Everyone is selfish, even non-Objectivists

Bill,

Life-extension enthusiasts are now taking deprenyl in modest doses to preserve dopamine levels, since a decline in dopamine is one of the causes of aging and eventual death. Would you recommend that they take up smoking as well?

For those at risk for Parkinson's Disease (PD) -- e.g., those with "polymorphism of the iNOS (inducible NO synthase) gene" ...

"Candidate genes involved in the metabolism of xenobiotics, neurodegeneration and functioning of dopaminergic neurons were found to be associated with PD. Some of these genes interact with environmental factors that could modify PD risk. Thus, we found that the inverse association between smoking and the risk of PD depended on a polymorphism of the iNOS (inducible NO synthase) gene."--C R Biol. 2007 Apr;330(4):318-28.

... I'd suggest, not recommend, that they look into nicotine in the form of transdermal delivery (patches) or oral delivery (e.g., gum). Note that this polymorphism may be something found in 50-100% of actual Parkinson's cases (I didn't research that) ...

"CONCLUSIONS: Our data support a dose-dependent reduction of PD risk associated with cigarette smoking and potentially with other types of tobacco use. Importantly, effects seemed not to be influenced by sex or education."--Arch Neurol. 2007 Jul;64(7):990-7.

Yes, I suggest (some) drug use for people who have no detectable disease -- which is quite different from my professional and academic peers.

But you can get the same result in other, less hazardous ways, like taking deprenyl and the other drugs that are prescribed for Parkinson's disease. So, why would a Parkinson's patient want to take up smoking?

Because deprenyl's not 100% effective in offsetting PD, but it might be when used along with nicotine. That's why one would take the chance and risk their health on nicotine administration (because of the potentially-great cost-to-benefit ratio afforded by it's inclusion in a PD prevention program).

There are great data showing that nicotine administration works quite well against PD, and I'm not one to ignore data (because of a preconceived notion).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/18, 9:31pm)

Post 41

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 6:07am

It has been my understanding that it is the smoke which increases the cancer risking - any smoke, not just tobacco smoke - not the nicotene......

Post 42

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 3:58pm

    Driving increases the chances that you will be in a car accident.
    Getting married increases the chances that you will be in a divorce.
    Commenting in blogs and forums increases the chances that you will be in a stress-filled emotionally-antagonistic (cancer-linked?) argument with one (or more) whom you've never met.

    Got a light?

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 9/19, 3:59pm)

Post 43

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 6:25pm

Robert B.,

I want to respond to your interesting post #5. I find myself wondering if I disagree with you, or whether the way you state things is not very clear. So I'll try to explain my problems and my own position, and maybe you'd be kind enough to clarify things for me.

First, I'm having problems understanding what you mean by 'standard'. I can think of a few meanings.

1.) A set of abstract moral principles. You seem to imply this when you discuss a moral standard without a purpose is just someone being "moral" for its own sake.

2.) An abstraction of the kind of life appropriate for man. You seem to argue this in opposition to "one's own life" as a standard. So in this way, it can be a guide to the kinds of values appropriate for man qua man. Note that in this meaning it wouldn't directly guide you in the concrete values of your own life. It could point out the general values appropriate to a life of a man, and you'd then pick concrete instances of those values that apply to you.

3.) A third meaning, which I don't see described or implied, is an integration of this abstract "man's life" and your own specific context. Instead of being a subjectivist "one's own life", it would be a specific instance of "man's life". For instance, I could integrate the kind of life appropriate for man with my own context, and decide on a more specific embodiment. It could include being an engineer and pursuing my career. It could involve writing for an Objectivist website.

These difference conceptions of what a standard is greatly changes the way decision-making would happen.

1.) If standard meant just a bunch of moral principles, then pretty much anything goes on the values you choose. To the extent that you'd have a guide to you choices, it would be the moral purpose you suggest we also need. Then together, you would have the moral purpose selecting your goals, and the standard limiting your choices or means.

2.) If the standard remained abstract, then it would inform you of the kinds of values you should pursue in the abstract, and you could then use the moral purpose to pick more concrete instances. It would be a two part selection process. First pick a general value. Then pick a concrete instance. The standard wouldn't provide you with the means of being specific, or of evaluating and choosing between concrete values.

3.) Through the the integrated moral standard alone, you'd have a means evaluating choices to select the one that's rationally best for you. There doesn't seem to be a need for a moral purpose, in the sense that it doesn't alter your decision making process.

This is where I'm confused with your post. I see the standard of value as the means by which we compare all of our values. It can't remain abstract or it wouldn't provide the means of doing specific comparisons. It's too abstract. We need to be more concrete with the standard. What kind of life do you want to live. Within the possibility of lives appropriate to man, there are infinite. When you make choices, you make them based on your own specific understanding of how you want to live your life.

This idea that we need both a standard and a purpose to make choices sounds like the standard wasn't up to the task. It should have everything necessary to weigh the various options directly. Will watching this TV program now be better than going and writing an article for RoR? Will going to this college for 4 years be better than this other 2 year program plus internship? All of this may be compatible with "man's life" in general, but not with your specific goals and values.

So maybe you can clarify your take on what a standard is and how it's used.

Another way to think of a standard is to project the kind of life you want to have. This need not be subjectivism, as you can apply rational standards, etc. But one you have that vision of the life you want to live, you have a means of choosing between different options. You can see how one option pushes you closer to your preferred life, and one doesn't do as good of a job. This isn't entirely future focused, as you aren't sacrificing everything for a specific goal. Instead, you have a projection of the life you've chosen to live. That can include how the day to day stuff works too. The better the integration, the more clarity it brings to your choices.

Post 44

Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 11:44am

At first glance at your contributions I appear to have interpreted Ayn's ideas differently than most of you.

Let me give you a personal example.

I tell folks that even though I and my wife are in our seventies and eighties we will never apply for Social Security or Medicare.

And the reason is not because we are altruistic but because we are selfish.

The reason we will not apply is that we do not want to ruin our good reputations for paying our own bills.

"In the animal kingdom, the rule is:

eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom:

define or be defined."

Thomas Szasz, libertarian psychiatrist http://www.szasz.com

"The Untamed Tongue A Dissenting Dictionary" page 55.
First printing 1990 by Open Court Publishing Company.

Post 45

Friday, October 12, 2007 - 11:00am

I tell folks that even though I and my wife are in our seventies and eighties we will never apply for Social Security or Medicare.

So, they can take tax you over an entire lifetime, thereby depriving you of money that you could have saved and invested for your own retirement, but you're not going to accept any of it back, because . . .?

- Bill

Post 46

Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 10:01am

"because" I do not want to ruin my good reputation for paying my own bills.

Also I am thinking of getting a forehead tatoo of a "SS" with a big red cross through it so younger taxpayers will not hate me for being a geezer on their backs.

PS Will someone please help me set whatever is required to receive a notice in my Inbox when a post is made to the thread. Or even better tell me where the Forum Help is located so I figure it out on my own.

Thanks, Dale

---
$ dale-reed@worldnet.att.net Seattle, Washington $

Post 47

Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 2:15pm

But you are paying your own bills -- with the tax money that was initially extorted from you, but has now been returned via social security. That was the point of my rhetorical question, in case you didn't get it.

- Bill

Post 48

Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 8:14pm

Dale Reed,

I think there was once a email feature like you want, but it ended up being too expensive $$ because of the number of posts and emails that were being sent.

Alternatively, you can scroll down to the bottom of the home page and quickly be able to see the first few words of posts on each forum.

And I have no qualms with you being refunded through SS the money that was taken from you. And I'm very sorry that you probably won't get it all back.

Cheers,
Dean

Post 49

Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 8:38pm

Homeschoolers do not benefit from the school taxes they pay every year.

I and my wife paid for our our son's education in a private school after we realized that they were being dumbed down for equities sake in the government school.

Lots of folks are taxed for services they will never use and/or do not approve of.

The world is full of temptations that may corrupt your hard-won reputations.

I interpret Ayn's "The Virtue of Selfishness" to mean that I should think of my own Self first.

No problem about the e-mail notifications. Just wanted to make sure I was not missing a Free Lunch.

Sorry, that is a little capitalist joke.     Dale

Post 50

Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 5:44am

Dale -

If you saved 50.00 a week for 30 years, you wouldn't want to take some return on that investment? Why should the bank keep it?

It's your money, Dale. Take it. Be truely selfish. Ragnar would sail the seven seas to hand it to you.

Post 51

Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 6:39am

I'm a long way from having to make that decisions, but I think that Dale has a point. Whatever money he has input over his lifetime, has probably already been spent on some pork barrel project or something similarly wasteful. Whatever money is "recouped" by Dale, necessarily entails a burden on the current taxpayers. It should not be their responsibility to reimburse Dale for the money that was stolen, since they were not the ones that stole it.

Post 52

Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 10:29am

I'm a long way from having to make that decisions, but I think that Dale has a point. Whatever money he has input over his lifetime, has probably already been spent on some pork barrel project or something similarly wasteful. Whatever money is "recouped" by Dale, necessarily entails a burden on the current taxpayers. It should not be their responsibility to reimburse Dale for the money that was stolen, since they were not the ones that stole it.

First of all, there is no way to know whether Dale's taxes were used to fund some "pork barrel" project or to pay for essential government services. Nor would it make any difference to the argument you're making, since in either case, the money would still represent stolen wealth.

Secondly, suppose for the sake of argument that the money Dale receives in social security payments were taken directly from the taxes that he paid into the system instead of from taxes paid by others. Would it make any difference for government policy? No, the government's taxes and expenditures would still be the same.

I agree that it's not the responsibility of other taxpayers to reimburse Dale, but his refusal to accept social security does not mean that their money will be refunded to them. It will simply be used to fund some other government expenditure or transfer payment. Therefore, I fail to see how, under these circumstances, his refusal to accept social security is anything more than an act of self-sacrifice. The government gains at his expense.

Would you or he argue similarly that anyone who accepts public services that are paid for by other people's taxes, such as riding public transit, driving on public streets, attending public schools, borrowing books from public libraries, etc., is ripping off the taxpayers, and should therefore refuse to avail himself of these services? And what about people who work for the government, including police officers, fire fighters, public school teachers, public transit operators, road repair crews, etc.? Are they not also ripping off the taxpayers, because they are accepting stolen loot in exchange for their services?

Can no Objectivist in good conscience avail himself of any public service including roads, schools or libraries, or work as a police officer, fire fighter, or public school teacher? -- because that is the logical conclusion to draw from the position that you and Dale are advocating. Do you really think that this is a reasonable or practical approach to advancing the cause of justice in our society or that it can be said to serve your self-interest?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/14, 11:00am)

Post 53

Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 8:26pm

Bill is missing my point and I don't know how to explain it any better except to give you a snip from a Book Report in Saturday's Wall Street Journal on Supreme Court Clarence Thomas' new book ""My Grandfather's Son."    Clarence was raised by his grandfather who Clarence called "Daddy."

<snip>
Justice Thomas writes, he was served well by the work ethic that had been
instilled in him by Daddy, a poorly educated yet proud man who refused
public assistance because, he said, "it takes away your manhood."
<snip>

I am a retired Electromagnetic Engineer so would not be expected to be all that great at philosophy or whatever it takes to figure out what Ayn Rand really met.   But I am trying and assume trying to figure out what Ayn Rand meant about many issues is one of the primary purposes of this Bulletin Board.   Dale

PS#1 I have found in the Rand literature the answer Ayn Rand gave a lady who asked Ayn if it was OK if she(the lady) receive some help from the Welfare System.  But I am keeping that little piece in my pocket until later because it would only confuse our present communications.

PS#2 None of this implies that *I* assume that Ayn Rand is some kind of Religious Garu or whatever. But on this list(and where else?)  I intend to try(most of the time) to interpret what Ayn's recommendations were on how we should live our lives right her on earth.

---
$ dale-reed@worldnet.att.net Seattle, Washington $

Post 54

Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 10:33pm

Justice Thomas writes, he was served well by the work ethic that had been instilled in him by Daddy, a poorly educated yet proud man who refused public assistance because, he said, "it takes away your manhood."

Dale, suppose that instead of having to pay all those taxes during your working years, you could have invested some of that money and earned a substantial nest egg to fund your retirement. Would you consider that "public assistance"? No, of course, you wouldn't. If anything it would be self-assistance or self-help.

But if the government deprives you of that opportunity by robbing you for much of your adult life, how is it "public assistance" to reclaim some of that money? The government had no right to it in the first place. As the law would say, you are simply being "made whole." Social security is not welfare or public assistance. Accepting it does not "take away your manhood," any more than accepting the return of stolen property takes away your manhood.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/14, 10:55pm)

Post 55

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 9:45am

Social Security is part of the Welfare State.
Good reference on this issue is "Social Security: Averting the Crisis, 1982, CATO, Peter J. Ferrara.

And recently published evidence is:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003950221_liztaylor15.html
<snip>
We're living longer, healthier lives. When Social Security chose age 65 as the official retirement age in 1935, the average life expectancy was only 63.
<snip>

Bill, Social Security is the *forced* transfer of wealth from younger salary earners to geezers.  There is no "Lock Box."

Still on the "selfish" thread is when I am offered a "Senior" discount at the Seattle Zoo, entrance to a National Park, local hardware store... I refuse saying that I want to pay full price because I do not approve of age discrimination.   Dale

---
$ dale-reed@worldnet.att.net Seattle, Washington $

Post 56

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 9:50am

Still on the "selfish" thread is when I am offered a "Senior" discount at the Seattle Zoo, entrance to a National Park, local hardware store... I refuse saying that I want to pay full price because I do not approve of age discrimination. Dale

Thus contributing to the old adage - There's no fool like an old fool.....

[There is nothing wrong about discrimination - rational self-interested persons discriminate all the time]

(Edited by robert malcom on 10/15, 9:53am)

Post 57

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 10:58am

Last time I looked each worker is *forced* to carry one third of a geezer on his back and it will soon be one half a geezer.

So it is in my enlightened self interest to do whatever I can to convince others that I am not a burden to anyone else. That I am not consuming more than I am producing through investments in the stock market and interest on savings from previous production.

And(still on the "selfish" thread) my wife and I live in a very small house that is as old as we are, we drive older vehicles that get good miles per gallon, and eat simple healthy foods. Neither of us has been to a doctor in decades. Dale

---
$ dale-reed@worldnet.att.net Seattle, Washington $

Post 58

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 4:34pm

Robert:

Thus contributing to the old adage - There's no fool like an old fool.....

I think that you are being grossly unfair here. I understand where you're coming from and I, also, take advantage of social benefits that I am legitimately entitled to, even though I disapprove of their existence, but there is a part of me that says, "You're playing their game."

When I buy a pass to a National Park or movie theater that gives discounts to seniors I'm allowing them to patronize me. It's Joe Six-Pack perhaps trying to raise a family that makes up the difference.

I don't know of any organization that has a policy (exactly opposite to that of the AARP) that is comprised of prideful members who actively refuse to be patronized in this fashion, as Dale does � but there should be.

Sam

Post 59

Monday, October 15, 2007 - 4:48pm