Putting Theory Above Facts
Posted by deleted 10 years, 5 months ago to Science
I think of objectivism as a guide to living. I do not think it answers every foreseeable issue man encounters, though it address many of them from a objective (i.e. reality- or fact-based) understanding. I do not think that Ayn Rand intended us to take her word as gospel, much less those of any of the other proponents of her philosophy. Yet I find time and again on galtsgulchonline.com that a quick and easy answer is given to my posts and others, one that is taken as gospel, or even as a commandment. For example, environment. I find it strange that natural resource law is a forbidden topic. There are fish in the sea and fisherman themselves comply with laws restricting over-fishing. Is this somehow non-objective? No. It's about long-term self-interest. So how is it possible that climate change is a question of collectivism versus individualism? Here's a hint: It is not that! It is an argument from a scientific perspective! At least someone had the good sense to discredit it from a logical, scientific basis (i.e. trees use carbon dioxide to breathe). Others just discard it as "collectivist". Is it necessarily true that because collectivists argue that it is occurring that is isn't? That plays into the strength of the collectivist argument! The issue is how to formulate a proper solution to the problem! Property rights is one approach. So don't be surprised when your tax dollars pay from dams in Bangladesh. Where property rights do not hold, where we don't own the thing (i.e. air, ocean), then scientific arguments should dominate! Animals don't have rights, but if you still want to eat your swordfish at a nice restaurant, I suggest we cultivate some understanding that some issues do not relate to private property due to the nature of their existence! Like oceans. Like air. Ideas themselves cannot be protected like property can. Once you say it to someone without having properly protected it (patents and copyrights), that's it. You can ask for a donation. The point being, when it comes to IP, special rules apply. And when it comes to climate change, we should view the problem as scientific and not individual, due to the nature of the problem. Human beings improve their environment, always have. It's the basis of our existence on earth and wherever else we might go. Climate change is not about your right to buy a car, to buy gas, or anything else. It is about making an ethical decision as an individual. If you tell me the science doesn't add up and cite your arguments, that is fine with me. I would point you to Alex Epstein, but I would not have to write this lengthy polemic. It is when you discount something as "collectivist" or communistic" when ownership is undefined, that you are stealing the concept of ownership. You are putting "theory" above facts. And may Aristotle shame you!
The "open ocean" suffers from the tragedy of the commons. Privatize it, and that all goes away. I note, though, that many of our ideas about property are derived from our history on the land (and on a flat Earth). In fact, property rights should be three-dimensional. You should be able to own a volume of the undersea or a volume of the sky.
Global warming is a whole other problem. The world might be warming. That does not translate to my giving up my washing machine -- or denying a washing machine to one-third of the world. (See here Hans Rosling's TED Talk on the magic of the washing machine: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling...
Whether the world is warming or not is a whole other issue.
More deeply, I suggest that facts do not matter. I mean that people tend to accept the credentials of "authorities" they agree with and denigrate the credentials of those whom they deny. See "Why Evidence is Not Enough" http://www.motherjones.com/files/kaha...
You cannot rationally argue someone out of a position that they were not rationally argued into in the first place.
(PS: You can edit your original post to put Line Feeds between your thoughts, creating paragraphs.)
"Ideas themselves cannot be protected like property can. Once you say it to someone without having properly protected it (patents and copyrights)," Wrong. Next!
Claims of theory and evidence are poor and anecdotal.
The spread of this pernicious view is based on the self interests of scientists (as they call themselves) working in the field whose incomes (from government money) depend on propagating the scare, manufacturers of solar and wind generators and a vast industry of consultants and purveyors of tosh whose income would likewise collapse without government money.
They have an important ally, the public (the sheeple) who follow the propaganda and want to save the planet. Rand has explained and illustrated how this altruism is mad bad and harmful not only to those who push it but to those who it is meant to benefit. The entire chattering class are believers, the press who love scares, and governments who are always eager to justify higher taxes and who claim the moral high ground in saving the planet.
This so called climate-change does not require any scientific case for refutation as it is not a scientific issue rather than a problem with the power of the chattering classes who have this control / influence over governments and media.
The chattering classes are strongly collectivist, they love mass movements, they require all actions to follow debate and vote before decision, directly opposite from property rights and the specialist knowledge and experience that individual responsibility provides.
The cure is simple. The foolish aspects inherent in human nature, mainly the need for approval by joining even a suicidal herd, and short term self-interest will always be with us. Cutting government money would reduce it to the fringe like creationism where it belongs.