The Basis for Individual Rights (Emphasis on Children’s Rights) (Show 058)

Published
by
Brandon
on May 5, 2008
in Rights and Show Notes
. 5 Comments

Show 058 is a follow-up to last week’s show on children’s rights. This time around Arthur gives us his two cents on the topic. He starts the discussion by going to the heart of the issue, the basis of rights, and identifying the facts of reality that give rise to them. In order to prevent any rationalistic view of rights (the idea that rights exist as some kind of other-worldly entity/Platonic form), he examines and makes the context clear.

After a thorough and thought-provoking analysis, Arthur considers how children rights differ from those of adults. He discusses how children are dependent on their parents to survive since their rational faculty is not fully developed, and what implications this has for rights. Acknowledging that the fine details are not for philosophy to answer (but rather the philosophy of law), he gave his general views as to what rights children have and how the law should protect them.

This was an excellent and entertaining show, so I hope you check it out. If you have any comments, feel free to post here or join us next week on TalkShoe.

Also, I just wanted to note that there is now a talkObjectivism facebook group. If you like the show, join up!

Children’s Rights (Show 057)

Published
by
Brandon
on April 29, 2008
in Rights and Show Notes
. 0 Comments

Spinning off from a comment about “the common good,” Mosley discusses children’s rights and to what extent they have them. He walks through various questions about the topic such as:

  • What does a parent owe his or her child?
  • Does a child have the right run his or her own life contrary to parents’ wishes?
  • At what point does a child become an adult?
  • Does a child have the right to an education?
  • What constitutes neglect (by a parent)?

Check out the show for Mosley’s views and feel free to leave a comment or join the next show if you have some views that you’d like to share!

Drugs, Alcohol & Addiction (Show 056)

Published
by
Brandon
on April 20, 2008
in Show Notes
. 0 Comments

Because today is 4/20, commonly known as “Weed Day” (among other things), this show was about drugs, alcohol & addiction. It began as Arthur read a quote from Dr. Peikoff’s Q & A about the issue of smoking and drinking explaining how the morality of its use is dependent on the context (see the Q & A/show for details). After discussing that, Mosley and Arthur proceeded to discuss a topic not directly mentioned in Peikoff’s Q & A, illegal drugs.

Then, for a good portion of the show, there was a discussion about drug addiction and its relation to free will. It was concluded that although one may experience compulsions, withdrawal symptoms, etc., anything that requires the use of concepts is necessarily volitional. For example, a drug addict may become biologically dependent on a drug, but he could willfully ignore this necessity, should he choose to.

And since 4/22 is near, a day conventionally known as Earth Day, Mosley decided to end the show with a mention of a new holiday invented to contrast with the environmentalists’ celebration: Exploit the Earth Day. The premise behind it? “Exploit the Earth or Die™. It’s not a threat. It’s a fact. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies.”

The Common Good & Mixed Economies (Show 055)

Published
by
Brandon
on April 13, 2008
in Show Notes
. 2 Comments

On this show Mosley discusses three interrelated topics: the common good/public interest and mixed economies. To set the context for the discussion, he reads some relevant quotes from the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

The Common Good & The Public Interest:

“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.

Mixed Economy

We are not a capitalist system any longer: we are a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of capitalism and statism, of freedom and controls. A mixed economy is a country in the process of disintegration, a civil war of pressure-groups looting and devouring one another.

Mosley then proceeds to the discussion the manifestations of these issues in the world today. Check it out!

Shows 053 & 054

Published
by
Brandon
on April 6, 2008
in Capitalism, Politics, Rights and Show Notes
. 3 Comments

Hello all, sorry for the delay in show notes. I was away for Spring Break this past week, but I’m back and so are the notes.

The Open Mind vs. The Active Mind (Show 053)
Mosley and Arthur discuss the term the expression “having an open mind” and what it actually means. They argue that having an “open mind” is not being open to reason, but disregarding it. It consists of granting equal plausibility to any claim, regardless of any knowledge that one may have that contradicts it. And so, they conclude, one should not have an “open mind” but rather an active mind. Their view corresponds with Ayn Rand’s position.

Corporate Responsibility/States’ Rights (Show 054)
Show 054 consisted of an excellent discussion of two topics suggested by a listener. The first topic dealt with how responsibility should fall on, and how justice should be served amongst, a corporation. The second topic dealt with states’ rights. I won’t try to rehash the arguments here. It was a great show and I highly recommend it.

Listener Questions & Comments (Show 052)

Published
by
Brandon
on March 24, 2008
in Capitalism, Objectivism, Politics and Show Notes
. 0 Comments

For this show, Mosley and Arthur responded to some of the listener questions and comments.

The first was a question posted on the website asking, “Speaking of capitalism, where are the Google ads?” Mosley explained that he does not use them on talkObjectivism because he would have little to no control over what would appear and does not wish to advertise for sites antithetical to Objectivism.

The second comment was from a listener who kindly inquired about Show 013 which seems to have been mysteriously replaced by another show, from another TalkCast, that is extremely vulgar. Mosley has contacted TalkShoe and is currently working to restore the original show.

For the remainder of the show, Mosley and Arthur discussed a post on talkObjectivism.com regarding Show 049. The essence of the post is contained in his statement saying, “I don’t know how you guys came to the conclusion that the Left would do less damage to Objectivism.” Mosley and Arthur do an excellent job of outlining the points why the Republicans are far more dangerous to Objectivist ideals in the long-run than the Democrats. For anyone still unclear about this, I would also highly recommend listening to Show 049 and reading Diana Hsieh’s post on the matter.

Capitalism Revisited (Show 051)

Published
by
Brandon
on March 17, 2008
in Capitalism and Show Notes
. 1 Comment

For show 051, Mosley starts by reading a quote from the essay What is Capitalism? in “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand. He then elaborates on this, discussing the basic nature of capitalism and its practical significance in our lives. Here is the quote below:

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

So what do you think? Do you have any arguments against capitalism? Feel free to share. This is a forum for people to express their thoughts and maybe learn something new.

Listen to this show and more at Talkshoe.


Powered by TalkShoe

Business & Integrity (Show 050)

Published
by
Brandon
on March 9, 2008
in Capitalism and Show Notes
. 5 Comments

Not until after the show did we realize, that this is our 50th show and that talkObjectivism has been around for about a year now! I know, it’s crazy! But I digress.

This show started with a discussion on an essay from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal entitled “The Assault on Integrity” by Alan Greenspan (who is no longer associated with Objectivism). Mosley gave the following excerpt which captures the essence of the essay:

Protection of the consumer against “dishonest and unscrupulous business practices” has become a cardinal ingredient of welfare statism. Left to their own devices, it is alleged, businessmen would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings. Thus, it is argued, the Pure Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the numerous building regulatory agencies are indispensable if the consumer is to be protected from the “greed” of the businessman.

But is it precisely the “greed” of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking, which is the unexcelled protector of the consumer.

Today’s common conceptions of greed and selfishness are wrong. There is nothing “selfish” about cheating and stealing from others in order to get as much as you can today, the short-term, while ruining any chance of earning more in the future, the long-term. Rather, this is destructive to the self, destroying not only any future potential for profit, but one’s integrity and self-esteem.

After discussing this, Mosley goes on to provide examples of the free-market at work and how regulation is not necessary when businessmen are truly greedy. He also mentions the topic for next week’s show, the introductory essay from C:TUI called “What is Capitalism?” We hope you’ll join us.

Also, we wanted to thank Mrs. Diana Hsieh for her gracious mention of the show on her blog, which I highly recommend. She updates it frequently with things that are both entertaining and educational, which will likely be of interest to any Objectivist or Student of Objectivism.

Listen to this show and more at Talkshoe.


Powered by TalkShoe

No Show This Week

Published
by
Brandon
on February 29, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

Hello, everyone. Mosley will be on a trip celebrating his birthday this weekend so there will be no show this Sunday. The show will return on March 9th. Thanks for listening!! And happy birthday, Mosley!!

The Coming Election (Show 049)

Published
by
Brandon
on February 26, 2008
in Capitalism, Economics, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Objectivism, Politics, Religion, Rights and Show Notes
. 3 Comments

Show 049 was an excellent discussion about the coming U.S. presidential election. Arthur explained his views starting with this question: Which party will do the least damage to Objectivist ideals? (I will try to summarize what he said, but please listen to the show for his own words.)

The Republicans essentially stand for religion. They consistently try to mix faith with government, of which even small amounts can be disastrous, and will lead to a theocracy. Furthermore, their religious altruistic beliefs conflict with the self-interest morality necessitated by capitalism, which they claim to defend. Because of this, they’re misrepresenting capitalism, making it disreputable and therefore harder to realize.

The Democrats stand for a disintegrated attempt at socialism (or pieces of it). But since the fall of the Soviet Union, communism and socialism are no longer the threat they once were. It has been demonstrated that such systems are horrendous. Moreover, since the Democrats’ views are disintegrated, they can not achieve long term success. So, in order to give Objectivism time, it makes the most sense to throw out the bigger threat, the Religious Right, and vote for the Democrats.

Many Objectivists will bring up a third option. What about the Libertarians? The Libertarians say they stand for liberty, but they have an anti-philosophical approach. Their guiding “principle” is the non-initiation of force, but without a proper underlying philosophy, no one can say what initiating force consists of. Politics is a derivative of ethics and must be treated as such. Otherwise, capitalism will continue to be misrepresented, which is immensely destructive. (For those interested, there is also a discussion of Ron Paul on the show.)

It was a great show and I highly recommend you listen to it. You may want to read Diana Hsieh’s post on the election as well.

Listen to this show and more at Talkshoe.


Powered by TalkShoe