About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, August 6 - 4:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I was recently called a statist for making an off the cuff remark. I believe this person a troll however it made me think about the topic. Let me provide some background and then my thoughts on it.

 

Over the weekend we enjoyed kayaking down the Thornapple as a family. Beautiful day. We eventually came upon swarms of those who had taken to tubes. Many of them were drunk (by many I mean it was all we could do to paddle around the masses of people who had tied their tubes together with twine.) It wasn’t long before we were constantly hit by the pungent smell of weed. It was constant. Many of these people were stoned and drunk.

 

I believe if you want to do this - fine. However, many of them had children. In my opinion they moved into an area where they should be charged with neglect.

 

Comments?



Post 1

Wednesday, August 8 - 6:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

No argument here.



Post 2

Wednesday, August 8 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

OK - so I'm not floating around in left field (hehe.)

 

It seems these individuals (who I suspect range in age from 18-25) are likely single, have no children and believe being a Libertarian means one gets to do whatever one feels like.  Down with statism in ALL it's forms - which to me sounds a lot like anarchy and not Libertarianism. I want to naively believe there is a bit more common sense among this group of people.  My mistake!



Post 3

Saturday, September 15 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Tim,

 

The threshold for where the line is drawn in whether a guardian is harming or neglecting the incompetent is arbitrary.

 

For example, I would at least draw the line at whether an action causes "immediate permanant damage".  But then even in certain cultures immediate permanant damage is considered acceptable... such as male genital mutilation, or the injection of aluminum causing immune response against oneself: random autoimmune diseases.

 

Personally I'd consider feeding a child a standard american diet full of sugar and grains neglect.  That offering milk & historically natural paleo diet meals be the standard.  But that seems pertty draconian, especially since my diet is pretty expensive, and most people haven't come to the same conclusions to me on what is good for the human digestive system & body.

 

To solve this I'd propose highly distributed governance on this particular issue.  For example, a large multi-cultural civilization may allow for multiple guardian-incompetent contracts & arbitration companies.  A civilization may then require its residents to have a contract with one of these arbitration companies in order to be eligable to be a guardian.

 

Cheers,

Dean



Post 4

Sunday, September 16 - 3:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

It will take a lot of hard work, including both study and analysis, to pin down what, exactly, should be required of parents, whether there should be any relativism relating to culture, economic wherewithal, or other considerations, and if so, how much.  For example, there are some cultures that practice "female circumcision", which I think would be more aptly named "female castration".  I vaguely remember an issue of someone from such a culture who had come to the U.S. and still performed the procedure, or wanted to.   I don't think that should be permitted because of the serious permanent harm it does to the victim.



Post 5

Sunday, September 16 - 3:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I disagree with the statement that the threshold is arbitrary.  But to make sure we're on the same page, perhaps you could define what you mean by arbitrary.



Post 6

Wednesday, September 26 - 7:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug Morris,

 

Re: arbitrary:  Take vaccines for example.  An injection of human/other organism proteins & micro materials, with some viral materials, and ALUMINUM... into a human's muscle cells.  Do you think the human immune system is smart enough to figure out which things in that mix it should attack, vs which ones it should leave alone?

 

How well do vaccines actually work?  After a vaccine, for how long is a person immunized?  What kind of autoimmune diseases are caused by the injection of aluminum into human muscle tissue?

 

Do vaccines do more harm than help, given today's medical technology and high nutrition/health standards?  Do healthy people really die from these viral/bacterial infections that are being given... when their argument is these viruses killed people back during severe depressions and wars (with malnutrition and untreated injuries)?

 

You would think that science could answer these questions...  maybe it could... if there were Trustworthy studies performed.  But if you don't do an aluminum vaccine vs placebo water injection study yourself... it is just hearsay.  Who funds the "science" vaccine studies today?  Hearsay.  Arbitrary, based on who you believe more, me, who says "its really bad to inject aluminum into your body and play autoimmune lottery and are likely not even effective nor necessary", or the monopolistic gov/med/science industry, who says "vaccines are safe and protect you".

 

I might suggest making a law that says "No injection of strange foreign/toxic materials into the incompotent human body, even for immunological purposes.  One must be an adult to consent to such injections to their own body."  Others might suggest making a law "You must inject your incompetent with X toxic materials for immunological purposes."

 

Cheers,

Dean



Post 7

Thursday, September 27 - 3:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dean Michael Gores,

 

You are talking about a situation of incomplete knowledge and of suspicion about how good or bad a job some people have done of studying an issue.  In these circumstances, each person should make the best judgment he or she can, using his or her faculty of reason, and should admit to whatever uncertainty remains.  Even if everyone does a good job of this, there may be disagreements, and to the extent that anyone falls short, there is more possibility of disagreements.  What the government does will be the result of a political process informed by these varying conclusions.  

 

The process of making the best possible judgment and admitting to uncertainty should not include anything arbitrary.  If the political process introduces an element of the arbitrary, this may be because some people let the arbitrary in and/or because the political process and the widespread assumptions underlying it have flaws that need correcting.

 

Actually, I asked for your definition of arbitrary, and instead you gave me an example.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Thursday, September 27 - 4:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Here is a definition of arbitrary copied from the Ayn Rand lexicon.

 

“Arbitrary” means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality.

If a man asserts such an idea, whether he does so by error or ignorance or corruption, his idea is thereby epistemologically invalidated. It has no relation to reality or to human cognition.



Post 9

Saturday, September 29 - 12:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The number of soldiers that were adversely affected by the Anthrax vaccine during the Gulf War is staggering.  Life long debilitation in around 30% of them from what I read.



Post 10

Monday, October 22 - 12:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Modern definitions of "arbitrary" are a corruption of the words original meaning.  When I say arbitrary, I mean a threshold (or value judgement) is selected based on reason and evidence for a goal's attainment.  It doesn't matter how many people are involved or share the goal.  You say "government", which is a group, maybe the subjects of the government are in agreement with those in voting majority/minority power, maybe not.  A thing is arbitrary, specifically, because people have different goals, not because of differences in evidence availability or deductive work.  Although in reality, differences in information/evidence availability, deducted/accepted premises, and conclusions, can also result in different conclusions...  I specifically call something as arbitrary because differing thresholds/policies result from differing goals/preferences.

 

If we had the same goal, evidence, and went through the same reasoning process then we would agree on a threshold (or value judgement) (come to the same arbitrary conclusions).

 

It is a issue in Objectivist factions imo that the members think they all have the same goal.  To live man qua man right?  We all share the same ideal of what a man should be, right?

 

Value judgements are easier in a free market, most things can be estimated in value.  Thresholds on the other hand, for things like negligence, abuse, are determined by subjective _goals_/culture.  Over evolutionary scales, and through mental development in short term, do we want to nurture people to become fragile pansy men or reliable ballsy men?

 

Is it neglect to not take your retard premature baby to the hospital for $10 million in hospital bills for it to live on machines until all of its core failing organs can be fixed/replaced with health ones, so that it can live for the rest of its life spoon fed in a wheel chair with diapers?  Insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors would be financially motivated to say yes.

 

Cheers,

Dean



Post 11

Tuesday, October 23 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I hope we can find another term besides "arbitrary" to use here since Ayn Rand used it in a specific way in her writings on epistemology as articulated by Leonard Peikoff in his book on Objectivism, i.e. the "arbitrary" as neither true nor false due to its lack of evidence either perceptually or conceptually.

 

If you provide objective reasoning based on objective evidence, we can call the threshold "objective" even if there is some objective leeway in the definition of the threshold based on imperfections of knowledge.



Post 12

Wednesday, October 24 - 6:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Culture is not deterministic.  We can use reason to rise above it, and should do so where appropriate.

 

Different people may have different goals and preferences, but this is not relevant to the question of what obligations parents accept by choosing to have children.



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.