SOLO-NZ Press Release: Folate Folly Foiled!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2009-07-20 01:59

SOLO-NZ Press Release: Folate Folly Foiled!

July 20, 2009

The National/Act government is to be congratulated on dumping a piece of food-fascism it inherited from the previous government, says SOLO Principal Lindsay Perigo.

A trans-Tasman deal struck by the socialist government of Helen Clark would have required bakers to add folic acid to bread, bagels, crumpets and English muffins. Now, National has secured New Zealand's exemption from that part of the deal for three years at least.

"There can be no argument about this," says Perigo. "It's solely a freedom issue, not one of the health benefits or risks of adding folic acid to bread. People who want the stuff should go visit their pharmacist, not foist it on the rest of us.

"As an aside, the politically correct bimbos at TV3 News should learn the difference between banning something and merely refraining from making it compulsory. The illiterate lefties in charge of last night's 6 o'clock bulletin touted the government's action as a 'ban' on folic acid. What morons!

"The point now is to ensure that the wishy-washy John Key doesn't backslide on this, and that the government generally moves in the direction of favouring freedom over fascism in *all* matters.

"In the meantime, if bakers wanted voluntarily to enhance the health of the nation, they might consider adding prussic acid to the bread of politicians and journalists with socialist agendas," Perigo concludes.

Lindsay Perigo: editor@freeradical.co.nz 021 255 8715

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com


Party pills, Slayer, and Hell

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Didn't Rosie tell Goose that users of party-pills go to Hell??!! Along with abstainers from alcohol, vegetarians and Slayer-lovers??!!

The maximum recommended dose for party pills

Jameson's picture

has once again been put to the test by Dr Goode Ph.D.

(You really should cut back, Richard. Or at least improve on your drawing skills.)

An idea for the baking industry

Richard Goode's picture

The bread gun - suitable for "breads targeted at women of childbearing age."

Ha, Glenn!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Goose doesn't have a philosophy. He has an anti-philosophy. The Goose/Rosie liaison is instructive. Intrinsicism (Rosie) vs subjectivism (Goose) merging into each other as indeed they must. They're both the same. Arbitrary, irrational and vicious. Goose's truly vile esthetics (Slayer) and Rosie's truly vile metaphysics (most folk ending up in a place of eternal torture—eternal Slayer). These guys are united in evil. Worshippers of the irrational. Now wait for Goose to say these remarks are "cultist." He who belongs to the cult of the anti-life. As I've said before, inadequately: piece of shit.

Why don't you apply your smarmy retorts to Rosie, Richie?

Jameson's picture

Are there no-go zones in your philosophy?

Folate folly foiled

Richard Goode's picture

The threat of a little coercion makes a world of difference.

So much for Dick's proposition

Jameson's picture

"Freedom (of bakers) actually isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida."

As it turns out, freedom is good for everyone.

Bakers volunteered folic acid today

Kasper's picture

"The baking industry will move towards voluntarily fortifying a wider range of breads with folic acid, and supports a marketing campaign for pregnant women, Association of Bakers' president Laurie Powell says."

"There was unanimous support at the summit yesterday for a movement towards the voluntary fortification of a wider range of breads targeted at women of childbearing age."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/heal...

Unintended consequences

gregster's picture

This is a study that at least doesn't rely on results from the force feeding of rodents.

"Summary: Folic acid and other micronutrients have been added on a voluntary basis to breakfast cereal, bread and other products in the Republic of Ireland for over 15 years, to remedy perceived inadequate intake."

18 Aug 2009 ---

"Persistently present levels of unmetabolized folic acid found in the population indicate that introducing mandatory food fortification may result in an ‘overdosing’ effect. A study of blood donors, new mothers and babies, published in the open access journal BMC Public Health, has found that most already get enough folic acid from voluntarily fortified foods."

"Mary Rose Sweeney, from Dublin City University, Ireland, led a team of researchers who studied 50 blood samples from the Irish Blood Transfusion Service and from 20 mothers and 20 infants’ umbilical–cords, from Coombe Women’s and Infants’ University Hospital, also in Dublin. She said, “A recent study has suggested excessive folic acid consumption may increase the risk of prostate cancer and more severe adenorectal carcinoma recurrence. We set out to explore how much unmetabolized folic acid is present in Irish people exposed to the current range of ‘voluntarily’ fortified foodstuffs, and to predict the increase in levels should a policy of mandatory fortification be introduced.”

'Human' Rights

Jeff Perren's picture

"It looks at Environmental Stds, Labour Rights,
Freedom of Association, Working Conditions, Child labour, Living Wages, Working Hours, Discrimination, Regular employment, Harsh / Inhumane treatment, Entitlement to work & Immigration, Subcontracting and Homeworking, Bribery & Corruption, Health & Safety."

Printing press rights. Ugh.

It's approaching the point where medieval serfs had more actual rights than those allowed under liberal fascism.

That's correct

gregster's picture

and it applies to their own branded products, and you're right that's fine. Well spotted, I did misrepresent it.

What irks me is the jumping on the current environmentalist bandwagon by the major chains.

I've heard from compliance auditors talk of companies being audited re climate change/CO2 so some sort of grading can be applied.

One major company is rolling out an Australasian Ethical sourcing policy which effectively adds layers of compliance cost, passed on to the consumer.

The policies are derived from the Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI), and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). And they're based on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It looks at Environmental Stds, Labour Rights,
Freedom of Association, Working Conditions, Child labour, Living Wages, Working Hours, Discrimination, Regular employment, Harsh / Inhumane treatment, Entitlement to work & Immigration, Subcontracting and Homeworking, Bribery & Corruption, Health & Safety.

Some may be fair but I think it's altogether nightmarish.

Well, Gregster

Jameson's picture

At least they're doing it voluntarily. Smiling

The Sanction of the Victim

gregster's picture

Why is freedom doomed in New Zealand? Because the actions of a few busybodies can have an effect on the major suppliers.

New World stores now charge for the plastic bags thanks to climate witchdoctory. Stop shopping there you think? Look what their opposition are up to:

New Zealand’s largest Supermarket chain gleefully goes ahead with Folic Fortification anyway. From their newsletter:

"NUTRITION AND REGULATORY
August 2009

Mandatory Bread Fortification is underway!

All flour used in the manufacture of Bread in both Australia and New Zealand will be required to contain iodised salt by the end of next September 2009.

NZ Update on Mandatory fortification of Bread with Folic Acid

There has been considerable debate in this area with a current proposed amendment still open for submission until 12th August 2009.

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consu...

The Mandatory Fortification of bread with folic acid is still required by September 2009. We are working with Trade Partners to ensure if the status quo is maintained we are still able to meet this requirement, whilst still being mindful an amendment to the date of implementation is possible. Contact the relevant NZ Quality Manager if you have any queries."

Right, Richard

Leonid's picture

"Ethics has no rational basis."

"You intuit it?

Yes.

you have a priori knowledge of what is right, right?

Yes. "

Right on the money, Richard. You proved it again-zillionth time-that altruism, mysticism and statism (your little coercion) are part of the same thousands years old bloody racket. Your problem is, however, that people don't buy it anymore.

Fun with Dick

Jameson's picture

"Enjoyment is better than suffering."

If Rosie needed your kidney to live, you would have to forego enjoyment and endure suffering to attain your ultimate happiness, a decision based on a series of logical conclusions. If you were an imbecile you wouldn't arrive at this choice with intuition; a doctor would have to do your thinking for you and point out your choices and the consequences of your choices. If you were an idiot, unable to process the idea of suffering by choice, chances are Rosie would die while you blissfully enjoyed your basket weaving.

"If A is better than B and B is better than C, then A is better than C."

That's logical. Sounds almost scientific. Did you intuit that?

"It is unjust to punish a person for a crime he did not commit."

Why? (How are you going to answer that without engaging the brain?)

"[Bla, bla] and honesty are virtues."

Why? Because you feel it's so? Or because you reasoned that truth is the recognition of reality, and that one cannot survive without adhering to reality? Are you saying you knew all that without getting up off the couch, with an eye on Lost in Space, licking your lips and denying you ate the cookie your mummy has noticed is missing?

If a person has a right to do something, then no person has a right to forcibly prevent him from doing that thing.

"If... then..." sounds like you're engaging the brain again, Dick. And just how did you arrive at those *rights* of which you speak?

"When you say, "Freedom is good," and someone responds, "Freedom isn't good", you disagree. Right?"

You've dropped the context. Here's an example of why context is important in silly word games:

Freedom of bakers to choose to add folic acid to their bread is good.
Freedom of politicians to force bakers to add folic acid to their bread isn't good.

Freedom, as a moral principle, took a good deal of reasoning to establish. If we gave unlimited freedom to children there'd be utter chaos.

Time you grew up.

Moral knowledge

Richard Goode's picture

You intuit it?

Yes.

you have a priori knowledge of what is right, right?

Yes. (I assume you mean a priori in the sense that - to quote Galen Strawson - "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don’t have to do any science.")

Michael Huemer, in his book Ethical Intuitionism, provides some handy examples of moral truths we know through a kind of immediate, intellectual awareness, or intuition.

Enjoyment is better than suffering.
If A is better than B and B is better than C, then A is better than C.
It is unjust to punish a person for a crime he did not commit.
Courage, benevolence, and honesty are virtues.
If a person has a right to do something, then no person has a right to forcibly prevent him from doing that thing.

Note, my question has still not been answered.

When you say, "Freedom is good," and someone responds, "Freedom isn't good", you disagree. Right?

(It's not a rhetorical question, Glenn. Have a go at answering it.)

Riddler returns

Jameson's picture

Lindsay, Jeff and Robert (actually, just about all of us except Rosie) have you pegged, Dick:

Here he is, back before he was folicly [sic] challenged. There is no right answer, just another fucking rhetorical question.

Glenn ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Dick's statement is uncontroversial in mainstream philosophy, alas. That's why the world is as it is.

His pin-ups are witch-doctors, pure and simple.

"(1) Ethics has no rational basis."

Jameson's picture

I can't believe he said that out loud.

How the hell do you determine good from bad, Dick, without engaging the brain and using your cognitive faculty? You intuit it? Stop repeating your asinine 'proof' over and over again and answer Lindsay's question regarding your a priori knowledge of ethics.

Seddon

Leonid's picture

"Coercion is not a premise of altruism."-no, it's logical conclusion which follows from this premise.

"The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake,"-but this is natural right which could be negated only by initiation of force unless people give it up voluntarily. Since this is very unlikely scenario, altruists always will turn to coercion as Richard duly demonstrated. “But actual bakers don't add folic acid to bread of their own volition. A little coercion makes a world of difference."

Fred, don't be a dick.

reed's picture

Context...
Richard: Freedom is volition plus the absence of the unjust use of force.
Me: if volition is good and is part of freedom then freedom is good. (Here I am assuming Richard's definition of freedom.)

Yours is an argument by exaggeration.

Seddon...

Robert's picture

That would depend upon whether you are a thoroughgoing penis or not. I can think of one man on this thread who might beg to differ. Smiling

I hate to see people set themselves up like this you see. Maybe you should choose another homily.

Reed

seddon's picture

" if volition is good and is part of freedom then freedom is good."

I don't think so. 'If my penis is 7 inches long and is part of my body, then my body is 7 inches long.' No way.

Fred

Leonid

seddon's picture

"coercion, that is-initiation of force. This is altruist premise."

Coercion is not a premise of alturism. An alturist may resort to force, but that doesn't make it a premise in the argument for alturism. According to Rand, "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." No mention of force. One is supposed to see that artruism is right and act accordingly.

Fred

Philosophy Professors

Jeff Perren's picture

"That idiot reveled in word games."

Sadly, most of them do. I know. I endured four years of it to obtain a degree in the subject.

I remember clearly still one stark example from an intro philosophy of science course. The teacher opened with a simple question: "What is dirt?" I knew what was about to transpire and attempted to head it off at the pass by pointing out the window and down at the ground, saying "That stuff, there."

That being wholly unsatisfactory to the teacher, he prompted other responses. For the next forty-five minutes the students - at his urging - continued to roll out one whopper after the next, ending with a consensus on: "Anything that is not where it's supposed to be." (This, reached chiefly because it's possible, as one pointed out, to put dirty shoes on the bedspread, leaving some behind.)

Now, the most generous interpretation one could give to this exercise is that the professor wanted the students to get out of their "comfort zone" and really start thinking hard about things they would normally take for granted. But when you see enough of this stuff, and the teacher presents every wacky objection his clever mind can devise to unsettle every view whatever, you begin to suspect that something less savory is taking place.

You allude to the motive: the skeptic's insatiable need to demonstrate that everything you think you know is either false or, at best, not proven. And all so they can undermine any hope of achieving a rational basis for morality, and having that view generally accepted, because that would see most of them out of jobs. As one professor said to me, quite sincerely, "If we answered some of these perennial questions definitively, what would we have to work on?"

It's been going on hot and heavy since Descartes, with few exceptions (and with much less excuse).

No.

Robert's picture

I don't think that you believe in the existence of reality. Or possibly you do believe in reality, but that it is another of your 'articles of faith.' In other words, I believe that your actual problem is with Objectivist metaphysics rather than just Objectivist ethics.

And because of that, there is no point arguing with you. I don't have the patience to argue -- with someone who holds a PhD in Philosophy -- whether existence exists and that humans have the ability to perceive it correctly.

There is one other possibility. That you are dishonest. I'm willing to wager that you are like the Professor of Philosophy I listening to one night in Auckland University. That idiot reveled in word games. I can see that much in your cryptic responses on this thread.

I wonder whether you are the sort that takes twisted pleasure out of engaging idealists (such as I) on topics like history, philosophy, politics, jurisprudence, science (take your pick) and then switching gears in the attempt to tie them up in minutiae and or circular arguments about which you care naught. Your goal isn't enlightenment, it is intellectual chaos in the mind of your opponent. And then you ask "Why so serious?" when your opponent figures out your game plan and becomes angry at having been played. In other words: the sort that reduces philosophy to a Parlor trick.

Either you think that the world you live in is a lie (ala the Matrix) or you are pretending. Either way that makes you an empty suit Goode. So go play your stupid fucking tricks on someone else.

Talk to the Rand

Richard Goode's picture

Let's continue this conversation on a more appropriate thread.

Note that the onus is not on me to make the case for (1).

Robert's picture

Note that the onus is not on me to trust or tolerate anyone who believes (1).

Yours is the philosophy of a sociopath.

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

(1) Ethics has no rational basis.

Speak for your own!

But if you believe that, why argue about it? Arguing is a process of reasoning. No point in reasoning about something that has no basis in reason.

You oppose, let's say, Islamic Jihad not because you can give reasons for your opposition but because it's an article of faith for you that Islamic Jihad is wrong. For the Jihadists it's equally a matter of faith that it's right. In the absence of reason, there is no means to adjudicate between these two competing claims.

(2) Faith (i.e., believing that ethics has a non-rational basis) is preferable to nihilism (i.e., believing that ethics has no basis).

Both propositions are essentially the same and neither is preferable to the other. If ethics can have any old basis (faith) it has no basis. This is the point Mindy failed to grasp in an earlier discussion about the Pope's visit to Sydney.

(3) Objectivist ethics is certifiably bat-shit insane.

All this shows is that the proposition that ethics is able to be and ought to be derived from reality causes hysteria in pomowankers.

Note that the onus is not on me to make the case for (1).

Again, why would you make a case for anything? You've already said reason is out the window. Why invoke the laws of logic when you've thrown logic out?

But since you're apparently going to repair to "onus of proof" and not having to prove a negative, have a go at your second proposition. Or a positive form of your first: ethics is, and ought to be, the province of faith.

I believe

Richard Goode's picture

Richard, you would better serve your cause, whatever it is, if you stopped trying to be clever and cryptic all the time and laid out a sincere case for whatever it is, if anything, that you believe.

I believe the following three propositions.

(1) Ethics has no rational basis.

(2) Faith (i.e., believing that ethics has a non-rational basis) is preferable to nihilism (i.e., believing that ethics has no basis).

(3) Objectivist ethics is certifiably bat-shit insane.

Note that the onus is not on me to make the case for (1).

Richard - I just realised

reed's picture

Richard -
I just realised your last post was about the meaning of the word "freedom".

The question of whether volition is part of "freedom" is not a matter of fact but a matter of definition.

Freedom is volition plus the

reed's picture

Freedom is volition plus the absence of the unjust use of force. That being the case, your argument fails.

Can there be injustice without volition?

[Edit: Hmm... if volition is good and is part of freedom then freedom is good.]

Not bad

Richard Goode's picture

Freedom is not merely the absence of the unjust use of force.

Freedom is volition plus the absence of the unjust use of force. That being the case, your argument fails.

I was thinking of you

reed's picture

I was thinking of you Leonid.

The absence of spina bifida is not something good.

Reed

Leonid's picture

Try this " spina bifida isn't good condition". "spina bifida is bad condition".Spot the difference.

Try this one...

reed's picture

The trouble with phrasing it without the quotes is that readers will likely not read it strictly and make the mistake of thinking that "not good" is the equivalent of "bad".

Try this one...

1. The absence of something bad is not something good. 

2. The unjust use of force is something bad. 

Therefore,
3. The absence of the unjust use of force (i.e. freedom) is not something good.

Lindsay

Leonid's picture

"Goode is not making that argument. He's saying that in real life, freedom (of bakers) sometimes has bad consequences (higher-than-necessary incidence of spina bifida in babies), that he'll opt for freedom nonetheless,"

Isn't he?

That what Richard said:" But actual bakers don't add folic acid to bread of their own volition. A little coercion makes a world of difference...Freedom (of bakers) actually isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida...Mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects. Failure to mandate the folic acid fortification of flour (i.e., freedom of bakers) results in more babies with spina bifida." (2 posts :Actuality; Facts of reality 6.08.2009)

Just re-read your own post: freedom of some people (bakers) is bad for others. This very statement implies that precondition of good for some people is non-freedom for others. This is false dichotomy which reflects the essence of altruism. By using these premises one may say: In real life thousands of children die every day from malnutrition. Mandatory distribution of bread (even without folic acid) could safe their lives. Freedom for bakers is bad for starving children. Or: South African doctors tend to emigrate; so many people couldn't get proper health service. Ban on doctors' emigration could improve morbidity and mortality rates. Freedom of doctors is bad for everybody else. Observe: mandatory means initiation of force. The guy is begging for "little coercion" and you say that he's freedom fighter? What did you smoke today? You don't sound yourself. Don't you get that Richard promotes altruist premises on your thread which allow this kind of paradoxes. Contradictions don't exist.

Leonid ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Richard, you would better serve your cause, whatever it is, if you stopped trying to be clever and cryptic all the time "
And what so cryptic about old altruistic argument that good of some people requires sacrifice, non-freedom of others?

You're not getting it. Goode is not making that argument. He's saying that in real life, freedom (of bakers) sometimes has bad consequences (higher-than-necessary incidence of spina bifida in babies), that he'll opt for freedom nonetheless, and that the paradoxical reality he has identified destroys Objectivist ethics. I believe I have shown that his case rests on equivocation philosophically and context-dropping existentially. I also believe Goode won't have the honesty to admit this. But misrepresenting his position only plays into his pomowanking hands.

Lindsay

Leonid's picture

"Richard, you would better serve your cause, whatever it is, if you stopped trying to be clever and cryptic all the time "
And what so cryptic about old altruistic argument that good of some people requires sacrifice, non-freedom of others? Or, as Richard put it "Freedom (of bakers) actually isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida.." I think that this is explicit altruistic statement.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"more than five million Swiss bankers, Poles, Russians, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the disabled."
Sarcasm is not an argument. Hitler/Stalin first socialist war caused more that 60 millions deaths. Hitler didn't kill Swiss bankers and didn't confiscate their wealth simply because he was too busy and couldn't find time for Switzerland. But to claim that Hitler was GOOD for Swiss bankers is preposterous. Since when banks prosper during war time?

Reed

Lindsay Perigo's picture

In order not to equivocate in your example you'd have to use inverted commas both times or neither time and be using the term "good" in the same way both times. You don't and you're not. By implication your "good" with inverted commas is a noun: THE good. Absence of bad *is* good (adjective), but is not all there is to THE good (noun).

Are equivocations intrinsic?

reed's picture

Assume your preferred definition of the word "good" and apply it to the following three statements then there will be no equivocation.

1. The absence of bad is not "good".

2. The unjust use of force is bad.
Therefore,
3. The absence of the unjust use of force (i.e. freedom) is not good.

If the conclusion is false when assuming consistent definitions then at least one of the first two statements must be false.

Note: Assume an agent if you need to.

Bravo, Linz!

Jeff Perren's picture

"Richard, you would better serve your cause, whatever it is, if you stopped trying to be clever and cryptic all the time and laid out a sincere case for whatever it is, if anything, that you believe." [Linz]

Brav-effing-O! But it reminds me of the story of the Scorpion and the Frog. But, then, the scorpion admitted he had to sting and you can fully expect Mr. Goode to forthwith deny that he's being cryptic, though he may own up to clever, and spin it into a virtue in this case.

Hitler ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... also railed against white bread (not to mention alcohol, tobacco and meat).

He would have been a huge fan of mandatory folic acid.

Richard, you would better serve your cause, whatever it is, if you stopped trying to be clever and cryptic all the time and laid out a sincere case for whatever it is, if anything, that you believe. I know pomowankers don't do "sincere," but why not try to break the habits of your adult lifetime just for a few minutes? It could be the start of something much better.

The Forgotten Victims of the Holocaust

Richard Goode's picture

Hitler was bad not only to Jews but to everybody and especially to Swiss bankers.

The Forgotten Victims of the Holocaust

Reviewed at Amazon.com.

"Drawing on some of the best adult histories and personal accounts, this title in the Holocaust in History series does a fine job of introducing the facts and the issues. Altman writes with simple clarity in short sentences that tell the horrifying truth without sensationalism about leaders and ordinary people who were perpetrators, victims, and bystanders. Forgotten Victims will fill a gap even in large Holocaust collections, with statistics and searing eyewitness accounts of what happened to more than five million Swiss bankers, Poles, Russians, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the disabled. For readers new to the subject, Altman presents a clear overview of Hitler's genocidal plan and its implementation in the ghettoes, roundups, and camps. The series design is spacious and readable with clear type and well-chosen, black-and-white archival photos."

Richard

Leonid's picture

1. Hitler was good.*
2. Hitler wasn't good.**

You present the same fallacy based on altruist-collectivist-mystical premises that good of some people requires initiation of force against others. Hitler was bad not only to Jews but to everybody and especially to Swiss bankers. Just imagine how much money they could've make if Hitler and Stalin hadn't started WWII. Much more, than by storing Hitler's loot.

"RIP Objectivist ethics."-these rumors are much exaggerated as Mark Twain once said. You cannot kill Objectivism by using altruist cudgel.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"You claim that good of some people requires non-freedom, enslavement and sacrifice of others.

No, I don't"-That follows from your argument:

"According to Rand's agent-relative theory of value, the concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? Thus, Objectivist ethics leads to contradictions such as

1. Freedom (of bakers) is good.*
2. Freedom (of bakers) isn't good. **

* Here the presupposed answer is "bakers".
** Here the presupposed answer is "people with preventable spina bifida".

RIP Objectivist ethics."

The only logical conclusion of your argument is that freedom of bakers isn't good for the people with preventable spina bifida. That means that good of these people requires non-freedom of bakers. That also means that freedom of some people requires non-freedom of others. Non-freedom means slavery. Such a condition could be achieved only by coercion, that is-initiation of force. This is altruist premise. Objectivist ethics reject initiation of force and postulate that people should deal with each other only on voluntary basis and non-freedom is bad for everybody. So how your argument refutes Objectivist ethics? In logic you cannot refute Objectivism by using altruist premises. For this you have to use Objectivist premises and to show that they lead to contradiction.

for whom?

TimV's picture

I thought the whole point of Objectivist ethics is that the "for whom?" is answered with "me", that is; the individual. That stops any presumptuous ideas of deciding what's best for other people.

Presupposing this basis, Hitler was bad according to my standards. It is as simple as that. The rest is sophistry.

RIP Objectivist ethics

Richard Goode's picture

According to Rand's agent-relative theory of value, the concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? Thus, Objectivist ethics leads to contradictions such as

1. Hitler was good.*
2. Hitler wasn't good.**

* Here the presupposed answer is "Swiss bankers".
** Here the presupposed answer is "Jews".

RIP Objectivist ethics.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

you claim that good of some people requires non-freedom, enslavement and sacrifice of others.

No, I don't.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"We're not talking about slavery and mind-control. We're talking about the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid."
No, we are. Mandatory means using of force, that is- a power of gun. Gun and mind are incompatible. This is the fact of nature which you evade.

"Freedom (of bakers) actually isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida...Mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects. Failure to mandate the folic acid fortification of flour (i.e., freedom of bakers) results in more babies with spina bifida. Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida..."

So far these are your premises. In other words you claim that good of some people requires non-freedom, enslavement and sacrifice of others. You are not the first person to make such a claim. Any slave owner would gladly agree with you. If you think that you can refute Objectivist ethics by using this collectivist-altruist argument, then think again and tell are YOU ready to be coerced in order to benefit others? Please bear in mind that the question of proportions is irrelevant. To employ little bit of coercion is like to be little bit pregnant. This is oxymoron.

'People' needs clarification...

Frediano's picture

Freedom (of bakers) actually isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida...

... who believe in their right to muddle through life without any awareness of what is or isn't good for them, obviated by busibodies elsewhere putting guns to the heads of their fellow men. As such, the freedom of bakers bothers me not at all.

I could give a flying f**k what is good for people who believe that others were put on this earth with an obligation to wrap it in Nerf, as directed by the nearsighted visions of the self-anointed. Aiming so low to elect implicit emperors over us all is creating one hell of a world, a sick thing with no spine at all...

This kind of busybody thinking has given us 'water saving' toilets impressed upon the masses that today must be flushed on average three times instead of once; brilliant.

Constructivists have proven endlessly that mankind isn't nearly smart enough to arbitrarily pick winners and losers at the point of the mob's gun.

The only educated guesses come with having skin in the game, and that isn't achieved by letting a handful of pinheads leading a mob pick winners and losers.

There you go again, Reed ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Equivocating with the concept "good." Goode does the same thing. "Good" as in "Good vs. Evil" is not the same as, or at least not necessarily the same as, "good for party x," meaning "to the material advantage of party x." "Hitler was good for Swiss bankers" is assuredly not the same as "The action of Swiss bankers in accepting Hitler's money was good."

The reluctance of you intrinsicists to lay your cards on the table is noteworthy. What is your definition of good, Reed, and what do you think is its source? Goode says the good just is, somehow (at least, I think that's what he says, but he's remarkably backward in coming forward on the matter). And then plays silly games with pseudo-syllogisms to try to fend off any unthinkable notion that the good might be neither intrinsic nor subjective. The panic at the spectre of Ayn Rand is delicious to observe.

Hitler was good

reed's picture

... for Swiss Bankers.

Logic 101

Richard Goode's picture

You are indeed trotting out tired statist arguments. The same argument is used to advocate seatbelt laws. Same argument of food fascists. Same argument for bank bailouts. Namely, some amount of government coercion will provide wonderful benefits that would not occur if left to the free market.

Wrong.

'Some amount of government coercion will provide wonderful benefits that would not occur if left to the free market' is a statement, not an argument.

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

My argument is here.

Oh no, Richard...

Michael Moeller's picture

You are indeed trotting out tired statist arguments. The same argument is used to advocate seatbelt laws. Same argument of food fascists. Same argument for bank bailouts. Namely, some amount of government coercion will provide wonderful benefits that would not occur if left to the free market. You have never come across these arguments? Did you just wake up Rip van Winkle? This is old hat for sundry statists and you are blindly echoing it in an attempt to refute Objectivist ethics. I can only conclude that you are either oblivious or evasive or have your own reading comprehension problems.

Your causal connection is false, as I previously stated. The cause of those goods being available to babies with spina bifida is capitalism (i.e. freedom), thus freedom is good for babies with spina bifida. Thus, premise #2 is refuted. In other words, without the capitalistic system that produces those goods, you have no folic acid suppplements to make them "mandatory" and thereby prevent spina bifida in babies. You are starting from effects and wiping out the causal chain that got you to that point.

"The goods are here. How did they get here? Who cares, they're here, so let's shell them out by government edict." You think this is some sort of original argument Goode? You haven't seen these from statists in various forms before? Again, you lack reading comprehension or are oblivious or are evasive.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I thought you were advocating on your own behalf, not trotting out tired statist arguments in an attempt to play Devil's Advocate. My mistake as to your personal beliefs, but the argument still stands.

I'm not "trotting out tired statist arguments" and not trying to play Devil's advocate.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

My argument is here.

Tactics

Richard Goode's picture

From the Progressive's Handbook of Argument, tip #32: When your arguments are shown several ways from Sunday to be flawed, wait a little while, then repeat the argument verbatim as if nothing had ever been said to demonstrate its flaws.

Nothing has ever been said to demonstrate its flaws.

Only my second premise (that freedom of bakers isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida) has come under attack, but it still stands.

Mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects.

Oh relax yourself

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote: "Of course it does. But actual bakers don't add folic acid to bread of their own volition. A little coercion makes a world of difference."

I thought you were advocating on your own behalf, not trotting out tired statist arguments in an attempt to play Devil's Advocate. My mistake as to your personal beliefs, but the argument still stands.

Michael

Hey Moeller...

Richard Goode's picture

Actually, the man-made/metaphysical distinction is giving the argument more credit than it deserves. What Goode has presented here is a classic reversal of cause and effect. He is arguing from effect while ironically claiming he has established a causal connection.

In essence, he is saying let's promote the fruits of freedom--like quality bread, dietary supplements, etc.--while destroying what made those things possible (i.e. capitalism). The causal connection completely fails apart as soon as you examine a dictatorship where they have to wait in line for what is probably barely edible bread. After all, they are using more than just a "little coercion". The statist dream of health and well-being by government edict. Again, the classic case of reversing cause and effect.

Oh, but I am sure he only wants a "little coercion", just a little bit. He differs from the communist only in degree, not in principle. He has no defense against food fascists who want to control every aspect of your diet--they are simply taking his premise and applying it writ large (and consistently). Nothing original in his argument. In fact, it is quite pathetic.

Either you have a serious reading comprehension problem, or you just like to make stuff up, to smear people. Which is it?

I oppose the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid.

Michael, Yes and No

Jeff Perren's picture

Your analysis of the implications are correct, but I don't think Goode is, in fact, arguing for coercion (even a little bit). He can clarify, if he will, but his goal seems to be arguing that the Objectivist ethics leads to a contradiction, and he's using the reductio ad absurdum in the attempt.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

"Rosie treats the status quo as metaphysical, not man-made, as though bakers are irreversibly programmed not to add folic acid to bread without a delicious soupcon of coercion."

Actually, the man-made/metaphysical distinction is giving the argument more credit than it deserves. What Goode has presented here is a classic reversal of cause and effect. He is arguing from effect while ironically claiming he has established a causal connection.

In essence, he is saying let's promote the fruits of freedom--like quality bread, dietary supplements, etc.--while destroying what made those things possible (i.e. capitalism). The causal connection completely fails apart as soon as you examine a dictatorship where they have to wait in line for what is probably barely edible bread. After all, they are using more than just a "little coercion". The statist dream of health and well-being by government edict. Again, the classic case of reversing cause and effect.

Oh, but I am sure he only wants a "little coercion", just a little bit. He differs from the communist only in degree, not in principle. He has no defense against food fascists who want to control every aspect of your diet--they are simply taking his premise and applying it writ large (and consistently). Nothing original in his argument. In fact, it is quite pathetic.

Michael

Watch the Omega 3 thing

Kasper's picture

It has been proven and validated. It is one of the few things that the alternative medicinal industry has been able to accomplish in the rigid medical orthodoxy hellbent on synthetic substances. In patients with myocardial infarction (dead heart tissue post attack) 3 month total mortality rates decreased by 41% and 4 month mortality rates decreased by 53%. The mechanisms of action for it are:
-alters the lipid composition of cell membranes
-decreases blood levels of Tryglycerides
-increases the level of high density lipo-proteins (good cholesterol)
-decreases heart rate variability and heart rate
- increases the threshold for ventricular fibrillation
- anti-platlet effects that decrease the risk of thrombosis (clotting)
- improves endothelial function (the fragile inner wall of blood vessels prone to disease)
- decreases some inflammatory responses
-lowers blood pressure
-decreases plasma leptin levels

It is a drug now approved and endoresed by the The Australian Heart Foundation. People with chronic heart disease are advised to be on very high doses above 1000mg/day.

Tactics

Jeff Perren's picture

From the Progressive's Handbook of Argument, tip #32: When your arguments are shown several ways from Sunday to be flawed, wait a little while, then repeat the argument verbatim as if nothing had ever been said to demonstrate its flaws.

Mr. Goode, you have learned the Handbook's lessons well.

RIP Objectivist ethics

Richard Goode's picture

According to Rand's agent-relative theory of value, the concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? Thus, Objectivist ethics leads to contradictions such as

1. Freedom (of bakers) is good.*
2. Freedom (of bakers) isn't good.**

* Here the presupposed answer is "bakers".
** Here the presupposed answer is "people with preventable spina bifida".

RIP Objectivist ethics.

"A little coercion makes a world of difference."

Jameson's picture

If the Libertarianz don't fire you, Goode, then that's another indictment on them.

Quite so, Mr. P.

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What will your argument (for mandatory folic acid additives, against Objectivism, whatever) be in six months when the market changes and bakers find it to their self-interest to add even more than the minimum mandated because their customers are willing to pay a premium for it?

Rosie treats the status quo as metaphysical, not man-made, as though bakers are irreversibly programmed not to add folic acid to bread without a delicious soupcon of coercion. As though bread is the only possible conduit of folic acid. And as though pregnant mothers are irreversibly programmed not to exercise their horrid freedom to buy the stuff. Personally I suspect the folic acid thing will turn out to be a fad, about as soundly based as the idea that organic food (of which I'm sure Rosie is also a fan) is more nutritious, but capitalists have ever been all-too-ready to jump on bandwagons. Look at all the stuff now that is calcium-enriched, protein-enriched, Omega-3-enriched and whatever else, none of it coerced and all of it probably doing no good whatsoever.

Back when Richard posted on this thread, he applauded my press release at the top of this thread. Rosie must have busted him. The joys of being whipped by organic pussy.

Today, Tomorrow, and the Free Market

Jeff Perren's picture

"Freedom of bakers necessarily subsumes the possibility that bakers will add folic acid to bread of their own volition, believing it to be efficacious in fending off spina bifida in babies." [Linz]

"Of course it does. But actual bakers don't add folic acid to bread of their own volition. A little coercion makes a world of difference." [Goode]

(Not that this is essential, but I'm curious...)

Today. What will your argument (for mandatory folic acid additives, against Objectivism, whatever) be in six months when the market changes and bakers find it to their self-interest to add even more than the minimum mandated because their customers are willing to pay a premium for it?

Actuality

Richard Goode's picture

There is no inexorable, causal connection between freedom of bakers and the incidence of spina bifida in babies.

Of course there isn't. But there is an actual causal connection between freedom of bakers and the incidence of spina bifida in babies, viz., that freedom of bakers results in more babies with spina bifida.

Freedom of bakers necessarily subsumes the possibility that bakers will add folic acid to bread of their own volition, believing it to be efficacious in fending off spina bifida in babies.

Of course it does. But actual bakers don't add folic acid to bread of their own volition. A little coercion makes a world of difference.

If they did, and the incidence of spina bifida in babies decreased, what then would become of your "scientific hypothesis"??

If they did, the scientific hypothesis would not be confirmed. But actually they don't, so actually it is.

Freedom (of bakers) actually isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida.

Hey Goode...

Michael Moeller's picture

I would love to know how the spina bifida rates were/are doing in Soviet Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, and other dictatorships. Since freedom is not good for spina bifida, these countries must have cured it!! Can they even buy folic acid supplements in said countries? So much for the connection between freedom and spina bifida.

Michael

Rosie Goode ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Freedom of bakers results in more babies with spina bifida.

You're a moron, Rosie Goode, albeit an unwittingly hilarious and kinda endearing one.

Read my lips, Rosie Goode. There is no inexorable, causal connection between freedom of bakers and the incidence of spina bifida in babies. Freedom of bakers necessarily subsumes the possibility that bakers will add folic acid to bread of their own volition, believing it to be efficacious in fending off spina bifida in babies. If they did, and the incidence of spina bifida in babies decreased, what then would become of your "scientific hypothesis"??

Keep reading my lips, Rosie Goode. The efficacy of folic acid contra spina bifida is a scientific hypothesis. Whether or not it's true I've no idea and couldn't care less. If it is, it must be demonstrated by empirical data and corroborated by evidence as to the nature of folic acid and spina bifida and the ineluctable consequences, if any, of their interaction. There is nothing in the nature of freedom, of bakers or any other volitional agents, by contrast, which predetermines any level of the incidence of spina bifida. One might as well say there's an inexorable causal connection between having a PhD in philosophy and being a moron. Certain empirical data close to hand might suggest this, but ultimately, indeed quite quickly, the proposition would fail to stack up.

The inexorable causal connection between having a PhD in philosophy and having a leftie-PC squeeze, and being a moron, is of course irrefutable.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

It is better to be free man with spina bifida than state slave without it.

I'd rather have problems with my limbs, bladder and bowel control than to have State's control over my mind.

We're not talking about slavery and mind-control. We're talking about the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid.

Get a grip, and get a sense of proportion.

when and how you ever refuted Objectivist ethics? By presenting contradiction which follows from altruist premises "that bakers are responsible for prevention of spina bifida, that is-they suppose to commit an act of sacrifice, to forfeit their freedom for sake of other people who failed to take action in order to look after themselves or their future children.?"

No, that isn't one of my premises.

My recent refutations of Objectivist ethics are here and here.

Facts of reality

Richard Goode's picture

the second premise is nonsensical on its face

The second premise is true.

Freedom of bakers results in more babies with spina bifida.

The claim that mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects is a scientific hypothesis. It's been put to the test in the usual way. Data on the incidence of NTDs and blood folate levels in the population were collected before and after the introduction of mandatory fortification. The results? "[A] dramatic increase in blood measurements of folate" and "a significant reduction (~15–50%) in NTDs". Hypothesis confirmed.

Mandatory folic acid fortification of flour reduces the number of babies born with neural tube defects. Failure to mandate the folic acid fortification of flour (i.e., freedom of bakers) results in more babies with spina bifida. Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida.

My advice is not to allow personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct your mind's judgment of the facts of reality.

One must never attempt to fake reality in any manner.

"Wot refutation? Even Sharon thought it was a joke!"

Jameson's picture

Hahhaahahahaaaahahaahaaaaaaaaaaa.... Smiling Smiling Smiling Smiling Smiling

Richard

Leonid's picture

"But would you rather be a free man with BIG spina bifida (hydrocephalus, lower limb paralysis, bladder and bowel control problems, etc.) than live in a SMALL Nanny State?"

First, there is no such an animal as a SMALL Nanny State. Nanny State is always BIG . There is no such a thing as small negation of rights, as there is no such a thing as partial suicide.
Second, I'd rather have problems with my limbs, bladder and bowel control than to have State's control over my mind. You are right however, in the case of hydrocephalus. In such a case it's really doesn't matter to the affected person. The problem is that Nanny State reduces everybody to this mindless condition.
BTW, when and how you ever refuted Objectivist ethics? By presenting contradiction which follows from altruist premises "that bakers are responsible for prevention of spina bifida, that is-they suppose to commit an act of sacrifice, to forfeit their freedom for sake of other people who failed to take action in order to look after themselves or their future children.?" ( See my previous post below). This is hardly a way to refute Objectivism. Try again.

Goodeness!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Goode, PhD in Philosophy:

"The concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? (A tenet of Objectivist ethics.)
Freedom (of bakers) isn't good for people with preventable spina bifida. (A fact of reality.)
Therefore, freedom isn't good.
But freedom is good.
Therefore, Objectivist ethics is false."

Sigh. Now, I haven't read every post since that pomowankery, but I'm assuming by now someone has pointed out that the second premise is nonsensical on its face, so that all that "flows" from it is nonsensical also.

To those of you think he can't possibly be serious, I repeat:

You guys don't get it. It's contemporary philosophy that's the joke. As its exemplar, Goode says things commonsensical folk assume to be a joke, but which he sincerely means, just as he sincerely enjoys Slayer. Only a PhD in Philosophy could utter such codswallop.
I say again, SOLO has its own "axis of evil": Goode, Scherk, Orchard ... and no doubt some others I'm overlooking. Pay attention to what they say and learn from it. Their seeming outrages are not jokes; they mean them!! And, alas, they represent the state of the culture far more accurately than any decent, good-faith poster does.

Goode, of course, has yet to explain how, by his intrinsicist lights, he can designate anything as good or bad. And you'll never get a second's honesty from him on this matter. The intransigence of dogmatists!

... but this, like fluoride

Duncan Bayne's picture

... but this, like fluoride in the water, is only beneficial.

Unless, like my wife, you are sensitive to high quantities of fluoride when young. I forget the name of this condition, but it hampered the development of her tooth enamel.

There are a lot of rabid conspiracy theories w.r.t. fluoride, but it is certainly not safe for everyone in the quantities currently added to water.

Objectivist ethics refuted

Richard Goode's picture

Wot refutation? Even Sharon thought it was a joke!

But you don't.

Of course it's not a joke!

When you say, "Freedom is good," and someone responds, "Freedom isn't good", you disagree. Right?

Wot?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What (if anything) do you think is wrong with my refutation of Objectivist ethics?

Wot refutation? Even Sharon thought it was a joke!

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

When you say, "Freedom is good," and someone responds, "Freedom isn't good", you disagree. Right?

What (if anything) do you think is wrong with my refutation of Objectivist ethics?

Fair enough

Richard Goode's picture

I do have small spina bifida and I don't have to live in BIG Nany State.

But would you rather be a free man with BIG spina bifida (hydrocephalus, lower limb paralysis, bladder and bowel control problems, etc.) than live in a SMALL Nanny State?

Richard

Leonid's picture

I do have small spina bifida and I don't have to live in BIG Nany State. I visited only once the country of great opportunities ( in it glorious past) and still feel the penetrating sight of BIG NANY in my back, just above my spina bifida. Maybe I'm mad, but I prefer crazy South Africa. Thanks, but no, thanks.

Goode PhD ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is a PhU.

Which is Phunny.

What's sad is that he's not willing to learn.

Not surprisingly

Jameson's picture

Goode PhD can't extrapolate state mandates over free enterprise.

Are you mad?

Richard Goode's picture

It is better to be free man with spina bifida than state slave without it.

So you'd rather be a free man with spina bifida than live in the U.S.? (In the U.S., folic acid fortification has been mandatory since 1998.)

Richard

Leonid's picture

According to Rand's agent-relative theory of value, the concept good presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom?"-that's right.

"Thus, Objectivist ethics leads to contradictions-Rand also said that contradictions don't exist; if you find contradiction-check your premises. The source of your contradiction is that you accepted wrong premises of altruism, namely-bakers are responsible for prevention of spina bifida, that is-they suppose to commit an act of sacrifice, to forfeit their freedom for sake of other people who failed to take action in order to look after themselves or their future children. In other words they have to become altruists by law that is-by state initiated force. Folic acid is freely available as over counter medication and costs near to nothing. People, who convinced that this medication would be beneficial for them or for their future children should go and buy it. Bakers' job is to bake bread, not to save the world from spina bifida or myriad other illnesses. Nevertheless they will make bread enriched with folic acid VOLUNTARELLY if customers will demand it. Negation of rights is bad for EVERYBODY, including people with spina bifida. It is better to be free man with spina bifida than state slave without it. However between rational people such a dichotomy doesn't exist.

Richard - Lindsay will make

reed's picture

Richard -
Lindsay will make his perspective clear... if he thinks it's in his own self interest.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

The concept "good" pressuposes question "good for what or for whom?"

According to Rand's agent-relative theory of value, the concept good presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? Thus, Objectivist ethics leads to contradictions such as

1. Freedom (of bakers) is good.*
2. Freedom (of bakers) isn't good.**

* Here the presupposed answer is "bakers".
** Here the presupposed answer is "people with preventable spina bifida".

Goode-contradictions don't exist

Leonid's picture

"The two propositions are contradictory."-only if you accept the theory of intrinsic value, that it-thing is good or bad in itself. Since it brings contradiction, this theory is wrong. The concept "good" presupposes question "good for what or for whom?" It is good to prevent spina bifida and it is good for bakers to be free. Contradictions don't exist. There is no clash of interests between rational people. The resolution of your contradiction is freedom of choice, recognition of property rights and use of mind. If government has a power to force addition of folic acid it also has a power to ban the use of this substance altogether-like cyclamate. What would happen to the prevalence of spina bifida then? By negation some rights of some people government negates all rights of all people. Rights are indivisible.

Equivocation

Richard Goode's picture

We could play this game all night.

The game you're playing is called equivocation.

(Let Linz know if you require further assistance!)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.