based on "feeling".


My questions you consider as false accusations were based on your statement that I had quoted just above in my response.

Not based on your "feelings".




I'll recap below:



___________________________________

If people were seriously struggling to define what it meant it would be a different story, but I saw no evidence of that struggle

other than your asking me. - Jay
___________________________________




Does this mean then I'm not one of the people?

or

you think a question is only worthy of being answered to when asked by at least everyone here minus one person?


Since when was a question worthy of being answered to when only asked by at least everyone here minus one person?



Is this the kind of philosophy you espouse to?

A philosophy that only values questions asked simply by the virtue of being asked by most people or majority?

A philosophy that would not value questions just because it was asked by minority

or

one person? - Red Grant
___________________________________




My questions above were in reply to the statement you had made.

Not just any statement,

but a conditional statement.



The reason you had given in your conditional statement for not willing to give the universally objectively valid definition of laissez-faire was simply based on your "fact" that

no one else had been struggling to ask for the definition except me.

Not because you could prove my question was invalid,

but simply based on your "fact" that no one else had been struggling to ask for it.


So my question/accusation of your premise was throughly valid.

If I asked the questions that I had asked without you providing that conditional statement,

then

your complaint would have been valid. (at least by my standard).


But you had given me a reason that made my questions/accusations valid. - Red Grant on 3/03/2009 09:17:00 PM
___________________________________



A hint, Jay, if you had not provided that conditional statement, your accusation of my questions would have been valid. (at least by my standard).

But, if you had not made that conditional statement,

then

I would have made those questions you consider as false accusations.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red,

You said:

"Second of all, I believe I stated at one time I'm working on my ideal economic system."

I wonder: if I said that, would you accuse me of using a "dog ate my homework" excuse?" - Jay on3/03/2009 09:39:00 PM
___________________________________





Here's a differnce, though.

My "second of all" statement was not an excuse like yours for not being able to defend an assertion.

It's simply a reminder of a blue print of what I have been planning on, not an excuse like your was.

Red Grant said...

I would have made those questions you consider as false accusations.

3/03/2009 09:48:00 PM

Edit:

should have said:

I would not have made

JayCross said...

There was no excuse, I plainly stated that Rand disagreed with Aristotle on several issues and that OPAR contains those disagreements.

I also wasn't whining for help the way your mocking "Jay needs HELP" blurb portrayed. Just putting it out there that if someone knew offhand what I was talking about they could feel free to jump in.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

There was no excuse, I plainly stated that Rand disagreed with Aristotle on several issues and that

OPAR

contains those disagreements. - Jay on 3/03/2009 10:13:00 PM
___________________________________




But it was an excuse for your not being able to show how Ayn Rand disagreed with Aristotle on slavery employing her philosophy.


Please remember, I'm not merely looking for whether Ayn Rand disagreed with Aristotle on slavery or not.


I'm looking for how she disagreed with Aristotle on slavery, employing her philosophy.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Mind you, I still don't agree that Europeans had the right to slaughter Natives,... - Jay
___________________________________




How come?

and if you believe that Europeans didn't have the right to slaughter Natives, then

should the land that was taken by force/treachery/violation of treaties

be given back to the Natives?


If not, then

why not?



and why do you think Ayn Rand believe that white men had the right to kill and rob the Natives?

Jay said...

Red,

You asked:

How come?

Just don't think it's right to come in and slaughter people who were already living on the land. Seems cruel and inhumane.


and if you believe that Europeans didn't have the right to slaughter Natives, then

should the land that was taken by force/treachery/violation of treaties

be given back to the Natives?


No, because the Natives who were wronged are gone now. Current Natives have no connection to them other than bloodline which is irrelevant.

(This, btw, is the same reason I oppose reparations for slavery.)


and why do you think Ayn Rand believe that white men had the right to kill and rob the Natives?


Probably because it fit her romanticized view of conquering heroes coming to civilize new land and raise it to its highest potential. Pretty similar to Manifest Destiny, actually.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

... and if you believe that Europeans didn't have the right to slaughter Natives, then

should the land that was taken by force/treachery/violation of treaties

be given back to the Natives? - Red Grant
===================================


No, because the Natives who were wronged are gone now. Current Natives have no connection to them other than bloodline which is irrelevant. - Jay
___________________________________





Does this mean then one has the right to keep the land without paying reparations so long as all the original victims are dead?


If so, does this mean then one has the right to keep the land belongining to others withour paying reparations to the original victims

if

one manages to kill all the original victims?

Of course, under such a logic,

it would be one's best interest to kill all the original victims instead of sparing some of them?

JayCross said...

Red,

Yes, the logic does seem to suggest that. However, who are we going to pay reparations to? The tragic but inarguable fact is that no living Native had anything to do with land that was stolen hundreds of years ago.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red,

Yes, the logic does seem to suggest that. However, who are we going to pay reparations to? The tragic but inarguable fact is that no living Native had anything to do with land that was stolen hundreds of years ago. - JaY

3/10/2009 03:49:00 PM
___________________________________




So does this mean then you believe

one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?


and if so,

then


is such a philosophy compatible with capitalism?

JayCross said...

Red,

If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.

But here's the problem. You asked:

one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?

The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors.

Do you think we should give all US land back to current Native American tribes? If not, why not, and what should we do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red,

If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.

But here's the problem. You asked:

one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?

The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors.

- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
___________________________________





Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from

the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?


and

is this compatible with capitalism?






___________________________________

Do you think

we

should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?


If not, why not, and what should we do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? - Jay

- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
___________________________________







Who are this 'we'?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red,

If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.

But here's the problem. You asked:

one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?

The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors.

- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
___________________________________





Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from

the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?


and

is this compatible with capitalism?






___________________________________

Do you think

we

should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?


If not, why not, and what should we do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? - Jay

- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
___________________________________







Who are this 'we'?

3/11/2009 01:43:00 PM
Post a Comment

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Red,

If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.

But here's the problem. You asked:

one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?

The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors.

- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
___________________________________





Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from

the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?


and

is this compatible with capitalism?






___________________________________

Do you think

we

should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?


If not, why not, and what should we do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? - Jay

- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
___________________________________







Who are this 'we'?

3/11/2009 01:43:00 PM
Post a Comment

4/01/2009 01:41:00 PM

JayCross said...

"We" is everyone currently living on US soil.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Do you think

we

should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?


If not, why not, and what should

we

do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? -

Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
===================================

Who are this 'we'? - Red Grant
===================================
"We" is everyone currently living on US soil. - Jay
___________________________________





Okay, so does this mean then you believe I have the authority and/or right to tell

everyone currently living on U.S. soil

to give all U.S. land back to the Native Americans or not?





___________________________________

Red,

If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.

But here's the problem. You asked:

one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?

The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors.

- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
___________________________________





Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from

the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?


and

is this compatible with capitalism?

JayCross said...

Red,

Of course I don't believe you have the authority to do that. That's not the point. You are always asking whether we have a right to live on land that was stolen, so if you don't believe we do, wouldn't it logically follow that you think we should give it back?

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Do you think

we

should give all US land back to current Native American tribes?


If not, why not, and what should

we

do instead according to whatever philosophy you hold? -

Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
===================================

Who are this 'we'? - Red Grant
===================================
"We" is everyone currently living on US soil. - Jay
===================================

Okay, so does this mean then you believe I have the authority and/or right to tell

everyone currently living on U.S. soil

to give all U.S. land back to the Native Americans or not? - Red Grant
===================================

Red,

Of course I don't believe you have the authority to do that. That's not the point. - Jay
___________________________________




Then why even ask me whether everyone currently living on U.S. soil should give all U.S. land back to the Natives?





___________________________________

You are always asking whether

we have a right to live on land that was stolen,... - Jay
___________________________________





...and who decides the rights of 'we'(as you used the term)?

including a right to live on land that was stolen?


Have you answered the question(which I have asked in many variations) to its ultimate logical conclusion?





___________________________________

...so if you don't believe we do[have a right to live on land that was stolen],.... - Jay on 4/05/2009 07:37:00 AM
___________________________________







Again, your statement above begs the question,

"Who decides 'our' "rights", including a right to live on land that was stolen?"


If you don't think I have the right to decide whether 'we' do or not,

then

why even ask the question?







___________________________________

...so if you don't believe we do, wouldn't it logically follow that you think we should give it back? - Jay
___________________________________




But I never said it.




You will have to answer the question,

"Who decides 'our' rights, including a right to live on land that stolen?"

to its ultimate logical conclusion.


Then you may find out whether 'we' have a right to live on land that was stolen.



...and whether it's compatible with capitalism(whatever you define 'capitalism' to be)







___________________________________

Red,

If the people who did the stealing were still here then of course, they should not be allowed to keep the land just because they killed all the original owners.

But here's the problem. You asked:

one has the right to keep the land one has stolen from so long as one kills all the original victims?

The "one" (actually "ones") who stole that land are gone. So are the "ones" it was stolen from. All of us living today have done nothing but be born on land that was stolen from dead Natives by dead ancestors.

- Jay on 3/11/2009 11:42:00 AM
___________________________________





Does this mean then you believe the children/descendants of the original robbers/murderers have the right to inherit/benefit from

the killing/robberies done by their parents/ancestors?


and

is this compatible with capitalism?