Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    12 Mar '10 18:40
    Objectivism's strict requirements for absolute proof of crimes means they excuse the vast majority of crimes that have happened. If you can't prove it, it didn't happen, even if it really did happen. If you can't prove my money was stolen from you, too bad for you.

    It's a system that encourages money laundering. Agree?
  2. 12 Mar '10 19:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Objectivism's strict requirements for absolute proof of crimes means they excuse the vast majority of crimes that have happened. If you can't prove it, it didn't happen, even if it really did happen. If you can't prove my money was stolen from you, too bad for you.

    It's a system that encourages money laundering. Agree?
    A person finds a wallet with $50,000 in it on the street. There is no specific identification in the wallet. There are two options

    A). Take the wallet to the police department and have them do a thorough investigation to see if they can find anyone who's reported losing a wallet with a lot of money. And someone indeed comes in and is able to describe the exact shape of a stain inside the wallet. And you are extremely happy because you were able to find the owner of the wallet.

    B). Finders Keepers Losers Weepers

    I'm just wondering why objectivists seem to prefer option B.
  3. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    12 Mar '10 19:35
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    A person finds a wallet with $50,000 in it on the street. There is no specific identification in the wallet. There are two options

    A). Take the wallet to the police department and have them do a thorough investigation to see if they can find anyone who's reported losing a wallet with a lot of money. And someone indeed comes in and is able to describe t ...[text shortened]... Finders Keepers Losers Weepers

    I'm just wondering why objectivists seem to prefer option B?
    Proof please that objectivists prefer B)

    I'd even accept some stats from a reputable organisation.

    On what grounds do you make that accusation
  4. 12 Mar '10 19:45
    Define "absolute proof".
  5. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    12 Mar '10 19:50
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Define "absolute proof".
    Reasonable proof is ok, so as much as I hate stats and how they can be twisted I'm calling Mels bluff here and asking for some reputable stats for making the claim that Objectivists prefer option B)

    i.e. reasonable proof.
  6. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    12 Mar '10 20:19
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Reasonable proof is ok, so as much as I hate stats and how they can be twisted I'm calling Mels bluff here and asking for some reputable stats for making the claim that Objectivists prefer option B)

    i.e. reasonable proof.
    I think KN was replying to the OP with that question.
  7. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    12 Mar '10 20:31
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    I think KN was replying to the OP with that question.
    Right you are, my post directed at Mel stands though, there must be some basis for Mels claim that objectivists prefer option B) I'd like to know what that is.

    As for the OP, the 'absolute proof' thing is something ATY dreamed up by himself, so can't answer for that one.
  8. 12 Mar '10 21:37 / 3 edits
    I was using the "wallet" as an analogy.

    When you are born, you essentially receive a "wallet" from your family and community in the form of the food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education etc that you receive. Some are born into affluent situations and get many benefits. Others are born dirt poor and get almost nothing.

    The argument that you've presented is that "the past is what it is unless someone comes to me with absolute proof that any of those benefits could be traced back to someone's use of unjustifiable force." This is Option B - the Finders Keepers Losers Weepers position.

    The other option is to actively look back through your family's history to see if you can find examples where someone used unjustifiable force and to see if there are any ways you could make reparations. Maybe it turns out that you have descended from a line of saints and no one ever at any time did anything objectionable, but in all likelihood, you'd probably find many instances of specific abuses of power if you tried hard enough. You would then gladly make whatever reparations the situation demanded. This is Option A
  9. 13 Mar '10 05:11
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    I was using the "wallet" as an analogy.

    When you are born, you essentially receive a "wallet" from your family and community in the form of the food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education etc that you receive. Some are born into affluent situations and get many benefits. Others are born dirt poor and get almost nothing.

    The argument that you've p ...[text shortened]... u would then gladly make whatever reparations the situation demanded. This is Option A
    This proposed unraveling of your geneology is at best a fool's errand.

    My younger brother has been, as a hobby, tracing our family tree back to colonial days in Maine and Massachusetts. It is strictly for the sake of knowing our lineage, but to add the dimension of attempting to determine who might owe us money or other compensation, and who we might owe is mind boggling, and truly foolish to imagine as a real possibility. If we applied this to every family in America, no productive work would be done for decades, and in the end only lawyers would end up with any property.
  10. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    13 Mar '10 06:13
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Objectivism's strict requirements for absolute proof of crimes means they excuse the vast majority of crimes that have happened. If you can't prove it, it didn't happen, even if it really did happen. If you can't prove my money was stolen from you, too bad for you.

    It's a system that encourages money laundering. Agree?
    Alan Greenspan was, and may still be, a card-carrying Objectivist. Enough said.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    13 Mar '10 14:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Define "absolute proof".
    OK. I'll take back the "absolute".

    They want proof. What they mean by that I'm not sure. Is it proof that satisfies the objectivist? Proof that satisfies the courts? Proof that satisfies courts which the objectivist approves of? I'm not sure.

    Objectivists often seem to think that the legal system does immoral things in an objectivist sense (welfare, etc), so I'm not sure who gets to evaluate this proof besides the one who benefits from disproving it.

    Wajoma, please define "reasonable proof".
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    13 Mar '10 14:14
    I'll point out again that this idea of sweeping past crimes under the rug but keeping the wealth stolen is what motivated the Axis and motives Israel's expansion today.
  13. 13 Mar '10 14:18
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    OK. I'll take back the "absolute".

    They want proof. What they mean by that I'm not sure. Is it proof that satisfies the objectivist? Proof that satisfies the courts? Proof that satisfies courts which the objectivist approves of? I'm not sure.

    Objectivists often seem to think that the legal system does immoral things in an objectivist sense (w ...[text shortened]... es the one who benefits from disproving it.

    Wajoma, please define "reasonable proof".
    So if you don't know the stance of objectivists, why are you making claims about it?
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    13 Mar '10 14:22
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So if you don't know the stance of objectivists, why are you making claims about it?
    Because their instinctive response to injustices done in the past is "prove it". I want to know what they mean by this. In my experience this is one of their common phrases, and usually used in such a way as to dismiss claims of past crimes and defend the wealth of the wealthy.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    13 Mar '10 14:28 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So if you don't know the stance of objectivists, why are you making claims about it?
    Normally, the burden of proof is on the government to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you've committed a crime.

    http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture54.shtml


    "Reasonable proof" is not good enough for objectivists. Wajoma is wrong. It has to be beyond reasonable. Thus my "absolute proof" comment.

    This is somewhat similar to the more common "socialistic democracy" requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt when prosecuting an individual, but such societies do not stop there. These societies accept that some criminals will get away with their crimes. This rigid requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt is intended to keep innocents out of prison.

    These societies provide social programs to help minimize the impact of those crimes that slip through the cracks. Objectivists want to open those cracks up so they can slip through them.