Ayn Rand Philosophy, Objectivism, Science, Self-interest

[wufwugy]

Each individual most likely knows best what his goals are, my point is he often doesn't know how to get there. Also, I'm not convinced that setting "policies" (whether through regulations or dynamically through free markets) for each individual based on their unique preferences is better for the society as a whole than setting them with collective goals in mind. Free market may be more effective, but it doesn't ensure movement in the right direction, collectively speaking.

Who are these angels that can ensure movement in the right direction?

[CoccoBill]

Who are these angels that can ensure movement in the right direction?

No one. Figuring out the right path and the correct steps to get there is science. I far trust the collective human knowledge and understanding here over individuals.

[wufwugy]

No one. Figuring out the right path and the correct steps to get there is science. I far trust the collective human knowledge and understanding here over individuals.

Do you find it ironic that science is fundamentally free market?

Since you do not want individuals with too much power, why do you support a system that explicitly requires a set of individuals having too much power?

Is there room for a different system, one that has demonstrated uncountable times over, that it engages human knowledge and understanding better than any others yet tried?

[CoccoBill]

Do you find it ironic that science is fundamentally free market?

Since you do not want individuals with too much power, why do you support a system that explicitly requires a set of individuals having too much power?

Science is a method, not an economic or political system, I think your analogy is misplaced.

I'm not sure I think members of government have too much power. Some exceptions may exist. No one should have too much power, but some people should have more power than others.

[wufwugy]

Science is a method, not an economic or political system, I think your analogy is misplaced.

Why is it that free market principles are required to ensure the integrity and robustness of science yet not economics or politics (especially since economics and politics are sciences)? What is special about government that keeps those who have its power from needing to be challenged?

I'm not sure I think members of government have too much power. Some exceptions may exist. No one should have too much power, but some people should have more power than others.

Many members of government have significantly more power than any members of private enterprise. If what you want is more human knowledge and less rule by individual decree, how does supporting monopoly power and opposing competition amongst the people do that?

[CoccoBill]

Why is it that free market principles are required to ensure the integrity and robustness of science yet not economics or politics (especially since economics and politics are sciences)? What is special about government that keeps those who have its power from needing to be challenged?

Which principles are these exactly? A government certainly needs a way to keep those in power in check, CoccoBillistan would probably be either ruled by a benevolent informed dictator (me), or have much stricter rules on re-elections, oversight ans transparency as current governments. The priorities get skewed if there are career politicians more interested in getting re-elected than doing their job, and external influence (campaign finance etc) should be weeded out, for example. New employees are great for companies because they bring experience and fresh ideas, but that effect is typically exhausted in a few years. After that it's better they find a new job and a fresh recruit replaces him. Same should happen in the government, if representatives and senators served say max 4 years, they might even have an incentive to get shit done.

Many members of government have significantly more power than any members of private enterprise. If what you want is more human knowledge and less rule by individual decree, how does supporting monopoly power and opposing competition amongst the people do that?

That's debatable, the Kochs for example probably wield effective power quite similar to top brass in government. Without a government they would be the de facto government. POTUS is probably a fairly big exception, but the POTUS has significantly more relative power than his colleagues in other countries. I'm in no way against individual freedom, quite the contrary, I have fairly libertarian views when it comes to regulating individuals. If someone's actions affect only themselves they should be free to do as they please, but if they affect others, regulations are IMO needed.

[a500lbgorilla]

Which principles are these exactly?

Ditto

[wufwugy]

Which principles are these exactly?

Science is decentralized and unregulated. There is no rules committee that assigns the rules by which science must be conducted. I believe that if this were proposed, scientists, nearly without exception, would oppose it, because they have first hand experience with how important it is that science be open to all and have no bias. A regulatory bureaucracy that oversees conduction of science would very quickly spell the end of its integrity. Data would become unreliable and discovery would come to a halt.

The free reality of science allows it to exist on the merits instead of by decree. Things that are repeatable are kept and everything else is discarded. Bureaucracies do not have this. They are by nature prohibiting of the kind of openness and merit that science has in peer review and experimentation.

A government certainly needs a way to keep those in power in check, CoccoBillistan would probably be either ruled by a benevolent informed dictator (me), or have much stricter rules on re-elections, oversight ans transparency as current governments.

The bold are mutually exclusive. Who conducts the oversight? Who keeps their power in check?

This dilemma is why even the most theoretically egalitarian government tried -- communism -- resulted in virtual dictatorial bureaucracies at the tippy top. The only way I've found to keep powers in check is the kind constructed in the United States Constitution: explicit prohibition of government intrusion into citizen space. This is where ideals of freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and religion come from. These ideals became a part of civilization through the idea that liberty does not come from government granting it, but that liberty comes from governments prohibiting themselves from infringing upon natural liberties of humans. Today, we take these liberties for granted. I hope that instead we would learn the lesson that since liberties that we today take for granted came from government prohibiting its own intrusion, we should make government further prohibited from intrusion for other things.

The priorities get skewed if there are career politicians more interested in getting re-elected than doing their job, and external influence (campaign finance etc) should be weeded out, for example.

This "external influence" is the people. Take away the ability for people to finance campaigns however they see fit, and you will have created a ruling class of a small number of political insiders. This is because the barrier to entry to politics would be astronomical. This is the type of thing seen in the many communist countries that all failed. Finance from the people was prohibited and the ruling party basically became God.

Take a look at the last few years of elections in America. The narrative that the rich buy elections is dead.

New employees are great for companies because they bring experience and fresh ideas, but that effect is typically exhausted in a few years. After that it's better they find a new job and a fresh recruit replaces him. Same should happen in the government, if representatives and senators served say max 4 years, they might even have an incentive to get shit done.

This is an idea worth thinking about. I can't say one way or another what the ramifications would be. I suspect that it would probably be good since it would probably greatly diminish the ability for government to intrude into peoples' lives.

That's debatable, the Kochs for example probably wield effective power quite similar to top brass in government. Without a government they would be the de facto government.

Are you arguing that the Kochs currently wield similar power to top powers in the government or that if there was no government then the Kochs would start acting like a government? Those are two different things.

The Kochs do not hold power; they only have some ability to lobby. Do you think it would be better if the Kochs had no ability to lobby and those with power had only to answer to those with power? Many have the ability to lobby, many rival the Kochs, and the lobbying done by organizations representing "the people" have even more influence that people like the Kochs. Us having voices is not what's wrong, but the government having the ability to favor one voice over another is. It is still the case that no Koch and no NRA put people in prison, raid homes in search of weed, nor fine people for working without paying licensing fees.

Governments receive revenues from taxes; this is fundamentally different than entities that receive revenues from consumer choice. Governments hold their tax power by legitimacy, i.e., they are viewed legitimate in the eyes of the citizenry at large, so there is little revolt. In the absence of government, the Kochs wouldn't come close to having this. This topic can go a lot of directions, and I don't really want to go into them, but the point I want to make is that the idea that the Kochs would be the de facto government in the absence of government is assuming something that isn't there. If the Kochs did become a government, it would be by way of them and entire regions of people deciding to set their businesses aside and instead become government. It's not the Kochs we'd have to worry about in this scenario; it's large swaths of people who want to take other peoples' stuff and are afraid of their stuff being taken. The Kochs would actually be primary targets. Governments tend to arise from populism, and populism typically targets the rich.

POTUS is probably a fairly big exception, but the POTUS has significantly more relative power than his colleagues in other countries. I'm in no way against individual freedom, quite the contrary, I have fairly libertarian views when it comes to regulating individuals. If someone's actions affect only themselves they should be free to do as they please, but if they affect others, regulations are IMO needed.

I'm glad you said this. Do you think it is reasonable that those who should have regulatory power should also have familiarity with the topics at hand? If so, does this suggest that only those affected by decisions should have say in decisions?