[554] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: "Watch me pull laissez-faire capitalism out of this
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sourav K. Mandal)
Sat May 5 18:39:17 2001
Message-Id: <200105052238.SAA06067@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
From: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
Reply-To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:38:58 -0400
""Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>" wrote:
> [...] Select sets of ethics are the functions
> of social contracts, but they are not value weighted across
> each other. [...]
Hence your personal moral relativism?
Here's a thought experiment: If you were to design a political system
(e.g., republic, democracy, anarchy), what would you create and why?
Or do you reject the exercise altogether, since you do not hold a code
of ethics, and hence cannot define an optimal governing system?
> Objectivism is the greedy man's anarchy; provided you manage
> to get society to collectively agree to its tenets (which is
> impossible in a snapshot, let alone over time).
Anarchy, properly, is the simple absence of government (prevalence of
chaos is an _alternate_ definition, to those who are scratching their
heads). Most Objectivists (including Rand herself) reject this notion;
other accept it, but only if "defense agencies" meet the Objectivist
ethical criteria. Either way, the "greedy man," who is potentially
everybody, has the same rights as anyone else.
> I'm your platoon leader and your a snotty little spec-4 who
> got to walk ambush with us one night. [...]
When you join the military, you _assume_ an obligation to follow its
rules, including the duty to follow orders.
> To reduce this. I'm person A and your person B. We're
> put in a life threatening situation where my life depends
> on yours. If you die, I live. If you live, I die.
> You want to live. So do I. I kill you because I can.
> I've just choose life or death on your behalf.
(I'm assuming in this scenario that if both A and B refuse to act, they
both die.)
Ethics don't really apply in "lifeboat" situations, because the right
to conscious life is presupposed in ethics. If there is ever a
situation where one person's life becomes mutually exclusive with
another, there is no basis for a consideration of ethics. So, I can
neither fault nor support someone who decides to kill to preserve his
or her own life.
However, this is simply not the case in 99.999...% of real life, where
each person has values which they can trade to mutual benefit.
> [...] Forcing an individual
> to do something he or she doesn't want when that individual
> is a competitor or that individual's actions are necessary
> to achieve your goals is entirely without the moral realm of
> Objectivists.
Since when can any business practice be characterized as "force?"
Creating a better product, having more effective (honest) marketing,
exploiting existing market position and beating the competition to new
market share or discovered assets are _not_ examples of force. Force
is when you take away someone's values (life, property, etc.) without
consent. The only value you can seize from a competitor is a customer
base, but customers never properly "belong" to a company.
> At the expense of strategic concerns? The simplest example
> is that any nation that does politically marshal the force
> of its resources can and probably will use those to acquire
> the economic value of other areas through non economic means.
> This is what people on my side of the river like to call
> "war."
Yes -- ethics override all. Though, if enough people are convinced of
the gravity of strategic concerns, they might pay voluntarily.
Now, from a purely economic standpoint: is such a governmental power
compatible with the efficient production of wealth? Are you suggesting
that there is a "sweet spot" between free economic growth and strategic
policy, not unlike the current situation in the US? That's quite
possible, and without _much_ harm to the economy; for example, the
current US outlay for national defense and law enforcement is about 20%
of the total budget, and that's including expenses like foreign aid and
the War on Drugs.
> >I would
> >characterize the billions poured into the International Space Station
> >to be money down the tube.
>
> I don't. It's a step towards the development of orbital weapon
> systems that will give our nation complete aerospace dominance
> and unprecedented global reach. That will be my last friendly
> comment directed towards the Air Force. ;)
I bet NASA would also balk at the prospect of their touchy-feely space
party being exploited for military purposes. But, I agree that a
missile defense is important -- I find it more palatable than offering
the lives of US citizens as collateral in a mutally assured destruction
strategic scenario. Also, this way we would not require rationality on
the part of our would-be adversaries.
> >I agree -- basic research is fundamental to sustainable, long-term
> >technological development. Again, companies (esp. pharmaceuticals)
> >realize this, and fund projects accordingly.
>
> Oh really. Support this.
Are you referring to the need of research for economic sustainability,
or the simple existence of private funding? Either way, please refer
to my reply to Alex Coventry.
> [...] On the other hand, I have yet to see the
> Objectivists come up with anything so elegant to disguise
> the totalitarianism needed to further their agenda.
Yes, totalitarianism is a wonderful way to foist any philosophy onto a
group of people, but no one is advocating that. The ideal would be the
gradual, peaceful, conscious, joyful acceptance of the tenets of
Objectivism, but I agree that isn't about to happen any time in the
forseeable future. I'm willing to nix "joyful," if it would help ...
;-)
> >Just as sociology should not sway
> >principle when it comes to civil liberties, economics should not affect
> >matters of economic liberty.
>
> And how is that rational?
My impression is that you think it's rational to do whatever you can
get away with to meet your personal desires. Objectivists think that
rational egoism is the way to go, which demands that one value the
egos/lives/property of others. This means that you can seek your
desires as you please, but within that limitation. Not coercing others
-- is that too much to ask?
So to answer your question: I think people are fundamentally rational,
conscious beings who, for a variety of reasons, choose not to think a
lot of the time. Still, that they have this capability is enough.
Since people, unlike nearly any other animal, survive by using their
minds (just look at the world around us, with microwaves, TVs,
refrigerators, etc.), they should be free to exercise them. Only when
a person impinges on another's right to use his mind should he/she be
restricted. So, even if, someone is acting stupidly vis-a-vis the
"strategic" picture, the activities of that person should not be
curtailed unless they are _forcing_ other people from pursuing their
own values.
You might deem this to be an arbitrary premise, despite its
metaphysicality. However, since you claim to be a metaphysical realist
as I do, this should sway you.
Sourav
------------------------------------------------------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
