Photo - child stalked by vulture

Bill, let me make a slight disagreement your post 298.

I don't agree that the flaw in anarcho-capitalism is simply that they are trying to enforce mutually exclusive laws. Even if they were trying to enforce the same set of laws, there would be a problem. Robert Bidinotto makes a similar point when he talks about the competing governments all trying to protect "rights". A big problem with that is that so many people have different views of what "rights" are. Each group's interpretation makes conflicts inevitable. So even if they all tried to defend "rights", it wouldn't make the problem go away.

I know you used the term laws, so it's possible that there is a bit more clarity involved there. But I argue that the same flaw exists even if they have a common set of laws that they all work towards. The issue is that there will always be different interpretations of the law, and there will always be questions of whether any particular interpretation (applying the law in a specific case) is correct. The flaw in anarcho-capitalism is that they reject an objective process for making decisions on the law (or more specifically, on the use of force). Without that mechanism, there will always be conflicts. Anarchists try to argue that they can just go hire some arbiter to decide. That doesn't work for three reasons.

1.) If there is a serious disagreement about what the law means, the arbiter will decide it based on their own view. If you know ahead of time what the views of the arbiters are, nobody would go to one where the decision is known an unfavorable.

2.) The arbiter is non-binding. They could choose to ignore an unfavorable result if they were somehow confused enough to hire an arbiter that disagreed with their own views.

3.) The use of force is not a private issue between two protection agencies. The rest of the public has serious concerns and interests in making sure that the use of force is legitimate. Only the most short-sighted mentality can accept a situation where violence is perpetuated against your neighbor, but since it hasn't affected you yet, you have no right to interfere.

Ultimately, you need this decision making process/organization, which is the government. That is the major flaw in anarcho-capitalism, and the critical distinction between anarcho-capitalism and a limited government.

So my (minor) disagreement with you is that it's not mutually exclusive laws that is the problem. They would be, but they're not an essential quality of anarcho-capitalism. But your wider point about violent competition is still correct. It's inevitable because anarcho-capitalism lacks this mechanism.

Of course, there are other premises that certain anarcho-capitalists hold that are flawed as well. For instance, the idea that you can always "opt out" of a system, refusing to be arrested by a protection agency. Or that free market mechanisms will "somehow" lead to optimal results. The first, if taken seriously, would be another flaw in the system. The second isn't a flaw in the system, but a flaw in the argument for the system.

Post 301

Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 3:57pm

Jon, I agree with Bill's interpretation of your argument. I guess we're still not having a serious discussion. So I guess I'll waste my time pointing out how wrong your comments.

You say "When you corner an anarcho-cap with the conflict which will inevitably occur between competing governments in the same jurisdiction who employ different notions of rights and their proper protection, he can easily wiggle out by responding...", and go on to discuss faith in the markets. But note that the anarcho-capitalist has not addressed the issue at all. He's simply avoided the real criticism by appeals to faith in the market.

The private enforcement idea we've had on this thread resolves that real criticism, and not simply by saying "we have faith". We've avoided the flaw of anarcho-capitalism by not leaving enforcement up to "different notions of rights". The government is still there to make the decisions on what is and isn't a correct interpretation.

There are two ways of arguing with the anarchists. One is to show that their system itself is flawed, and will not work in practice. The second it to point out their arguments are not valid, and so they haven't given adequate support to the system. Both are legitimate. But only the first is an actual argument against anarcho-capitalism. Only the first really addresses the system and tries to show that it's flawed. The second is not an argument against the system. In my post #300, I outline an argument against the system itself.

The anarchist requires faith in the markets because he can't answer the criticism. But neither Bill nor I have ever resorted to such an argument. We don't need need. It's proper to criticize the anarchist because he's trying to escape a legitimate argument through faulty reasoning. But there's no way in which it applies to us.

Your criticism isn't actually that our system in any way parallels anarcho-capitalism. Your criticism is that Bill and/or I rely on faith in the market to "somehow" make it work. We don't. But more importantly, this is not an argument against our proposed mechanism or a proper comparison to it with anarcho-capitalism.

And of course, as usual, this argument can be turned around right back at you. You have shown an absolute faith in government and taxation. Instead of arguing for why we don't have the military take over, you just assert that it's part of the same government, as if that magically answered the question. The real parallel here is between your own systematic use of faith in government with the anarcho-capitalists' faith in the market. But are used in defense of your preferred solution.

Post 302

Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 4:17pm

Jon,

Since we're on the topic of criticism, there is much to criticize about your position. It accepts government oppression as you are perfectly happy to use violent force to get a type of government funding you prefer. It's elitist since you claim that the people shouldn't be allowed to govern themselves, and only government officials can be trusted to make decisions. It's steeped in pragmatism because you are quite willing to reject principles in favor of expediency. It favors tradition over reason, since you claim any variation from the founding father's system is bad. It's anti-conceptual, since you argue for the concrete approach the founding father's decided, and you ignore the principles by which they made their choices.

This method of criticizing our proposal while continuously giving every benefit of the doubt to your own must stop. Your proposal is that the government be able to use violence in order to force the citizens to do what the government wants. Your proposal is to concentrate all the power into a single body, so that they can rule unopposed. Why in the world do you think this will be a minarchy at the end of the day? You've already granted the government ultimate power. You've already granted it the use of violence whenever it is convenient. Why do you think it will magically stop where you want it? Like all proponents of big government, you just assume that you will be the one in charge (or those in charge will agree with you), and that the government will only do what you want.

The founding fathers' basic principle of government is to structure it in a way to try to prevent tyranny. They recognized the need for government, but they worked hard to make sure it wouldn't get out of hand. Anyone who makes proposals for government based on the idea that government can do no wrong is not following the founding fathers. It's a complete reversal of the basic premise. Government isn't designed for the convenience of the government. It's designed to satisfy its function and to otherwise hamper it.

Also, the founding fathers weren't interested in protecting the government from the will of the people, as you seem to think. The executive branch wasn't designed to keep power out of the hands of the people. In fact, where power could be placed into the hands of the people (or the states), it was preferred. Thus the 9th and 10th amendments. Your view that governments should be designed to protect it from the will of the people is an invitation to tyranny.

This debate is not primarily about whether the proposal Bill made (and I support) is workable or not. It's about the basic standards used to judge these schemes. And the reality is that the standards we accept are wildly different. Bill and I have used: individual rights, private funding, decentralization of power, separation of power, voluntarism, and government by the people. You discard these in favor of: consolidation of power, no separation of powers, theft, convenience of government, elitism, protection of government from the will of the people, and tradition.

Is there any wonder why there is disagreement here? Personally, I'm glad you don't like our scheme. Given your standards of good government, it would be embarrassing to have your support.

I guess the argument could switch topics again to discussing standards of good government, but really, I don't think there's much point.

Post 303

Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 5:08pm

Yes - it does appear very Hamiltonian in its notions.......

Post 304

Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 10:29pm

Joe,

What a mess you have made of what WAS a serious discussion. You�ll �waste [your] time� and point out how wrong I am, that�s precious.

I�ve �shown an absolute faith in government,� right. Actually, I have supported the current system we already have, with lawmakers and the executive elected by the people. I�ve argued that when the culture changes, we�ll get the lawmakers, executives, and social structure we want.

I am an �elitist since [I] claim that the people shouldn't be allowed to govern themselves,� yeah, that�s it. I �assume that [I] will be the one in charge,� oh, yes, this is implicit in everything I have written.

My favorite: �The executive branch wasn't designed to keep power out of the hands of the people.� Was it designed to keep the power of law enforcement out of the Executive�s hands? I feel like I�m in Alice-in-friggin-Wonderland now.

�This debate is not primarily about whether the proposal Bill made (and I support) is workable or not.�

That is clear to me now.

�I guess the argument could switch topics again to discussing standards of good government, but really, I don't think there's much point.�

Nor do I.

�This method of criticizing our proposal while continuously giving every benefit of the doubt to your own must stop.�

Demand granted.

Post 305

Friday, September 7, 2007 - 7:37am

Dear Joseph @ post 302,

I completely agree with you. Also there is a moment to just STOP debating. It is now clear that you will not come closer to each other (given your resume of the debate), so it is time to part ways.

Now what I am surprised at is that you disagree with Jon, who has posted a lot here. I wonder how anyone can care to hang around for so long when you are so remote from the views of - apparently - most here.

Jan

(Edited by Jan van Kollenburg on 9/07, 7:40am)

Post 306

Sunday, September 9, 2007 - 12:55pm

Jan, there's no reason to be surprised that there are disagreements. It's not even the disagreements that are generally a problem. I knew from when Bill first started posting this idea that there would be disagreements. It's new and different, and for those with a weak understanding of anarcho-capitalism, it probably appears similar. What's been presented isn't even the most complete argument. I don't know about Bill, but I have a lot more to say on this topic. So I can still see some people disagreeing with it.

But there are only some kinds of disagreement that are within the bounds of reason. And that is where any discussion/debate breaks down. At first they may be honest errors. But when they repeat the same arguments or same kind of arguments, or when they refuse to withdraw an argument that's shown to be faulty, then at some point it becomes clear that this isn't about arriving at the truth. At some point it becomes clear that this is about one side having an emotional commitment to their position, or an emotional revulsion to another, and grasping at anything to rationalize that view.

As far as hanging around here, you might note that I own this website. But also, I believe that participation in this kind of forum can't be based on the majority of people. There are too many crazy people or people who happen to agree with some Objectivist positions because they are compatible with their emotions. But some of the people actually take ideas seriously, want to learn and shared, and are worth interacting with. It's this latter group that makes participation worthwhile, nto the former group.

And finally, a disagreement on a topic does not necessarily mean that the other person is useless or anything. I disagree with Bill on a couple of topics, for instance. The disagreements can be infuriating at times, but even then I recognize that he's using reason and with the right arguments I can persuade him or understand why he's taking a position. And there's much to be gained in areas where we don't disagree.

So disagreements, even like on this thread, don't necessarily mean that either side is without value. At most, I would say that on the topic of politics, a couple people have little of value to offer me. And more to the point, I won't expect to try to convince them, as I don't think they arrived at their positions through reason. And the immediate result of this thread is that I won't keep pretending that these criticisms are well-meaning but mistaken.

Post 307

Monday, September 10, 2007 - 2:57am

A discussion should be based on reason and principles of logic (like: you do not have to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the one stating a positive).

You said this: I believe that participation in this kind of forum can't be based on the majority of people.
Most call it "democracy". I call it "Majoritanism".

Post 308

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 6:19am

Joseph:

By sitting on juries, they apply the laws to concrete situations.

Not only that, but they make life and death decisions affecting the lives of their fellow citizens, including not just loss of freedom, but loss of life.
Juries, picked out of the phone book or voter registration roles or whatever random process, to form a pool, and then the system vets that pool to select candidates to make life and death decisions.    No possibility of becoming a 'career jurist.'

Under "List of Things That Will Also Never Happen", I've often wondered, why don't we choose our pool of candidates for public office in this same manner?   We have a precedent for selecting candidates to make life and death decisions based on a random pool of vetted candidates.

Does the present non-random method result in a 'better' candidate pool and a more thorough vetting process?   (I can't even write that without laughing.)

It results in a systematic bias of candidates from a pool of power seekers. Folks showing up with a political agenda firmly in hand, if not disclosed. Glad handers. Career politicos. Grubbers. Non or briefly practicing lawyers, real estate mavens, and ex-Buick salesmen.   Bushs, Clintons, Romneys, Kennedys.   Jesus H. Christ indeed, Televangelism on steroids. Are we really the tent full of drooling circus clowns we appear to be?

Draw a pool of the willing and able randomly, and then vet those that are interested in the job from that randomly selected pool.    Make sure that they understand the job titles fall under category of 'State Plumbers', not 'Runners of The Country On Behalf of You and Your Cronies.' Then pay them to honorably keep the pipes clean, paint the double yellow lines fairly down the middle of the road, scrape the barnacles from the navigation bouys, etc., which is not the same as telling folks what and when and where to drive, or what and when and where to sail.

"Political parties" would still be free to project their special brand of Kiwanis Clubitis into the process after the pool of candidates had been randomly chosen, and influence politics all they want.

Choosing State Plumbers should be done intelligently, just like 'financial advisor.'   Rules number 1-10 with both should be;

1] "Find them, don't let them find you."
2] "Find them, don't let them find you."
3] "Find them, don't let them find you."
4] "Find them, don't let them find you."
5] "Find them, don't let them find you."
6] "Find them, don't let them find you."
7] "Find them, don't let them find you."
8] "Find them, don't let them find you."
9] "Find them, don't let them find you."
10] "Find them, don't let them find you."

.. for obvious reasons.

Instead, we established and support a political process that is a virtual weasel magnet, and we let it run unchecked for entertainment purposes, a process which currently knows no season. Today, every day is always a fresh new episode of "American Political Idol."   No longer satisfied with turning the process into a mere horserace, today we insist that the horses keep running and we just bet on the lap times.

regards,
Fred

Post 309

Friday, November 9, 2007 - 1:01pm

The reporter who would not save the child should be condemned- he is either a death worshipper or a coward. A man who loves his life would of course save the child- as a selfish act of loyalty to his values. If life is a value, if human potential is a value, then to fail tosave a human life when the opportunity arises (and no self destruction is called for) is to be a hypocrite- you reveal yourself to be a person who does not protect or defend your values. Not all values are possessions. "Loving life" means loving it in all its manifestations- both your own life and life in general- love / benevolence to others according to a heirarchy you choose- i.e. your own life, the life of your husband, your child, your friends, your family, your community, down to human life in particular or simply living organisms in general such as a pet or being fond of watching a type of fish or liking to plant particular flowers. Action on their behalf -justified by your personal heirarchy- is non-sacrificial. I do not love every man, but so long as they are not acting inimical to my interests I value them as fellow travelers and potential friends / trading partners etc. If I see a child in the dust about to be eaten I must help- not because my interests are morally subordinate to the child's- but because my goal is to remain integrated both mind & body, consciousness & action.

The question is- is it in my self interest to help? Can I remain well-integrated and functioning after I let a child be eaten by a vulture? I can't- to stand aside and allow that to happen would require such a reordering of my heirachy of values- such a repriotitization of my orientation towards life, of my sense of justice, my sense of my own efficacy, my ideal of myself and my self esteem- the action would be such devastating proof of my indifference to the values I profess, such a breach of my integrity, such a wedge between the convictions of my consciousness and the actions of my body, that I would never be able to re-integrate. I would be wracked with guilt, sorrow, grief, disgust and pain- not necessarily over the abstract plight of the child- but for my own destroyed potential and the death of my integrity. That action would become a unhealed wound in my consciousness- to be picked at, questioned, wondered over, bewailed- every day of my life from that moment on. If I were to keep my sanity, it would be by embalming my capacity to value and puttering through the rest of my life evading the existence of the wound. Stopping the bleeding, yes, but only by stopping the beating heart.

In this way, I think reality provides punishment even when other men can't.

This is my view on the ethics of emergencies- act in the way that best keeps your actions and values integrated- an emergency is a challenge to your value heirachy- your goal in an emergency is to emerge from the other side proud of how you handled it- which means feeling afterwards that you acted properly and in keeping with your best image of yourself.

This is one of the least understood areas of Objectivism- the fact that you have no obligation to save a stranger does not mean that it is right to let them die. You are not obligated to do everything that is right- but the right is what you should choose if living is your goal. You can let the stranger die if you are prepared to pay the price in psychological terms- including the potential destruction of your ability to look in the mirror with pride- and in interpersonal terms- legally, no man can challenge your right to sit idly by but you have revealed yourself as no lover of life and all men should thereafter treat you as a lover and agent of death.

Post 310

Friday, November 9, 2007 - 2:12pm

Richard, you are aware that the "man" did commit suicide?

""Loving life" means loving it in all its manifestations"

I agree with this fully. I do not kill insects and when my parents rake the lawn and throw the acorns in the trash I take them to the woods where they can either grow our feed the squirrels.

I do kill roaches, and mice, as quickly as possible, as they are a threat to my life as an apartment dweller, but I do so (at least to the mice) as mercifully as possible.

Ted

Post 311

Friday, November 9, 2007 - 4:25pm

Such a picture is almost certain to elicit a strong emotional reaction-- bringing one's metaphysical value-judgements to the fore.

In my own case, what came to the surface was the fact that scenes like this are common in Africa--and if the terrible genocide, poverty, disease, and human suffering that afflict millions of people on that continentent are to be dealt with--a fresh approach is needed. Simply providing humanitarian foreign aid in the form of medical care and food obviously doesn't cut it.

Sure, we can simply leave Africa to Africa and allow the horrible situation to continue. But my vote would be for organized international charity money--not government tax money--to attempt to remedy the situation in a brutally honest way. Here's what I'd do:

1) Birth control! No aid would be given unless people agreed to be "fixed." As long as these people continue to breed like rabbits, there is no hope of remedying the situation.

2) I'm a staunch anti-racist, but I'm also a realist, a genetic realist. I don't believe that all races of people are created equal in every way. For example, blacks are clearly superior to other races when it comes to sports involving running and jumping. Likewise, I agree with Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson that Africans, as a whole, are not endowed with the same innate level of intelligence that other races are.If Watson is right, then it is time to deal with the African problem with this fact taken into account. No more bromides, just reality. In other words, our social policies should reflect the fact that we're dealing with people who aren't as inherently bright as other races.

3) Outsourcing computer technical support to Africa isn't going to cut it. African people aren't Indian people. I was involved in a computer business for a number of years--and the competent blacks I came across I could count on one hand. On the other hand, I couldn't even begin to count the hundreds upon hundreds of sharp Asians I dealt with in my work. Moreover, I've been involved in the professional sportsbetting field for a number of years--and I've yet to meet a successful black bettor or bookmaker. In other words, help the Africans get started in capitalist endeavors that are commensurate with their intelligence level in general.. Sure, some blacks are smarter than most any whites--and they should not be held back or discriminated against in any way --but what I'm saying is: gear the social policies toward the average mentality, but don't limit the exceptional talents.  .

Post 312

Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 7:48pm

If we wanted to be brutally honest, maybe we shouldn't let racist stereotypes and agendas guide the discussion.

It's hard to imagine anyone looking at the horrors that exist in Africa, and not connect it to the racism, tribalism, fatalism, mysticism, and marxism. They have a surplus of terribly destructive ideas. Any hypothetical differences of intelligence due to race is drown out by the ideas that shape the various cultures. Is there a wonder why Chinese and Indians, both with at least strong subcultures that respect academic and technical excellence will have more well educated and technically capable people?

Instead of pointing out the obvious cultural issues, Ronald tells us that Africans are inherently too stupid to....well, he doesn't say. He just says that they can't be treated like normal human beings, and if we want them to succeed, we have to treat them as inferior beings. We have to gear policies towards them assuming that they just aren't smart to act like human beings. And of course, we have to stop them from breeding too! The horrors! What a load of crap. I don't know how someone can say they're not racist, and then demand that an entire group of people should be treated as inferiors and should be prevented from reproducing.

By all means, let's not ignore reality. Let's not outsource computer work to people who don't know anything about computers. Not because we imagine them too inferior to learn, but because they don't have the requisite knowledge. Let's not pretend that this has anything to do with any minor differences of intelligence between two large groups. Instead, point to the real concerns. The lack of reason, knowledge, and freedom.

Post 313

Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 9:08pm

I'm a staunch anti-racist, but I'm also a realist, a genetic realist. I don't believe that all races of people are created equal in every way. For example, blacks are clearly superior to other races when it comes to sports involving running and jumping. Likewise, I agree with Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson that Africans, as a whole, are not endowed with the same innate level of intelligence that other races are.If Watson is right, then it is time to deal with the African problem with this fact taken into account. No more bromides, just reality. In other words, our social policies should reflect the fact that we're dealing with people who aren't as inherently bright as other races.

Wow that qualifier was extremely necessary though completely ineffective.

There's a much simpler reason why there are so many amazing black athletes. In much of the world a few centuries ago blacks were traded in the same way farm pack animals were. Anyone who knows anything about farming animals, or even breeding dogs knows that certain factors make for more of a valuable return when it comes time to exploit offspring either for your own use or for sale to others.

Any honest physical trainer, athlete or bodybuilder will tell you that the key factor in how well your body can physically develop is genetics. Now if farmers breed the biggest cows and pigs with each other to produce offspring that will yield more meat while not allowing the smaller animals to breed, and likewise with pack animals like horses, how do you think slave owners treated their slaves. They bread the strongest men with the strongest women and didn't allow the physically weaker ones to do so if at all possible. Thus there's a lot more good material in the gene pool at an extremely disturbing cost.

There are some genetic factors in intelligence, but ultimately each individual determines their own intelligence. Granted it is harder under certain circumstances, like living in a disgustingly mystical, tribal, politically destructive environment that lets very little good in.

---Landon

Post 314

Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 11:11pm

Joe, I don't know what you mean by "racist." Prejudice is certainly not racism. For example, if I'm in need of a guard dog, I'm certainly going to favor a pit bull or a german shepherd over a toy poodle. That's rational prejudice. But if a toy poodle somehow demonstates that it is more competent as a guard dog than either the pit bull or german shepherd, but I refuse to hire it simply because it is a poodle, then that is racism.

If I'm the coach of a football team, I'm going to be favorably prejudiced toward black athletes as receivers and punt returners because, in general, they possess more speed, more wiggle and better hands than white players. But if a rare white player demonstrates the same talent at these positions as a black player, and I refuse to give him the same opportunity, that would be racism.

I'm not racist because I'd gladly hire any black as qualified as any white or Asian. I'm just saying most of them aren't as innately qualified in certain fields that demand certain types of brain power.

The same thing holds true with women and men. For example, I've yet to hear about a woman who is a great commodities or stock market trader or sports bettor. Women, in general, lack the "balls" for this type of work. I'm not a sexist; I'm a realist. The facts don't lie.
Racism or sexism is when you deny a particular race or sex equal opportunity because of their race or sex--which I would never do. Prejudice, or rational realism, is when you intelligently recognize that real differences exist among races and between the sexes.

James Watson and other realsitic scientists like him are simply conveying what their scietific research and testing proves: that different races of people, like different breeds of dogs, are not endowed with the same innate intelligence.

Landon, the slave-breeding theory might explain size and strength, but not speed and jumping ability. Blacks, in general, can outrun and outjump whites simply because they possess more fast twitch muscles and other anatomical features that favor speed and quick movement. The survival of blacks in Africa depended on speed and movement, so through natural selection, anatomical features favoring speed and quick movement evolved.

Post 315

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 12:59am

Joe, let me put it another way: I don't know what type of sheltered or reality-allergic life you've lived, but anyone who can't, for example, recognize the all-too-evident inherent mental superiority of, say, Jews to blacks, is out to lunch in my opinion. This inherent intellectual superiority transcends culture and education and is simply obvious to anyone who has been around large numbers of Jews and blacks over a period of time. I don't think it's a coincidence that Objectivism was the brainchild of a Jew and that so many of the early people involved in the "cult" around Rand were also Jewish. Just as blacks, in general, are natural-born athletes, Jews, in general, are natural-born intelligent thinkers.

People who conflate racism and prejudice, or discriminating intelligence, suffer from the modern mental "disease" of political correctness. I'm certainly glad that I 'm not afflicted with this mind-numbing disease that prevents people from recognizing racial reality.

Racial and sexual stereotypes didn't spontaneously spring out of thin air; they developed over time from tendencies and patterns that people observed over time. They wouldn't exist without having a basis in reality. I don't know about you, but I find stereotyping in all areas of life to be a very useful tool when it comes to understanding people. For example, based on my interaction Objectivists, I've already formed a stereotype of them.

(Edited by Ronald L. Gardner on 11/11, 1:55am)

Post 316

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 6:13am

Ronald,

My entire family, both sides, is Italian-American, and its members from the generation that preceded mine was strictly blue-collar. All my grandparents came over "on the boat." My father's very large family was raised on a farm, and his brothers and sisters never went to college or showed any interest in intellectual pursuits. My mother's very large family was about the same. I have scores and scores of cousins, nieces, and nephews. Of these, only one other, to my knowledge, has displayed the remotest interest in philosophical ideas or intellectual pursuits.

So, if you knew only of my family background, and then employed your notion of "rational prejudice" prior to learning anything in particular about me, how would you pre-judge my intellectual capacities?

And if your "rational prejudice" led you to presume all sorts of mistaken things about me before meeting me, then what precisely is the "pay value" of such collective stereotyping for any individual case?

Whatever the facts about the "average I.Q.s" or talents of various racial, ethnic, or nationality groups, such gross generalizations about "averages" tell us absolutely nothing about any given individual member of those groups. Similarly, generalizations about Objectivists "as a group" are stupid: Just observe the vast differences among the various people participating here who label themselves Objectivist. Nathaniel Branden has said that about the only thing that self-labeled Objectivists appear to have in common is that they have read some of the same books.

I judge people strictly as individuals, Ronald. That is a foundational principle of Objectivism. I see no necessity or value in collectivist generalizations about race, ethnicity, or nationality. In fact, I'd much rather spend my time with a Bill Cosby or Walter Williams than I would with some members of my extended family -- or even with a fair number of the people on this site.

It should not be a mystery why the name of the publication I choose to edit is The New Individualist.

Post 317

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 12:29pm

Wow...in case there was any doubt about the overt racism, Ronald has certainly has clarified it. But at least he's shown himself to be an equal-opportunity bigot.

I'll just restrict him to the Dissent board.

Post 318

Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 8:11pm

"The same thing holds true with women and men. For example, I've yet to hear about a woman who is a great commodities or stock market trader or sports bettor. Women, in general, lack the "balls" for this type of work. I'm not a sexist; I'm a realist. The facts don't lie."

I worked on Wall Street for two years, and in financial institutions in California dealing with them for over nine more.

I've personally known many women bond traders and analysts (one of whom was the president of the Bond Yield Analysis subsidiary of the 7th largest bank in the U.S. at the time; her PhD dissertation was the basis of the types of analysis and trading that later became standard). They were the males' equal in risk taking and analytic ability, while typically lacking the men's personality defects that cost the company money.

In IT, most of the female programmers and managers I've known were as rationally assertive as the men, and generally less irrationally assertive. If that's a lack of "balls" then down with testosterone.

Facts don't lie, but some people do get their facts wrong, by being too selective in reviewing the field.

By the way, Watson (possibly under pressure), recanted his view that there was any basis for significant differences of intelligence between blacks and other races. Given the difficulty of even defining what intelligence is, it is practically impossible to quantify that difference in any case -- even in the unlikely event that it makes any practical difference in the world anyway.

P.S. As Watson would be the first to acknowledge, his fields of research are not intelligence measurement, neurology, or any other remotely relevant to the subject in question.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 11/11, 8:16pm)

Post 319

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 10:21am