A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[Dinwar]

From what I've read here, would I be right to say that one major problem with Objectivism is that it requires not just that reality is knowable, but that humans can know everything?

Than why would Rand state, repeatedly, that failures of knowledge are not failures of morality? Why would the two main characters in her masterpiece, characters that she holds up as examples of how to live properly, commit errors due to a lack of knowledge? Why would the other characters who haven't made that error encourage those two to act on what they know? Why would her epistemology specifically adress the issue of how to deal with a lack nof knowledge?

At first glance, O'ism may seem to require omniscience. But when you dig deeper, it's quickly apparent that it does not. All it requires is for you to act on what you DO know, expand your knowledge as much as practicable, and be willing to make amends for innocent errors (meaning errors of knowledge).

This concept of "Enlightened Self Interest" seems to rely on people knowing every consequence before they decide on a course of action.

You don't need to know all of them. You SHOULD know MANY of them, and you need to accept all of them--but you don't need to know all of them. Many of them are simply unknowable. That said, you know the consequences far more often then not. When I moved out West I knew it would cut me off from my family, and I had to weigh that value against the value I was chaising. When I did swordfighting I had to weigh the risk of injury--of an unknown severity--against the values I got from it. When I busted my shoulder it was MY fault, fundamentally, and Objectivist ethics requires me to acknowledge that fact of reality. All actions have certain necessary consequences, and you can usually figure out what those are, or at least what you need to learn in order to figure it out.

Also, this is an example of the Nirvanah Fallacy. Because you can't know all the consequences, we can't know any. Objectivism argues for operating within the limits of your knowledge, while working to expand it. Acknowledge what you don't know AND WHAT YOU DO.

 

[Earthborn]

Rand is new.

You're lucky that I don't use the "laughing dog" out of principle. Rand wrote her stuff when passenger rail was still cool in the USA, when uncompromising visions of architects still meant dozens of construction workers were going to die during construction...

Sure, I guess she is new compared to Aristotle, which she considers an inspiration; hence the focus on "pure reasoning" and teleological thinking, and her looking down on empiricists who try to study how humans actually behave instead of how she thinks they should.

Also, the phrase "...slog through their unreadable works" is unnecessarily emotionally manipulative.

Sure, but I don't limit the phrase just to Rand's work. It applies to quite a few philosophers; and I freely admit that her work is infinitely more accessible than for example that of Karl Marx. I think it even applies to thinkers I enjoyed reading. I quite liked reading "Science in Action" by Bruno Latour, but gosh darned was it a slog.

 

[remirol]

Sure would be nice if any of our Objectivist-proponents would respond to:

It also assumes that correct answers to the questions of "Is $ACTIVITY that I'm doing rationally 'good' in both the short and long term?" will always be arrived at by the actor -- or failing that, by some independent entity who has the power to be always right.

Details of such an exercise will be left to the reader, but it should be obvious that the primary weak point in this is that it's only necessary to find a way to fool the independent entity in order to do all sorts of crazy stuff that violates the principles of Objectivism.

or

It appears my question contains assumptions that make it unanswerable. Specifically, focusing on disability rights of access might have been a mistake, since there are some people who do not need to worry about ever being disabled and would therefore find disability rights of no possible benefit to them. (Specifically, those are: people who are magically invulnerable to harm, and people who find the prospect of living with compromised mobility so appalling that they are certain they would commit suicide instead.)

So let me try a simpler question. Roark the architect decides his true incorruptible artistic vision is to create a building that's 120 stories tall and shaped like Ronald McDonald. (Okay, that might be out of character for Roark. So let's say it's some other architect with different tastes than Roark, who naturally demands the same rights Roark does because that's only fair, right?) His client, the CEO of a certain fast food corporation, enthusiastically agrees with the design and provides the construction funding and a plot of land in a location that guarantees the Ronossus will dominate the view for miles around.

Who, in Objectivist World, gets to tell them they can't build it, and on what basis?

Respectfully,
Myriad

at some point, rather than griping because some people think Rand's interpretation of it is "shoddy at best". Or maybe that's just her writing style. Whatever, both of the above remarks leave Rand totally out of it, so your response should too.

 

[Akri]

@remirol:

The first quote has been dealt with (albeit indirectly): Objectivism doesn't require you to do what is ultimately in your best interest, but what is in your best interest based on the knowledge you have. That's why the philosophy makes a distinction between errors of knowledge and errors of morality--if you do something that goes against your values, but you had a reason to believe you were actually furthering those values, then you still acted rightly. Yes, this means you can make mistakes and be tricked, but that's the result of being non-omniscient, not the result of being an Objectivist.

For the second quote, the answer is "whoever owns the land gets to decide what is built there". If the landowners want a giant ugly Ronald building, they can do so. If people nearby are unhappy with the idea they can try to change the company's mind (they could boycott McDonald's, or start a picket campaign or something) but they can't ultimately tell someone else he can't do something with his property just because it's big and ugly.

Though I am left wondering what such a building would be used for. What would go inside of it?

 

[remirol]

@remirol:

The first quote has been dealt with (albeit indirectly): Objectivism doesn't require you to do what is ultimately in your best interest, but what is in your best interest based on the knowledge you have.

So how does this work when I lie to everyone as much as I can get away with about what I think is in my best interest?

That's why the philosophy makes a distinction between errors of knowledge and errors of morality--if you do something that goes against your values, but you had a reason to believe you were actually furthering those values, then you still acted rightly. Yes, this means you can make mistakes and be tricked, but that's the result of being non-omniscient, not the result of being an Objectivist.

Yes, and it also means I can rook people left and right in Objectivist World just by deciding to... which strikes me as an impossible-utopia sort of scenario.

For the second quote, the answer is "whoever owns the land gets to decide what is built there". If the landowners want a giant ugly Ronald building, they can do so. If people nearby are unhappy with the idea they can try to change the company's mind (they could boycott McDonald's, or start a picket campaign or something) but they can't ultimately tell someone else he can't do something with his property just because it's big and ugly.

But he's actively harmed me by destroying my property values, because now nobody wants to buy my house that previously was worth a great deal of money (which is what I paid for it). Or anyone else's house in the neighborhood, for that matter. The point here is that it's not just his property that's affected; the general area and airspace is "the commons" in this case, and there's no way to control what people do and don't look at.

Again, it looks like a sufficiently clever person can break the system; I build Ronossus, purchase up all the houses in view of Ronossus for pennies on the dollar, then demolish Ronossus and watch property values fly through the roof. Net gain to me: approximately $****LOTS. Pretty sure this isn't what Objectivism is supposed to be about, but damned if the scenario described doesn't let me screw the people around me perfectly legally.

 

[Dinwar]

You're lucky that I don't use the "laughing dog" out of principle.

Feel free. It's your own mistaken assumptions that lead to this. The question you have to ask is "By what standard?" Compared to Aristotle, she's a baby. Compared with Kant she's also new. She's certainly newer than Marx. The fact that you have a different perspective on what constitutes "new" does not invalidate my perspective.

Sure, but I don't limit the phrase just to Rand's work.

Irrelevant. The emotionally manipulative language is begging the question of the quality of Rand's works, and therefore is inappropriate in a discussion of them. At minimum, it demonstrates an unwillingness to admit you're wrong (I'm not saying that you are wrong; I'm merely saying that I do not believe you would admit it if you were). At worst (and this isn't unlikely in this forum) you're trying to bias the peanut gallery against Rand (not saying you are, just that it's a viable explanation).

remirol: As Akri stated, the first has been answered so many times that to ask it without addressing those answeres is proof that you're not paying attention. O'ism does not demand omniscience, merely that we act based on what we know and that we continue to expand our knowledge.

It also goes completely off the rails when discussing some mythical independant entity. There's no way to get that from Rand's philosophy. YOU make your choices, period. There is no one else. That's why Francisco told Dagney she would be right to damn him--based on her knowledge, he was worthless.

As for the second, the question assumes collective ownership of the property. If you do not own something you have no say in what is done with it. The ONLY exception to that principle is if the owner violates your rights. And no, deminished property value doesn't count--if you're concerned with property value you're viewing it as an investment, and unfortunately for your peace of mind investments can fail. It's no violation of your rights to do something that lowers your property value. It's merely an application of the same principles stock brokers deal with constantly.

If you want a say in what happens, obtain at least partial ownership of the property. That means convincing the owner to give up part of their ownership. If you're unwilling to put that minimal effort in, you have excluded yourself from having a say in it. If you try and fail, I can respect you but I have little sympathy. Failure is a part of life. What you cannot do is violate their rights because you want something. We are adults, not children; Objectivism expects us to act like it.

I'm not a utopian. I fully acknowledge that an Objectivist society wouldn't necessarily be a nice one. After living near a paper mill, an airport, and a pork slaughterhouse, I can assure you you get used to it. It also has some advantages people don't usually consider. Sure, those aren't nice places to live--but when I lived near the paper mill I owned my home. That lower property value was easily worth the price of dealing with the oder.

 

[Dinwar]

But he's actively harmed me by destroying my property values

By that logic, anyone who causes a dip in any stock price should be in prison. Do you hold this to be true?

So how does this work when I lie to everyone as much as I can get away with about what I think is in my best interest?

Lying is never in your best interest. You can TRY, but remember, O'ists don't believe the government should be involved in social wellfare. When your scheme fails--and it inevitably will--you will be imprissoned for fraud and economically destroyed once you get out. Again, I'm not a utopian. I also have no problem with people getting what they earn. If you spend your life cheating people, I'm okay with you starving naked in the gutter.

 

[Akri]

So how does this work when I lie to everyone as much as I can get away with about what I think is in my best interest?

Fraud is still wrong according to Objectivism, and would be illegal in an Objectivist society.

Yes, and it also means I can rook people left and right in Objectivist World just by deciding to... which strikes me as an impossible-utopia sort of scenario.

You can do that now, with much the same results--if you don't get caught then you could become rich scamming people, and if you do get caught you would go to jail.

because now nobody wants to buy my house that previously was worth a great deal of money (which is what I paid for it).

You don't have a right to other people's money any more than you have a right to dictate what other people do on their land. If nobody wants to pay you for your land then tough. They get to turn down your offer the same way you could turn down theirs if they didn't offer a reasonable price.

Again, it looks like a sufficiently clever person can break the system; I build Ronossus, purchase up all the houses in view of Ronossus for pennies on the dollar, then demolish Ronossus and watch property values fly through the roof. Net gain to me: approximately $****LOTS.

Yes, you probably could do that (assuming you could get funding for a building that size without anybody actually wanting to, you know, USE it. I suppose if you were incredibly rich to start out you might be able to, but maybe not. It also assumes that people would be willing to buy houses there, knowing you might pull the same stunt again a few years later.) An Objectivist society would not be a utopia, as pretty much any Objectivist would tell you (there's a reason the philosophy considers things like court systems and police officers to be necessary).

Pretty sure this isn't what Objectivism is supposed to be about, but damned if the scenario described doesn't let me screw the people around me perfectly legally.

Can you describe a society in which it would not be possible to legally screw people in some way?

 

[Dinwar]

Actually, the scenario of building a building, destroying property values, buying them up, then demolishing the building is self-limiting. It may work once or twice, but that's it--after that, real estate investors would be watching for that kind of thing. And again, that's assuming you could absorb the cost of construction. I work with construction on a regular basis, and my family has for at least four generations. You want to do that, good luck. You're going to need an astronomical amount of start-up capital, and unless you make a HUGE profit on the property you buy you'll still lose money. Add to that the cost of the crap construction (cheap work always costs more, and you'll want cheap work), and your total profits will be minimal if they exist at all.

 

[remirol]

By that logic, anyone who causes a dip in any stock price should be in prison. Do you hold this to be true?

Irrelevant. There are a large number of homeowners' associations out there, voluntarily entered into by the residents, whose purpose is to provide a mechanism to initiate legal action against those in their community who are, by their own action or inaction, are causing nearby property values to drop. It is clear that society agrees that your neighbor letting their house turn to ruin, and as such causing your own home's value to drop, is a bad thing. Thus it stands: the Ronossus-builder is causing active harm to all those within view of Ronossus.

Lying is never in your best interest.

Yeah, don't count on that. If I can make more by cheating and getting away with it than I can in any other fashion, it's clearly in my best interest to take advantage of as many honest people as I can.

You can TRY, but remember, O'ists don't believe the government should be involved in social wellfare. When your scheme fails--and it inevitably will

I hate to break this to you, but people get away with things all the time, because the people assigned to watch over them are fallible. There's not only no "inevitably" about it, there's a significant doubt... especially since government not being involved in social welfare will remove a great deal of the regulations which currently prevent me.

Fraud is still wrong according to Objectivism, and would be illegal in an Objectivist society.

Big deal. My point is that it appears to be noticeably more trivial to screw people under Objectivism than it is under the current system, which makes Objectivism a big pile of fail.

You don't have a right to other people's money any more than you have a right to dictate what other people do on their land. If nobody wants to pay you for your land then tough. They get to turn down your offer the same way you could turn down theirs if they didn't offer a reasonable price.

So, since the Ronossus builder is allowed to reduce my property values in that fashion, why isn't he allowed to just come over and paint swastikas on my walls again? Is this only because we're using an artificially-limited definition of "property" which doesn't take into account things like Ronossus?

Yes, you probably could do that (assuming you could get funding for a building that size without anybody actually wanting to, you know, USE it. I suppose if you were incredibly rich to start out you might be able to, but maybe not. It also assumes that people would be willing to buy houses there, knowing you might pull the same stunt again a few years later.) An Objectivist society would not be a utopia, as pretty much any Objectivist would tell you (there's a reason the philosophy considers things like court systems and police officers to be necessary).

I'll have no trouble finding buyers; people are gullible and there's no shortage of fast talk that can be used to convince them I would never, EVER do it again. Especially if the property is (sans Ronossus) rather appealing in the first place. People will rationalize anything if they want something.

Can you describe a society in which it would not be possible to legally screw people in some way?

Irrelevant. The point is that it doesn't appear that Objectivism offers any advantages over the current system we have, and comes with some pretty significant drawbacks like having a lot more ways for smart people to screw over dumb people legally -- which our current society frowns on, and that's why things like car title loans and payday loans are illegal in many states.

How _does_ Objectivism view title and payday loans, BTW?

 

[Akri]

Add to that the cost of the crap construction (cheap work always costs more, and you'll want cheap work), and your total profits will be minimal if they exist at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the building was actually going to see long-term use then cheap work would be a problem--it would start to fall apart, stuff would break, etc. But if it's just going to be up for a few months and then demolished what's the issue? Or are you thinking it might fall over onto a house and cause a massive lawsuit?

 

[Roboramma]

Lying is never in your best interest.

Do you really believe that?

I'd like to discuss it further, but you may be simply exaggerating here, so I'd just like to be clear before wasting time arguing against a position that you don't actually hold.

 

[Akri]

Big deal. My point is that it appears to be noticeably more trivial to screw people under Objectivism than it is under the current system, which makes Objectivism a big pile of fail.

How so? Bear in mind that the context for this is the idea of committing fraud to screw people over, not doing things like the Ronossus example.

So, since the Ronossus builder is allowed to reduce my property values in that fashion, why isn't he allowed to just come over and paint swastikas on my walls again?

Because that would be vandalizing your property. He also would not be allowed to give you a beautiful mural that raised your property values by 1000% if you didn't give him permission. It has nothing to do with property value, and everything to do with ownership. You own your walls. You do not own the view from your front porch.

Is this only because we're using an artificially-limited definition of "property" which doesn't take into account things like Ronossus?

What definition of "property" would you recommend?

I'll have no trouble finding buyers; people are gullible and there's no shortage of fast talk that can be used to convince them I would never, EVER do it again. Especially if the property is (sans Ronossus) rather appealing in the first place. People will rationalize anything if they want something.

Maybe, maybe not. I didn't say your scheme COULDN'T work, only that it wasn't a guarantee. Again, nobody who understand Objectivism is claiming that it would lead to a utopian society.

Irrelevant.

You're claiming that the ability for people to screw each other over is a flaw with Objectivism. If every other society would have the same flaw then that means it's not an issue with Objectivism, but with society as a whole. I'd say that makes it relevent.

The point is that it doesn't appear that Objectivism offers any advantages over the current system we have

You can't conclude that from the conversation we're having, because we haven't been discussing whether or not Objectivism offers any advantages. We've been discussing two potential problems and how an Objectivist society would handle them. This is like if we were having a conversation about how in a democracy people may be convinced by propaganda to elect the worst leader, and so I declared that democracy offers no advantages over a monarchy.

 

[Myriad]

For the second quote, the answer is "whoever owns the land gets to decide what is built there". If the landowners want a giant ugly Ronald building, they can do so. If people nearby are unhappy with the idea they can try to change the company's mind (they could boycott McDonald's, or start a picket campaign or something) but they can't ultimately tell someone else he can't do something with his property just because it's big and ugly.

Recipe for a crapsack world.

Boycotting McDonalds has no effect because the company does business all over the world, no amount of local opposition will make a difference, and an ugly building in some far away city is not enough to get people to give up their Happy Meals. Not even if the building also blocks the main landing approach for the local municipal civilian airport.

But by the same token, the owners of Ronossus have no recourse when the airport decides to route planes right past the building anyhow. No one can tell them where they can and can't fly their planes!

Then, one foggy and windy day, the problem resolves itself, at the cost of one jetliner, one ugly building, and 8,000 lives (all of whom chose to work in a building that had planes flying past it 100 feet away every day, or chose to take a flight that they knew, or at least could have figured out had they investigated closely, would be flying close to a skyscraper while landing, so what's the problem?) Another scorching success for Objectivism!

The error is assuming that being able to make a choice means a better alternative is available. Air travelers who didn't want to risk the Ronossus landing could choose another airport... but the next closest airport is also unsafe, because the new transmitter for "radar-phone" service was built nearby and jams the airport's radar (if I own the land, I can emit whatever electromagnetic radiation from there that I want to, it's not as though the electromagnetic spectrum were some sort of commons, right?). Or you could take the roads hoping that none of the 2,400 toll booths en route would decide to charge the 20,000% "peak time premium" that day (it's my road and I can charge whatever I like, or you can just turn around, right?). Or if you want to be able to visit Mom without those risks, you can move closer to her... and work in Ronossus because that's where the only business in your line of work that's hiring in the area is located. In crapsack world, there are always alternatives but never any better ones.

Heck, you can't even stop your next-door neighbors from having noisy parties all night every night, because it's their land.

Wait, yes you can. There's a solution. You and your neighbors can sign a binding covenant that sets up rules you all agree to for mutual benefit. Such as, no noise after certain hours, and no putting up a toll booth on the part of the road that goes past your house, and no broadcast transmissions that overload everyone else's radios and TVs making them useless. Your right to enter into and participate in such a covenant is unrestricted, even if it's permanent and includes provisions that you cannot sell or transfer your property without the buyer also agreeing to the same covenant. If you breach the covenant, the courts will enforce it upon you at your neighbors' request.

I'm beginning to see the light here. If we want to prevent Ronossus, everyone in the city can sign a covenant, to agree to a set of rules that include, for instance, zoning restrictions and building height restrictions and requiring approval from an aesthetics committee to build buildings.

But... what if our Ronossus CEO doesn't want to sign the covenant? We can't force him to. No problem! We include, in the covenant, a provision that no signer is permitted to engage in any trade within the region with anyone who is not a signer. That includes permitting them to travel through your property. If everyone else signs, Mr. CEO can still use his land however he wants, but getting to and from his land requires the use of other people's land (there are no commons, remember) and so is not his right! Perhaps he can come and go by helicopter (as long as he keeps in mind that his abutters are free to aim lasers and loft large balloons on Kevlar tethers however they see fit from their own land, assuming their covenant permits it), but good luck to him getting his construction workers and materials to the site to build Ronossus, or expecting businesses or employees to come there to use the building. Thus, he can choose to keep the land but do nothing with it that he can't do with his own hands or those of a few people coming and going by helicopter, choose to sign the covenant himself and abide by its provisions when deciding what to build there, or sell the land.

That works so well, perhaps we could scale it up even more. There's no reason why everyone in the country couldn't choose to agree to a similar covenant!

Which means: the only thing standing between anyone right now, and living in a manner consistent with every principle of Objectivism, is for them to make a declaration stating:

By my free choice, I agree to be a citizen of [name of country], and to abide by the laws and governmental systems of that nation in perpetuity.

Of course, the government will just continue to enforce the laws on every citizen regardless of whether they've made that declaration or not.

And that's where we stand today. You can choose to personally assert the declaration above any time you want. Then, congratulations, you're living in a manner entirely consistent with Objectivist principles. If you do not, then that's your free choice and if you're a true Objectivist you have to accept the consequences without complaint.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Akri]

You could read Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, or a favourite of mine Bruno Latour.

I got bored and decided to go ahead and look into these guys a bit. Admittedly I didn't do very thorough research, so it's entirely possible that I missed something (and please correct me if I did), but none of them seem to deal with the idea of demonstrating ideas to be falsifiable in an unknowable universe. Their ideas all seem to involve looking at empirical evidence, which means acting as though the evidence is real, which in turn means not treating reality as unknowable.

 

[Dinwar]

Do you really believe that?

I thought we were discussing the Objectivist position. The Objectivist position is that lying is a form of evading reality, and therefore is wrong. The fact that you're not caught doesn't negate the damage you're doing to your epistemology, and the short-term gains don't negate the long-term damage.

As for my personal opinions, I think some lies are okay. If someone asks me "How are you?" I know they don't really care, so I'll answer "Good" even if I'm not good. It's not so much a lie, as a meaningless conversational bit. Or, if my wife asks me what I'm thinking I'll answer "Nothing", because I know she's not interested in experimental cladistics. And I have no problem lying to my wife about where her birthday gift is hidden or the like.

Also, we owe no moral obligation to those who violate our rights. There are limits, of course--you can't shoot someone who stole a penny--but I have no problem lying to murderers or rapists or the mob or the like. So perhaps a better way to put it would be "Lying to those who have not violated your rights is never in your best interest". Certainly the type of fraud remirol is fantasizing about is not in his best interests.

That said, Objectivism is big on caveat emptar. Sure, if you're guilty of fraud I can press charges. However, I'm also expected and required to use my own best judgement about the products and services I purchase. Again, O'ism expects us to act like adults--my safety is, fundamentally, my responsibility, and I can't abdicate that and just assume everyone's trustworthy.

This is the part O'ism's opponents ignore: just like any other philosophy, the application of the basic principles can get complex. You've got to think about it--which means we can't give the pithy answers some demand of us.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

It's a construction thing. You hire the cheap contractors, then they nickle and dime you to death with change orders. It's gotten so bad that a lot of companies will hire the second-lowest bidder to review all change orders. Then there are things like the loss of life during construction, downtime, and a host of other issues. Merely constructing a building big enough to be an eyesore bad enough to drive people away is an undertaking on a scale most people simply cannot fathom. Maintenance and use are other issues entirely, and issues I'm not discussing here.

remirol, I'm not going to bother refuting you point by point just now. Please determine if you want to discuss Objectivism, or society as it is now. You are not keeping this straight, and I refuse to chaise goal posts around like a terrier after a rat. Please pick one and stick to it. If you want to discuss how society views things, then Objectivism is not relevant to the conversation and you're in the wrong thread. If you want to discuss Objectivism, please stop telling me "This is how society currently views things". Until you straighten out those inconsistencies, discussing practical application of Objectivist ethics with you is impossible.

 

[remirol]

How so? Bear in mind that the context for this is the idea of committing fraud to screw people over, not doing things like the Ronossus example.

Yes. Within every society, there are those who attempt to screw people over for their own gain. I'm just looking at it from their perspective, rather than from someone who's trying to do the right thing.

Because that would be vandalizing your property. He also would not be allowed to give you a beautiful mural that raised your property values by 1000% if you didn't give him permission. It has nothing to do with property value, and everything to do with ownership. You own your walls. You do not own the view from your front porch.

And quickly we come around to the Tragedy of the Commons again, and how it appears that Objectivism doesn't handle it very well, if at all.

What definition of "property" would you recommend?

It's not so much the definition of that particular word, but more that the system doesn't recognize that it's possible to impinge on someone else's rights from your own property.

Maybe, maybe not. I didn't say your scheme COULDN'T work, only that it wasn't a guarantee. Again, nobody who understand Objectivism is claiming that it would lead to a utopian society.

And it doesn't look like it would even be an improvement over the society we have, either.

You're claiming that the ability for people to screw each other over is a flaw with Objectivism. If every other society would have the same flaw then that means it's not an issue with Objectivism, but with society as a whole. I'd say that makes it relevent.

Since Objectivism makes it easier to exploit that flaw, it is an issue with Objectivism.

The point is that it doesn't appear that Objectivism offers any advantages over the current system we have, and comes with some pretty significant drawbacks like having a lot more ways for smart people to screw over dumb people legally -- which our current society frowns on, and that's why things like car title loans and payday loans are illegal in many states.

How _does_ Objectivism view title and payday loans, BTW?

You can't conclude that from the conversation we're having,

Of course I can, I have, and I did; and the entire paragraph taken in context explains why. The drawback of making it easier for people to get screwed by those who are so inclined to take advantage of others is a major one IMO, and I can't see any advantages Objectivism might offer that would offset it.

 

[remirol]

remirol, I'm not going to bother refuting you point by point just now. Please determine if you want to discuss Objectivism, or society as it is now. You are not keeping this straight, and I refuse to chaise goal posts around like a terrier after a rat. Please pick one and stick to it. If you want to discuss how society views things, then Objectivism is not relevant to the conversation and you're in the wrong thread. If you want to discuss Objectivism, please stop telling me "This is how society currently views things". Until you straighten out those inconsistencies, discussing practical application of Objectivist ethics with you is impossible.

*snort* The way it is now is relevant because if you want to change things, there's going to have to be a reason to change. Imagining "wouldn't it be better if Objectivism" is pointless if getting to that point requires total cooperation from everyone at the same time (whoever posted that spam link, thank you, it's well phrased). So whatever situation we discuss, I'm most certainly going to contrast it with the way things are now, because if you can't manage a favorable comparison, then I can discard Objectivism as a big pile of fail.

Currently, we have things like HOAs because people want the benefits the HOAs provide, as annoying as the organizations can be in other ways. Similarly, if Objectivism has benefits, those should be contrasted against its flaws.

And quite frankly, if Objectivist ethics start from "nobody ever lies because it's against their best interests", then Kevin Lowe is completely right in refusing to waste time on the conversation, because reality doesn't work that way, never has, and never will. Some people will lie, cheat, and steal as much as they can get away with, and failure to acknowledge their existence is a major flaw.

 

[Dinwar]

It's not so much the definition of that particular word, but more that the system doesn't recognize that it's possible to impinge on someone else's rights from your own property.

This can only be called a lie. Objectivism certainly recognizes this, and I've pointed that out in this conversation numerous times. If you violate my rights, I can sue you. Where you and I disagree is in your interpretation of increasing property values as a right. I do not believe it is one. That fact that I disagree with you on the nature of rights IN NO WAY proves or even implies that I do not acknowledge rights, or the self-evident fact that rights can be violated, and it is, at this point, dishonest to attempt to say that I don't.

How _does_ Objectivism view title and payday loans, BTW?

You're obviously not paying attention to the conversation. It's simple: you can enter into contractual agreements. O'ism doesn't prevent you from being stupid. You make a bad call, you suffer for it. Of course, payday loans aren't always bad (they just usually are).

 

[Akri]

Boycotting McDonalds has no effect because the company does business all over the world, no amount of local opposition will make a difference, and an ugly building in some far away city is not enough to get people to give up their Happy Meals. Not even if the building also blocks the main landing approach for the local municipal civilian airport.

But by the same token, the owners of Ronossus have no recourse when the airport decides to route planes right past the building anyhow. No one can tell them where they can and can't fly their planes!

Actually, I believe air space could be owned the same way land is--so the airport would be able to halt the construction of Ronossus if it was going to be in airspace they owned for landing planes. Meanwhile if the owners of Ronossus owned the airspace around the building then planes would not be allowed to fly there without permission.

the next closest airport is also unsafe, because the new transmitter for "radar-phone" service was built nearby and jams the airport's radar (if I own the land, I can emit whatever electromagnetic radiation from there that I want to, it's not as though the electromagnetic spectrum were some sort of commons, right?)

I don't know how Objectivists would deal with this issue. Though one possible argument is that if you're interfering with someone's property (not property values, mind, but the property itself) then you're violating their rights and are in the wrong. But that's just an off-the-top-of-my-head guess. Dinwar will probably be able to provide a more accurate answer.

Or you could take the roads hoping that none of the 2,400 toll booths en route would decide to charge the 20,000% "peak time premium" that day (it's my road and I can charge whatever I like, or you can just turn around, right?).

If there's only one route to get somewhere important (or if one person owns all routes) then yes, this might happen. But if you have multiple routes owned by multiple people then you also have competition, which tends to drive prices down. And if one person does own all the roads (or if the road-owners all agree to fix prices or whatever) there's always the chance of someone else buying some land and building a new road, having a lower toll, and becoming filthy rich when everyone uses his road.

Another possibility is that the roads WOULDN'T be privately owned--everyone in a community could agree to pay for the construction and maintenance of a road or road system. That certainly wouldn't work in all situations, but probably would for some (neighborhoods, for example).

Or if you want to be able to visit Mom without those risks, you can move closer to her... and work in Ronossus because that's where the only business in your line of work that's hiring in the area is located. In crapsack world, there are always alternatives but never any better ones.

Sure, if you design the scenario so that the only options are bad ones then that's the result you're going to get.

I'll come back to the rest of your post later, if Dinwar doesn't beat me to it. The really really short version is that there are differences between a voluntary contract between individuals, and the laws of a government (quick note: laws WOULD exist under Objectivism, so this isn't an argument against the concept of laws).