RoR: Forum

Post 20

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 4:20pm

Link

Edit

Male cow excrement.

Eh? No such thing as a male cow? Not a good example of a metaphysically given :-)

Post 21

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 7:21pm

Link

Edit

Anthony wrote:
"By this logic, conservative Christians can easily argue that, if they're forced to pay thousands of dollars every year into the State "education" system, then, by God, the system should teach Christian values.

Assuming money is stolen from me, I would rather it go to food stamp programs and national parks than wars in Iraq or the prison-industrial complex. What do you think of that?"

If you cannot figure out why what you are sarcastically suggesting is nowherere near the same as what I was suggessting, then any explanation I would offer would be wasted, anyway. Try reading my posts again and thinking about it a bit, dude.

Here's a hint: it has something to do with revering reason over superstition. That's the only hint I'm giving.

Post 22

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 7:24pm

Link

Edit

robert:"Well Scott, at least we are ahead with HDTV."

True, true, and that is of much more serious consequence for me, personally! WHY do they keep changing the HDTV standards? Can they really be called 'standards" if there are like 4 different competing 'standards?' This is 10x more complex than that whole 'when does human live begin' thing!
(Edited by Scott DeSalvo
on 5/26, 7:36pm)

Post 23

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 7:35pm

Link

Edit

See, this, to me, seems to be a pretty basic concept. Maybe this makes me 'unprincipled.'

I would venture a guess that EVERYONE on this board agrees that government use of our stolen tax dollars on funding bullshit (or any) scientific research is WRONG.

This is where many of us on this thread seem to want to end the analysis. That's cool. Your mind, do what you want with it. It is perfectly ok with me if you analyze everything systematically, and then, when you find the first item which violates Objectivist morality or other principles, you evade, shut down, fail to do any more analysis, ignore the whole kit and kaboodle.

But here's the problem with this thinking--YOU dont get to set the terms of what the world is like, (or any part of it) when you run into an issue. Primacy of reality, NOT primacy of conciousness, remember?

Taxation is wrong, but right now, it is a given. Do you want SOME YIELD from your stolen tax dollars, or do you want NO YEILD from stolen tax dollars. DO you want SOME REAL REASONING behind whrere your stolen tax dollars go, or is it ok with you if leprechauns, fairies, Jeebus and his friend Virgil Mary pray on it and decide where the money goes?

Here's an analogy. You get mugged for $50. Now, the mugger can either buy dope and get high with your cash, or buy his dear sweet mother's medicine so that she can breathe. Alot of you guys dont even get to the issue of where the money goes--you're fixated on the immorality of the mugging. But once the mugging is over with, it is over with. Done, just a fact of reality. No one is even questioning that the mugging was 100% immoral and wrong. So THEN the question becomes, given that fact that you are irrevocably mugged, would you rather have a sick old lady live another day with the mugger's ill gotten gain, or is a junkie copping equally cool in your eyes?

Post 24

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 9:24pm

Link

Edit

Scott,

Your "mugger buying dope or saving his sick grandmother" analogy is a good one, and it points up a key aspect of the argument on stem cell research: That difference is largely tactical, not philosophical, i.e. "where do we fight this battle at -- at the level of taxation itself, or at the level of what the taxation is used for?" Obviously, different answers to that question will produce different evaluations of just how important the stem cell issue is.

I tend to agree with Marnee's line of reasoning in regarding the non-existent "ban" as a positive thing. Government money for stem cell research is like government money for education, space travel, etc. It distorts the market supply/demand characteristics of the good or service, it comes with strings attached, etc., and ultimately it takes longer to produce worse results at a higher cost than otherwise would have obtained.

Bush's "ban" (which isn't a very accurate term for withholding money for one tiny aspect of one small area of research) is certainly undertaken for the wrong reasons -- you'll get no argument from me on that. But if it has the result of advancing, rather than slowing down, the research (and I think it will), I don't have a big problem with it, especially since I'd as soon he did the same thing with all government sponsorship of research.

Tom Knapp

Post 25

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 4:17am

Link

Edit

Scott,

Would you rather the mugger further self-destruct by purchasing drugs or justify (in his own eyes) his theft and thus reinforce his thieving ways by doing good (again, in his own eyes)?

I think the muggee should let bygones be bygones, work to not let it happen again, and simply get on with his life. What happens to the mugger or what he does should not really be of concern to the muggee.

Post 26

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:34am

Link

Edit

I understand the argument that if taxes are taken anyway, we'd rather them at least go to certain spending. If there was really a fixed federal budget and we could choose where it was spent, I too would prefer stem cell research (and NASA and NSF) over social program welfare or foreign warfare.

There's a fatal flaw in that line of reasoning, however. The budget is not fixed (and 'balanced budget amendments' which allow year-over-year increases and off-the-book expenditures wouldn't change this). Advocating any form of federal spending truly amounts to advocating additional spending, and hence additional theft from the citizens.

When many people advocated the Iraq war, it didn't mean that the government stopped paying social security checks or printing food stamps to shift funds to the military; it meant additional spending, and additional coercive funding via taxation or inflation (or debt, which is simply deferred taxation and inflation). Likewise, though the sums would be smaller, advocating publicly funded stem cell research isn't going to take away money from food stamps or overseas intervention, it really means additional spending and looting.

A more appropriate analogy would be: a mugger has already robbed you of $1000 today and blown it on crack. Would you like him to come back and steal another $100 tomorrow or not, as long as he promises to spend the loot on his sick mother?

Post 27

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:35am

Link

Edit

It's perfectly clear Scott. You are a pragmatist.

Post 28

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 6:24am

Link

Edit

A refusal to allow government research spending in a particular area is a ban.

A refusal to categorize and assign relative moral values to various government spending paralyzes us all, and relegates all Objectivists to an irvory tower, where unless the government is 'perfectly Objectivist' we refuse to take part in it or influence it in any way.

A refusal to acknowlege the virtue of using reason to judge science expenditures rather than religious superstition, is to remain silent in the face of an injustice, and implies sanction of an enemy's conduct.

I agree that I am a pragmatist, depending on which definition you're using. I think everyone owes it to themselves to be pragmatists in their lives, because, ultimately, you have ONE life, and your enjoyment of it is your highest goal. Working to arrange things outside of yourself so that you can live your life most successfully is the responsibility we each have to ourselves. You do that by taking a look around and 'pragmatically' deciding what the best course of conduct for your life is.

The problem here is one of context, like most 'disagreements' amongst Objectivists.

I do not mean to suggest any sanction for compulsory taxation for scientific testing of government pet projects. But the current issue before the Congress and President is not "Whether we may tax for purposes of funding research?" but rather "Whether the government will spend money on stem cell research (even though it cuts against a particular Preisdent's particular version one one particular relgion)?"

In context, I haven't seen anything that refutes my position. All objections are essentially context-switching to the issue of whether the government should fund research (and derivatives of this issue, such as whether government witholding money is a 'ban').

Post 29

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 6:26am

Link

Edit

And, Aaron: Do you ~really~ believe that the Federal governemnt is going to shrink by the amount they refuse to spend on stem cell research? Or will the taxes just go to some of the utterly nonsensical projects outlined by Marnee?

Post 30

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:15am

Link

Edit

Scott, the obvious answer to your challenge is that because it is of and by the government, it will be staffed by mediocrity and micro-managed to death. It doesn't matter if they are working on stem cells or petunias, nothing much can come of it.

As to pragmatism both Rand and Peikoff consider it evil.

Whatever works? You can walk hobbled by leg irons, but why would you want to? The heros of Atlas Shrugged could have made it work. They preferred to go on strike, to set things straight, rather than to go through life hobbled.

Post 31

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:19am

Link

Edit

Marcus--

No male cows? Really? What are those beasts with the huge testicles instead of udders that look like cows? ;-)

Post 32

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:22am

Link

Edit

A cow is a female bovine..... a bull is a male bovine...... not such thing as male cow......

Post 33

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:22am

Link

Edit

Marnee said:

My god, billions $$ goes into all kinds of research in the US and all that is left is a bunch of politically motivated pseudo-science (Global Warming anyone? Obesity death "epidemic"? Sheesh!).

Marnee, As Scott pointed out, we're not talking about limiting the money the government gives to the funding agencies; that's a separate issue. We're talking about how it is to be allocated. Bush isn't going to give back to the taxpayers money that would gave gone to fetal stem cell research. It will go somewhere else (like "alternative medicine" research, perhaps).

Robert Davison said:

******* Nothing of any import.********

Post 34

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:52am

Link

Edit

Robert M brought up HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute), the largest private funding agency for Biomedical research in US. I was at a HHMI meeting last year at its headquarter in Chevy Chase, MD. During a panel discussion, the senior investigators and administrators advised the junior people that it was now not a good time to go into stem-cell research because of the funding and other restrictions. This is but just one way how the research in this area is impeded.

HHMI, though supports a elite group of scientists in US and in some other countries, its annual research fund ($600 or $700 million, ball-park) is no match of the total Federal funds from NIH, DOE, etc.

Post 35

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 8:07am

Link

Edit

Quoth Scott:

"A refusal to allow government research spending in a particular area is a ban."

By that logic, refusing to use taxpayer money to build a new cathedral is a "ban" on religion.

Tom Knapp

Post 36

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 8:20am

Link

Edit

Scott said:

A refusal to allow government research spending in a particular area is a ban.

Tom said:

By that logic, refusing to use taxpayer money to build a new cathedral is a "ban" on religion.

Tom,
If the major source of new buildings was the government, and if religion could not be practiced without a cathedral, and if the old cathedrals couldn't be used, then that would constitute a de facto ban on religion.

Glenn

Post 37

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 8:37am

Link

Edit

Robert, this is government FUNDING of private labs with real scientists doing real scientific work, not a government lab with 50 politically appointed administrators for every one scientist.

As to pragmatism, that's why I said that I am a pragmatist DEPENDING ON YOUR DEFINITION.

Do you really think I advocate 'walking around in leg irons?' Interesting that you could get that I am a crippled thinker from my posts, but what the hey, you can draw whatever conclusions you'd like.

Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction. If you are going to judge me by those standards, let me ask you this--have you quit YOUR job and dropped out of society yet? If you refuse to judge yourself by the same standards of fiction, then you are a hypocrite.

Post 38

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 8:47am

Link

Edit

Tom:

1. The analogies are different from separation of church and state purposes. The government may not show preferential treatment to a particular religion, and that is why your example is untenable on its face. COntrast it with my positions that the government SHOULDN'T be using religious criteria to jude what scientific research should be done.

2. If you context drop, you get ridiculous results.

3. See Glenn's post.

Post 39

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:23am

Link

Edit

Quoth Glenn Fletcher:

-----
If the major source of new buildings was the government, and if religion could not be practiced without a cathedral, and if the old cathedrals couldn't be used, then that would constitute a de facto ban on religion.
-----

The federal government is not the "major source" of funding for stem cell research (or, for that matter, most scientific research, period). Not even close. Not even in the same league, let alone the same ballpark, as the state governments and the private sector.

The 2003 federal budget for stem cell research was less than $25 million. By contrast, California's voters approved a bond issue last year to spend nearly 12 times as much per year -- $295 million -- on stem cell research. That's one state, albeit probably the largest in terms of stem cell research funding.

On the private sector end of things, just last week, three institutions in New York were awarded $50 million in stem cell research grants from the Starr Foundation -- more than twice the entire former annual federal budget for such research. And that puts New York City alone, in the private sector only, over $100 million for the year in stem cell research grants awarded.

Like I said, a tempest in a teapot. Are Bush's reasons for pulling the miniscule amount of federal funding for that particular research wrong? Sure they are. But the matter is so completely and utterly insignificant, except to people on both sides of the abortion issue who see it as a litmus test, that it's a shame to even waste bandwidth on it. It's political posturing, on both sides, and that's all it is.

Tom Knapp