IRC log started Fri Nov 22 21:59 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel transcripts are the copyright of the channel owners and may not be distributed in any form without their prior written consent. Tonight's discussion is on "Conflicts of Interest" and much of the material is taken from Rand's essay by that name. Objectivism says that there can be no conflicts of interest among rational men. I'd like to dissect this statement and examine what it means, then apply it to some concrete instances of "conflicts" that often come up in discussions. Many arguments presented by people who're learning Objectivism start with a scenario in which two parties are in conflict over an issue, and each appears to have reasonable grounds for its position. For instance, we've seen discussions on the channel recently concerning pollution, wetlands protection, competition for jobs, etc. [FredG] Architecture designed _objectively_ www.gibson-design.com Generally, I've seen such questions answered by reducing them to the question of rights (for instance, "you don't *have* the right to a job" or "you don't own the wetlands/spotted-owl-habitat, you can't tell the owner what to do with his property" etc.). While it's necessary to bring up the idea of rights here, it doesn't always answer the essential questions. In effect, the questioner has hit a brick wall - he can't argue against individual rights. But he may continue to harbor the belief that a genuine conflict of interests existed, and that it was resolved in favor of the property owner. I'd like to go a bit deeper and establish that there was no conflict of interests to begin with, if the two people were rational. In order to do that, let's start by discussing two related questions (1) what do "interests" really mean, and (2) will everybody get what he wants in a free society? What are interests? Are all interests valid? What facts do you need to consider to determine if an interest is valid or not? Floor's open. Isn't "interest" really synonomous with "value"? You have to distinguish between "conflicts" and "conflicts of interest". Rational people have conflicts with each other all the time. Betsy: Okay. We're talking specifically about "conflicts of interests" Phil: Rational people have conflicts over values all the time, too. Betsy: True, ok So, what are interests? What's the difference between an "interest" and a "value"? "Interests" are very basic, fundamental values. what you live vs what you need? Interest: anything someone thinks will advance their goals I think the point is that a conflict of interest means that two persons will want the same thing, when in actuality, only one can have it...like several persons wanting Dagny in _AS_. oops what you like - and what you need Conflicts over whether some thing is rightly held as a value , or ownership of a concrete value? Genuine interests: those which _actually_ serve one's goals TomM: That's not a "conflict of interests". That's what we call "competition." A conflict of interest implies that there is some prized value of which only one party can win. I differentiate between "values" and "interests" - in a minute, I'll explain how. Betsy: Yes, it's the same thing. There are no conflicts of interest among rational men because they respect property rights, and won't try to take what is not theirs. Should we start witha concrete example? A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. An interest doesn't imply action. It simply means something one desires - and the question becomes, what is the nature of that desire? Property rights are an "interest" but getting the front page of the newspaper first is just a value. They often seem to arise as expressions of mind/body dichotomies. Say, the "conflict of interests" between airline shareholders and airline passengers. Let's stick to defining "interests" first before we get into "conflicts of interests" please. tk: A concrete example: Several men in the valley wanted Dagny, but only one could have her. The conflict is resolved when they realize that Dagny has a say in it, and once she chooses, it's settled. Tom: hold back on that for a while. We'll get to that. stictly interests - what you want, what you like, what you require, what you are involved in... Subetai: Sorry, I came in late... Conventionally, the owners are seen as having their "interests" adversely affected if the airline invests money in safety, instead of just giving it to the shareholders. I offered a definition of "interests" - are their any disagreements? On what grounds? So: An interest is a fundamental value that is needed by all men in common? An interest is something you thin you will gain from by possessing...similar to interest rates where there is a gain. Tom: "think you will gain" - does that mean you are already acting to gain it? An interest is a *possible* source of values (?) Subetai: Is your definition: An Interest is a desired value - if so, I agree with it Subetai: For a rational man, once he identifies his interest, if he is to preserve his integrity, he should persue it. Let me restate how I differentiate between values and interests: A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. An interest doesn't imply action. It simply means something one desires - and the question becomes, what is the nature of that desire? Phil: No, not all men. What is an interest to one, may be a matter of indifference to another. Subetai: That sounds interesting ;) I's say an "interest" is a fundamental -- usually abstract -- value that is a basic condition of your life. It peaks my interest. Subetai: The desire to obtain the interest. :) And thus give it full fledged Value status. :) An "interest" is more like a condition than a particular thing. Betsy: could you elaborate? Perhaps through an example? Life, liberty, property are "interests" then, for example, and are rationally the interest of every human being, unlike ice cream Betsy: It doesn't have to be that basic...let's say there is only enough ice cream for one person to possess and enjoy it, but more than one person wants it...how is this conflict of interest resolved? Would a conflict over a piece of land not be an "interest" because it's not some basic value? Phil: Interests can be very particular. What is important to one man, may not be to another. Interests are particulars, in the sense they are something an individual wants. They aren't abstractions, in that sense. I think the idea of an interest being a desire (a state of consciousness) is a good one. I have an interest in economic freedom, but not in a particular job. Tom assuming rational participants re ice cream getting? Betsy: What do you mean, an interest as a condition? tk: Sure. Betsy: Can I have an interest in owning property in Chicago? Subetai: sure you can, if you desire to make the investment. SAY ... an "interest" in is kinda like a "stake" in something. Betsy: But Ayn Rand used precisely the example of two men competing for one job in her essay. Or would the word "interest" be inappropriate there, seeing that it is not a basic value? Interests would be concretes that you desire. Betsy: yesf, thats why I mentioned interest rates...the ideas have the same root. Brad: And she came to the conclusion that what they both needed was not that particular job but the freedom to compete for that one job. You are interested in something if you think you will benefit from having it (assuming rationality). GlenM what about having an interest in a study of something - An interest in learning - obtaining knowledge - megsi: Again, you think you have something to gain by acquiring that knowledge, so the same priciple applies. megsi could there be a conflict of interests in the sense of an individual desiring knowledge? Once that has been identified, one has the emotional response of desiring to go after it. Betsy: Yes, but that is the resolution of the alleged conflict. But they each consider the job in their interest. So the conclusion is that their _actual_ mutual interest is: the _freedom_ to compete for that job, not that particular job From the OED: Interest: "The relation of being objectively concerned in something, by having a right or title to, a claim upon, or a share in. Brad: Or do the two men both consider something more fundamental which the job means to be their real interest? FredG: for the time being. Let's focus on the "objectivsly concerned" part of the def. Betsy: As Phil has just pointed out. Brad: Betsy pointed it out before, I was reiterating it to your statement.. Ah, ok. Would it be proper to consider that "interests" has two meanings - that which one desires or wants, and then an objective meaning which is closer to what Betsy defined? I think the "interests" concept is a bit loaded by conventional "wisdom". subetai - yes - Rand even pointed that out - I think in VOS Subetai: That objective approach is why there are no conflicts of interests among rational men. The meaning could be contextua So could we say that "interests" are desires for particular entities or actions. We have to start with the first meaning, because that's how it's generally used when people talk of "conflicts of interests" Starting from there, we can explore the meaning of "interests" more rigorously. Subetai: That seems reasonable. Subetai: yes, like some menwant X and others want Y, but both can't be had. Okay.... This seems to be yet another case of the issue of "value" in general sense vs. rational value From the OED (3) "A thing in which one has an interest or concern" This relates interest directly to "things" Rand disputes that "wants" and desires should be the standard by which we judge our interests. So it's either a mental action of desire or the thing being desired. phil: Same basic principle. the question is: cAn two (or more men) objectively desire the same thing, even if only one can have it? Okay. What factors would you consider to determine if a particular interest that someone expresses is *valid* ? Phil: Also, there is a profound truth at the bottom of this, namely the harmony of men's interests, and the nature of a productive, social living. Betsy: Yes, that's what I'm getting to. Betsy: Sure, using the desire or want as the standard is subjectivism. Because ... merely a want/desire is _emotional_, right? TomM: Sure they can -- conflicting desires happen all the time between rational people. Ask my husband. ;-) Tomm - I dont think so - Rationally it should go to whoever earned it - or deserves it - - not just because of somebodys feeling about wanting it "Leggo my eggo" ;) Betsy: There is no conflict because you are already spoken for ;) If anyone has seen that silly ad Is the example of 'conflict of interests' in the running a company , the desires of the shareholders as opposed t company officers' action appropriate ? Philo2: If you program your emotions with your conscious mind, your desires will be entirely objective (not subjective) megsi: I agree...I never said the desire per se determines the outcome. phil ;) How would you determine if an "interest" is objectively valid? What would you consider> ? I would say first and foremost, is it a value which derives from a rational ethics? In other words, is man's life qua rational being the explicit or implicit root of the value standard upon which it is founded. tk: Yes...it's a classic case. Brad: sounds good. So the first factor would be, is this in reality to my benefit? Does this interest contradict my existence? Is the interest life promoting for the one who has the interest. Fred: Out of context emotions happen to rational people too. That's one of the reasons you can't use emotions as tools of cognition. Fred: Even a fully rational personal can't treat an emotion as a tool of cognition -- I think that's the point relevant to here ... tk: That's a simple one, the officers of the company work for the owners, the shareholders phil: Yeah, just watch out for granny looking innocent in the corner ;) Subetai: I would consider what purpose it was intended to achieve, and whether that purpose is defensible as being in a rational man's self-interest. Subetai: Yes, but more importantly, I ask that of the claimed interests of others when they allege there is a conflict. Allright. Rand called this first area to consider "Reality" - this is how I summarize it: PhilO2: Of course not - my point is that emotions are not *bad* per se, ie, they do have reasons for a rational person Reality: consider if what you want (interest) is actually in your interest, given the nature of reality and your nature as a human being. If whatever you want is contradictory to reality, it isn't an "interest" - it's an impossibility that you'll never get and will ruin you if you try. In other words, can you say "I want this because it's *right*" ? Because this issue only arises in a social context. In the case of the running a corporation, is the 'opposing' parties interest the profitabilty of the corp, and the conflict over how best to achieve? Fred: Oh, I don't think they're bad -- they're just not how you cognate on the solution of a problem Subetai: Right, that defines a rational interest. FredG: They have reasons for an irrational person to - their values. er, too What else do we need to consider in determining wheether an interest is valid aside from the fact that it doesn't contradict reality? Odegard: Well...if they aren't rational, then they dodn't really have values in the existence exists sense of the term. if it satisfys the reality part - then we look at our personal values - what will make us feel good, happy, Nor reasons if they are not reality based. Subetai: How it fits into the person's value hierarchy? Subetai: an example might be a peaceful and quiet residence, as against the desire of a neighbor to blast music. Sube: Rand says here -- "Context" Does it fit the context of one's goals. betsy: could you define "context" here? Frode: okay, that's part of context. What else? BradA: Yes...the neighbor desires to blast his music; you desire to have a quiet evening...hence a "conflict of interest." Is it realistic to desire a quiet residence? Who is being reasonable or unreasonable? Is blasting loud music an objectively necessary value, to the detriment of others? etc. Sube: That means I don't wear a bathing suit to the formal ARI banquet and expect to be accepted. tomm - does your having a quiet night impact on him - ? Betsy LOL megsi: It does if I call the police to kill his music ;) Betsy: social context, then? Sube: It means you understand the nature of the situation where the "conflict" occurs. Subetai: It needs to be something which someone can rationally expect to achieve. Betsy: I think she puts that in "resposibility" - but it's a valid point nevertheless. I summarize context as follows: Context: Consider that interest in the full context of your knowledge. That includes knowledge of your personal hierarchy of values, and your goals. Consider *range* and *means*. People are capable of thinking long term, so don't pick interests that indulge a fancy now but conflict with your long term goals. And don't hold a desire without considering what you'll need to do in order to achieve it. So, for instance, this would make it irrational to claim that someone resident in some area could lay claim to thousands upon thousands of acres beyond their homestead. tomm - i mean if you are the quiet neighbor - is being quiet affecting anybody? no.. if you are the noisy neighbor.. then yes it does... no conflict of interest... its just plain rude to blast music and keep people awake - especially with the advent of earphones ;) megsi: Sure. Tom in the music ex. wuldn't the goal of quiet evening be the responsibilty of the person and require a property that would guarantee that outcome? Blasting your loud music _onto my property_ is a violation of my property rights Which is certainly a fundamental interest disruptive soundwaves travelling onto to my property that originate on someone elses property strike me as a violation of my rights. define "blasting" So context is important in judging whether an interest is valid or not. The next area she says you should consider is responsibility, which I summarize as follows: Responsibility: specifically, the responsibility of judging the social world. If you live in a free society where things you want depend upon voluntary agreements between people, you have to understand their requirements, their lives, their interests. Who will provide what you need? What will you offer them in exchange? What makes you think they will accept the trade? So one does not need to pursue interests that are going to take time away from one's goals in any area. tk: that's where respect for property rights comes into play. You have the right to blast your music, so long as it is not disturbing the neighbors who don't want it. An irrational hedonist will say he **wants** to blast his music, with no further justific tktktkt - anything that your neighbor in a residential area can hear - With their door closed - and windows shut Does that make sense so far, folks? Subetai: Yes, great summarizations. Sure. Human physiology and psychology determines in that _context_ what is reasonable or not. A quiet whisper of sound getting to you is reasonable, too loud isn't Okay. The reason I like her dividing this into specific areas is that when you apply this to a concrete problem, it gives you more angles to analyze it from. You can ask yourself, "how does this conflict of interests hold up when I examine the alleged interests from these angles" Phil: but again, with this music issue, it is not so much property rights, but what Subetai mentioned about being able to analyze further -- basically to examine why property rights don't conflict with rational desires. In the context of a society at large ie residential area, what guarantees that neighbors will be reasonable? Tad: For most: reason; for the rest: cops. Brad - how bout good manners? tktk: Sometimes legal restrictions written into the property deeds: convenants, codes, and restrictions -- CC&R's I'll cover one last area, then we can get into concretes. The last area she mentions is "Effort" - and I summarize it as follows: Effort: Things you want generally don't exist in a limited quantity. They're not rationed out by the privileged few and you don't get them by luck, breaks or favors. Wealth and nice things are created by people. You work for what you want. No concrete specific goal or value is irreplaceable. megsi: that is an aspect of reason, applied to social living. Brad so certain decibel levels will be codified? Subetai: Well, that is true for material values/interests, but loved ones are irreplacible. In other words, effort is the key to gaining what you want, not wheeling and dealing. not luck. TomM: But the love of others must be earned. Tom: yeah. I'm going to use that as one of my examples. Tad: I believe such things are more-or-less codified now. There are typically by-laws regarding doing noisy work, for instance, in general residential areas. Betsy: No doubt....my point is that one can't say, " Oh Well, the bad guy shot my gal, but I can get another one just like her." good manners is also a matter of a person choosing to stylize their mannerisms in an epistemological/esthetically pleasing manner. Clay: Is that pleasing manner a good manner ;) From the perspective of these areas, I'd like to pose a concrete problem. Let's analyze the "interests" here in terms of Reality, Context, Responsibility and Effort. Subetai: So she considered the key issues to be: Reality, Context, and Effort? Ah, Responsibility. Brad: right The Amazon jungle has the largest variety of plant and animal life of any discrete geographical region anywhere in the world. It's possible that cures to various diseases may be found in the chemicals extractable from those plants. Local people who own it want to chop the trees down for lumber or burn them to plant crops. Is there a conflict of interest between the locals and someone who could potentially benefit from the disease cure? tomm - but there is a huge difference between losing a love by gunplay and losing somebody because they chose somebody else. (there is no confict if she /he choses somebody else) Let's focus on my example for the time being, folks. Brad ok so the neighbor being unreasonably noisy is the violator and you have recourse as to agreement f living in the area megsi: True...I was addressing the irreplacible aspect. Reality: The locals OWN the land. Context: Private ownership is in one's longterm self-interest. Subetai: There is only a conflict if the persons desiring the chemicals don't think they have to buy the tress from those who own it. Subetai: No, because the locals "own" the forest, so others have no actual claim on it - in reality. If they want it, they can buy some of the forest themselves Betsy: okay, so rights are part of "reality" - what else is that's relevant here? Subetai: _If_ that area contains things more valuable than the lumber/plant crops, then it might sense for someone to convince the _owners_ that they ought to use it for thera. drugs. Otherwise, it's theirs to do with as they plrease Responsibility: Buy out the people who own the land. Effort: Earn the money to pay them their asking price. Reality: Who owns it. Context: potentials aren't actuals; science. Responsibility: lives of actual people have higher priority than alleged potential benefits. Effort: why aren't these cure manufacturers doing it now? [BlueGreen] *Nothing* is outside the province of reason Subetai: Effort - those wanting to do the research have to put in the effort to buy forest Responsibility: He who wants the value is repsonsible for putting forth the effort. If only the locals are doing the work, only they should benefit. Easy there :) I'm still on "reality" What else is relevant when it comes to "reality" in this example? potential cure? Subetai: Tehre are only a limited number and types of trees. SUbetai: Is the statement _true_ or not? Would you point out that these drug cures they want are a *potential* and not *real* when they present it as a conflict of interest and ask for action? Betsy makes an excellent point about responsibility. Notice how the left is always screaming and demanding benefits and values, with no consideration of how they will come into being, and the effort involved. Tad: right So all their claims about the environment, whether deforestation, or species extinction, or whatever, is always a huge blank-out on HOW and WHO. Tom: Excellent point. Brad: And WHY? As in why cut down the tress just because you earn a living at it. The Left wants everthing for nothing; and nothing for everything. Okay. Context should also include placing something in one's personal hierarchy. Which would mean, people ought to ask themselves if it's more to their interest to buy a tract of rain forest or spend the time and money to avoid the diseases they fear. If they already have the disease, their options are different. But the same logic applies. They would say let the forest stand indefinately until all potential cures are examined and if none are found then use the lumber and land Subetai: They could buy a tract of forest, and do research on it ;) Sube: Or if it is better to develop drug by genetic engineering. +s Anything else we can put in "context" ? Betsy: right Go and hire the "witch doctors" in Brazil to document the plants and pay them big bucks ;) Subetai: And context also requires remembering the vast host of maladies already adressed by western science and medecine. Now, we are working at the fringes, and more difficult diseases. So of course much more effort is involved. Subetai: Since, in most cases, research has fnot been done, then there is no context to say there are cures in the rain forest. But you can't elevate addressing these more fringe cases, to the same importance as those affecting the vast majority of people. Brad pharm companies do just tha no? Okay. Just to drive the point home, remind them that holding a context without examining the means is irrational, and are they prepared to pay the price (buying the land, research). sorry i mean their functin is to determine what is worht "going after' It seems to me the main issue is the one of land rights. The people who own it may do with it as they wish regardless of anyone else's desires. Context: People _may_ die of diseases if they cut the trees, but the tree-cutters are more likely to die of starvation if they are prevented from earning a living. Tad: Yes, to the degree there is a market. Fringe maladies must depend for their amelioration upon charitable research. So those seeking cures, need to seek people's donations. Glenn: That's another perspective. What we're doing here is showing that there's no conflict of interest at all. I agree. Okay, moving on to responsibility. We pretty much covered that. Anything else to add? <> megsi heard that the outbreaks of strains of ebola and marlbo viruses - that have occured as a result of the invasion into the rainforrest... (I am not an eco freak)_ - but one of these lovely diseases with a widespread attack on a country - could mean the end for LOTS and LOTs of people Subetai no conflict of objective interests? Betsy: Thats really a false alternative, because the diseased people have no claim on the forest, so comparing the two is irellevant I think there's an important proviso here too -- no conflict of interests among _rational_ people Phil: right Glenn: The point, is not to stop the argument with an appeal to property rights, but to go further, and debunk the myth that those on the other end have a *legitimate* claim to their desire. Betsy: I mean to say that is negates the reality of the situation in comparing the diseased with the owners Fred: It sure does. Phil: Sure, that "free life style" of the sixties--free of rationality--was one of the most turbulent times in our history, short of war. Responsibility (as Betsy and others said) means that you recognize that values are exchanged, not stolen or seized. Find out what they want, negotiate, and pay. What about Effort? Brad. I agree. They have no right to the cure because of objective law's that allow for ownership. Sube: Are we still sticking to the jungle example? Phil: yeah Winding it up. Glen they have no right to a cure because that would mena they also have a right to the efforts of those providing cure Glenn: But what we are showing, is that they have no *moral* right to even be claiming their desires are legitimate, and thus no valid claim to there being any conflict. Subetai: those who want to study cures must go through the effort to buy the forest if they want to do research on it...or make a contract of usage with the owners--provided there *are* owners...most of this land is not owned by anyone. Brad. Ok Effort: Ok -- if it _was_ a value to you to recognize these plants before they're burned, then apply your mind to identification of them without coercing them politically. i.e., talk with natives who've used them for hundreds/thousands of years, then figure out how to grow them in hothouses, etc. What if they're not willing to sell? You recognize that no physical values are irreplaceable. Who is going to make these cures? Where is the money going to come from, to research and develop a cure for some obscure disease? The effort is in finding alternative means of creating those chemicals. Dagny: That's part of the effort too. Once you've identified that it's compound X, how do you make it by the truckload with genetic engineering All right. One last example that you've already talked about before. Two men love the same woman. Only one can marry her. Could we quickly examine that in terms of these four areas? the chemicals in the plants would have first to be scientificaly engineered before finding which plants 'make them'? We also get back to reality here: if there is indeed something especially valuable about this land, other than for agriculture, it should then rise in value dramatically in comparison to mere agricultural land. Reality: Which man does SHE want. ? Thus, much of it should naturally flow into the use of being a "bio-reagant mine". Sorry to drag Reality back in. :) Effort: Become the tyupe of man she wants. oops...type. Betsy: I'd add that Reality includes whether your desire for her is to your benefit or not. Do you want her because she has lots of money? Reality: In reality, of the two men, only one can be the best for the relationship In other words, is she *really* a value to you? Or is it some whim or momentary fancy. REsponsibility: Assess the actual value of her to you...don't just go by your feelings. The whole scenario given if Galt has sacrificed himself and let Francisco have Dagny -- how it would have destroyed all of them eventually Sube: That could be a valid interest in some contexts -- like if she earned it herself and you admir her for it. Phil: That possibly implies intrincisism or omniscience. You can't know ahead of time how things will be in the future. A person can be in love with two others, and both others could have legitimate love for the first. betsy - yes, but not in the sense that you don't love her but marry her for the money. Just an example I used - there are other examples of choosing something for the wrong reasons. BradA: But in reality only one is going to be "the one" even if they're two great guys such as Galt and Francisco (or additionally, Rearden) Phil: Ok. Context: where does she fit on your value hierarchy? What "interest" (range and means) follow from that? Responsibility: Whom does she prefer? What actions are required to get her to to know you? Any disagreements? Subetai: sure, context, what do you really know about her, and yourself? Subetai: And most especially, consideration of what would be the consequence to someone of sacrificing *their* first choice. Tom: right. You must have known those things to even establish whether she was "good" for you. Areas like these are where sacrifice reaches its ultimate depravity, and really destroys people. Subetai: But the context side is what you know...the reality side is what exists. BradA: Hers and yours if mutual. Even if Dagny is Francisco's first choice -- and she was -- that can't be allowed to be a consideration between the two parties with mutual attraction yes what would be the value of life without her if she was a supreme value to your own hapiness and you gave up on it Tom: As Rand uses those terms, she uses "reality" to simply mean "is this really an objective value" ? phil: that comes under context...she didn't even know any other possibles when she knew Francisco. TomM: Although she had an abstract idea of her ideal man .. "the man where the rails vanished" Subetai: Ok, then context will come in when one validates the knowledge. She uses "context" to mean, "okay, she's a value, but what's the range and extent and importance of this value, is it attainable, what actions does it require? Miss X has these qualities. I know what these qualities will do for me... Subetai: Sure. Responsibility: Is she currently married and can you pursue a relationship in that condition..? (no) She uses "responsibility" to mean, don't stop with "I wish" - find out how to get that value in this world, what's the asking price. responsibility: How do I approach her? Effort: Go for it! Okay. Finally, as Tom mentioned much earlier, people are irreplaceable. How do we fit that in with "effort" ? Effort is SO important in gaining love. There is a lot that you have to _do_ and Make of yourself to be lovable. there is no substitute for her. No alternate woman you could creeate as you create new wealth. Subetai: That, I think, is the root of why people say they are willing to "give up everyhting" (in the payment sense of that phrase) to get the one of their desires. Betsy: Like letting her really know who you are? Giving her the opportunity to evaluate you? You have to GO to the right places, look and be your best to display your virtues -- after you've made the effort to actually HAVE virtues. Like thinking long-range in order that you can work long range to make yourself lovable ... you can't do that overnight if you're a surly curmudgeon now ;) Sube: Sure -- and being the kind of person who "evauates" well. Subetai: If you value her most, if you desire her more than anyother, shouldn't you try to 'earn', or 'purchase' her with your own value? ephraim - only if she recgonizes your value - as much as you recognize hers The way I resolve the "irreplaceability of people" is to say, okay, I can't have *her* - but that doesn't mean I won't ever find love again. It'll be a different love, but I can' can't say it'll be less worthwhile. Ephraim: that means be honest...don't try to be something you are not--at lest not if you are unwilling to actually become that other you. It is not enough to BE virtuous. If you are looking for love, you have to work to sell yourself to a potential "buyer". nice work, if you can get it. and you can get it if you try. Betsy: In this context, what's the most important thing the guy can do to sell himself? Betsy: Yep...that's why I love to write love poems. It's a nice way to say, "Hello." That concludes the scheduled part of our discussion. Thanks for your patience folks. Please continue talking about this or anything else. Megsi, thats what I meant by "earn" and "purchase." A trade involves two people. She must 'want" you to purchase her. To let you. Ideally at least. Phil: My Dad used to say, "It pays to advertise." You have to put your virtues on public display, "package" yourself well, and all the other principles of good marketing. Subetai: Enjoyed it. Great discussion! Thanks, Glenn. :) Hmmm...so Objectivist buy love...what a bunch of capitalists! ;) ditto Glenn night all - thanks subetai - Laterz (.)(.) later megsi Subetai: Yep...well planned out and exicuted. Betsy: Ok :) I'll be back in a bit... Merci Beacoup got to go. bye. What I was trying to focus on here is that when we have discussions about "conflicts of interest" we go beyond "this is how individual rights work, so shut up" And also try to show that there wasn't really any conflict, if the people are rational. Phil--the most important thing a guy can do to sell himself to a woman--to make himself attractive--is to be the best person that he can be. Subetia aren't 'rights' more fundamental ? So I didn't say much about rights. However, when you're arguing positions like the rainforest example, you'd establish rights before you did this. Sube: You know, a lot of people take what Rand said to mean that rational people shouldn't have ANY conflicts and, if they do, it means that somebody is being irrational. That is TOTALLY false. Jeff: That's important -- but a guy should look and smell nice, too. That is--you can advertisea piece of junk for a huge price all you want, but in order to persuade someone to give you the money for what you're selling, you have to have the value to sell--a Betsy: Right. People can have all kinds of conflicts. The one's I'm focussing on are those where someone thinks that the exitence of another rational human being is inimical to their own welfare. one's = ones And moreover, they're trying to show that this has to be, by using that example. IRC log ended Fri Nov 22 23:38