Egoist shouldn't be forced to testify against themselves...

I was listening to Leonard Peikoff's podcast #20. The topic came up about the foundation of why shouldn't an objective require someone to testify against themselves. (Basically, the question was to justify the self-incrimination part of the 5th amendment of the US constitution)

The gist of Dr. Peikoff's reply was (my words, not so much his) "as an egoist, why should I help you convict me?"

I find I have lots of "mental baggage" from my past that I still need to sort out. This feels like one of those areas. My first response has been "actually, the need for this is to prevent people from being tortured" as people will say anything once you threaten them with or inflict upon them sufficient pain and anguish. This torture view, of course, seems to rely upon the possibility that painful torture is not such a commonplace thing these days.

Maybe sleep will help...
rootie

Justice delivered...

Anyone who ignores the recommended age rating on a child's toy should have to deal with the consequences. This is simple justice, giving the person what they deserve.

More specifically, anyone who obtains a large Transformer toy (5+) that requires 18 separate steps, some with 3 sub-steps, to transform between automobile and AutoBot, and gives that toy to a 4 year old should have to deal with the specific requests to "turn it back into a car" "turn it into a robot" "turn it into a car" etc.

Yes, that would be justice. In this case, self-served justice... ;)

rootie
ps. I can't yet do it blindfolded...

The collectivist ball and chain?

(side note: as a mere student of Objectivism, I will explicitly make the claim that this is not vetted nor reviewed by any of the Objectivists I know, so might be seriously at odds with Rand's views)

The ball and chain was used both as a restraint against escape and a punishment. By various web accounts, the ball weighed between 12 and 30 pounds. Definitely not something anyone would want to drag behind them.

Is it at least partially a collectivist viewpoint to insist that government do what's good for the collective, or in the words from a comment on this post: what's good for "the health of Americans as a whole"? The commenter included a reason why:

most people are stupid and have blind trust in the government to save them from
things that are bad because they don't have the time to look out for themselves
or just aren't smart enough to realize that they are killing themselves

The net of this line of argument was that one reason government exists is to protect the health and presumably welfare of its citizens who are too stupid, inattentive, or lazy to protect their own health and welfare.

Before slipping on that shackle, let me ask, how much protection is enough? Do you know all 4,000 federal laws, or those of you in Colorado, all 30,000 laws? At what cost are these laws created, and maintained? What services is the government providing us for the roughly 18% of our GDP they take? Is 18% enough of a ball and chain for our economy?

Going one step more, I've seen argued elsewhere that as gene-bearing animals, we are better at distributing our genes when we protect the "weaker" among us with social programs. If you must take this biologically based collectivist position ("tax one for the benefit of all") consider this: how much healthier a species we would be if every member of the herd was strong, healthy, independent, rational, and attentive to the world around themselves? Which collective is thriving best, the one with the resources of 1 in 5 people directed by government directive (force) to inefficient and wasteful programs, or the one with strong healthy individuals trading to meet their needs in a competitive free market?

That ball and chain is so tempting, because, after all, it's "free" money. It isn't free -- we pay for every penny of it and then some. Freedom for the individual is good for the health of the herd.

rootie

Life's little lessons #4807

I had the occasion this past week to be out biking just at sunset. It was a wonderful enjoyable ride, the setting sun bright orange, the air cooling from the day's heat, and me zooming down the trail on my bike, weaving quickly through the brush.

We interrupt the blog post for a brief pause to enjoy the scene... wheee! Whoosh! Aahhhh... aaackkk...cough...cough. Ew!

This little post brought to you as a reminder, that swarms of small insects also enjoy the cool evening air, and said swarms may linger at head level over cross-country trails.

There are certain advantages to not breathing through your mouth at this time of day. :-P

rootie

my 300 virtual slaves working around the clock

Why is it that we have the life that we do? Houses and yards suitable to be an estates, fancy cars, every imaginable electrical convenience and distraction (even battery operated, portable!), modern medical science cures for diseases that have killed millions.

I'll chalk my wonderful life up to the 300 people who are working around the clock to be sure that I am successful. This figure comes from the Mineral Information Institute, each American consumes energy roughly the equivalent to 300 people working around the clock to support their lives.

While I am sure you can find all sorts of minor quibbles over the accuracy of the numbers, the difference between equivalent energy of 200 and 400 people doesn't change the result that we use energy, and lots of it, to improve our lives, to make them better than they were even as recently 200 years ago.

I'm not sure I agree with the 12 pounds of salt per person per year...I don't think I eat that much ice cream. *yum*

rootie

The difference between speeds and gear ratios :)

Assuming there are no repeated gear ratios, (I haven't checked) my mountain bike has 24 combinations of front and rear sprockets for faster and slower riding conditions. In my experience, my bike really has only four speeds:

1. Pant, pant, pant -- what brainiac had the idea to ride up this friggin hill?



2. Ahhh, this is nice.



3. Wahoo!



4. Ohshitohshitohshit!!!

I recently had the chance to ride partway up the trail towards the Bench Lakes, where all of the above speeds were attained, sometimes in rapid succession. This trail is what I would consider a "technical" mountain bike trail, and I've heard the term "rock garden" applied in similar contexts. Here's a view of a smooth part (from my photo archive):

Note the 10" tall rock center frame, now imagine 2 miles of them scattered in 1-10 foot intervals, randomly separated by tree roots and the occasional pile of horse droppings.

I had set out with the goal to find a close viewpoint to Mt Heyburn suitable for future sunrise photography. Unfortunately, speeds #1 and #4 dominated the ride, and so I ran out of time and had to return before finding a good view.

After spending 4-5 miles struggling to keep my balance over and around the many obstacles, I noticed later that day that I was better able to stop and balance when my son suddenly stopped unexpectedly on his tricycle. It would appear that the practice balancing on and around rocks helped. Now if I can just figure out a way to get paid for the practice!

happy pedaling!

rootie

No conflicts between men...?

Diana over at Noodlefood opened the comments of one of her posts for whatever wild hairs happened among the crowd.

I didn't have the most eloquent (nor most grammatically correct) comment, which could be summarized as asking the question whether conjoined twins would violate the supposedly objectivist idea that there are no conflicts between men. Burgess followed up with (my paraphrase) "watchyoutalkinboutwillis" ? With Diana's permission, I'm bringing this discussion home where it can have "top level" visibility.

Let me start by setting the record straight. OPAR pg 236, "there are no conflicts of interest between rational men". This is clearly not the same thing as the wording I used for the preceding idea: "no conflicts between men".

Having stated the semi-officially accepted view of at least one champion of objectivism, back to the original comment and why I found it interesting. Are there conflicts of interest between rational conjoined twins? (more disclosure: I am not suggesting any connection whatsoever between the Hensel twins and objectivism, nor trying to say anything about their personal, philosophical, or political beliefs -- I don't have any clue where they stand -- I did find their situation to be very thought provoking as a means of exploring the world, concepts and terminology around me).

I don't have an answer to the question, but here's my thinking so far. First some definitions / context:

1. Assume capacity for full human rationality exists independently in each twin. "man qua man"
2. Assume for biological system reasons the twins don't want to be or cannot be separated. (this may need to be considered independently)
3. Recognize that even "identical" twins have differences in wants, desires, abilities and goals.

Can there be a conflict of interest between them? Depends on what you mean by "conflict of interest", maybe? Rand wrote John Galt in Atlas Shrugged "I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." By that interpretation and the prior context, for each independent conscious entity to pursue their own interests, it can be expected that the interests will not always perfectly align, it is then a question of who yields their interest. (deliberately implied conflict)

Conjoined twins have a special relationship to the world and reality, that of two independent consciousness entities and one physical entity. Those of you who will claim that I am separating the mind and the body to create a mind-body dichotomy or dualist approach should stop now for that isn't my intent -- it really is a single physical entity with two independent consciousnesses, two independent sets of sensation and perception, two independent consciousnesses (faculties of perceiving that which exists). If one head turns right and the other left, no knowledge will be shared between them of the perceptual level nor conceptual level of the scene they each see. It is not until they communicate externally that the knowledge is transmitted. It isn't quite "man qua man" instead "conjoined-twins qua conjoined twins". (I will grant exceptions for chemical processes in a shared circulatory system, but awareness of a racing heart is not knowledge of the perceptual/conceptual cause). Whisper a joke to one, and the other will not be able to repeat it.

As ct-qua-ct, it would be rational for each to realize that the best flourishing possible for the physical entity will be to use the individual skills and abilities of the independent parts to best effect. This may include an imbalance in skills utilization. It also is in the best interest to not allow any part of the physical entity (including the other consciousness) to suffer neglect or abuse -- this for the same reasons rational (non-twin) entities don't cut off fingers or toes, or neglect personal sanitation.

What would seem to be a potential for conflict between "consciousness entities" must be resolved as what is best for the physical entity and both consciousnesses as a whole. While this may entail some debate between the minds as to what constitutes "best", the overall solution, it should be possible to resolve this as a discussion of goals, not an inherent conflict in interest. (deliberately denied conflict of interest)

What about a substantially unequal distribution of skills and abilities between the twins? Let each contribute according to their ability. This is not much different than the distinction of independently physical entities. Each person does what is in their rational best interest to the best of their ability. Due to their special form, conjoined twins have a special relationship to reality that will make some of their rational decisions different than those of non-conjoined twins or other independent individuals in similar circumstances.

Ultimately, I think objectivism's view of "no conflicts of interest between rational men" is upheld. The nature of some of the definitions change ("qua man" vs "qua conjoined twin"), but the overall principle of rational egoism definitely still applies.

rootie