Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Repairman

Regulars
  • Posts

    780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Everything posted by Repairman

  1. We can agree, there is no point to "pushing the atheist angle," anymore than pushing anything other than that which matters to our own self-interest. Also I don't really care if someone wants to believe in god, regardless of their rationality. Generally, people are not opposed to rationality, and yet, Americans are careening toward one artificial crisis and then another. People claim to embrace life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Most don't want to be preached to as to how to define their pursuit of happiness. They don't want to be told that they're "no fun." They don't need philosophy, or so they will tell you. There's nothing terrible about such people, and I never said there was. And we can accept these people for who they are, but they are not Objectivists, and they never will be. If your objective is to "push" any sort of agenda, marketing is everything. Catholics, communists, and Nazis used propaganda to their ultimate outcome. The explanation for the ultimate decline and/or demise of these ideas is the fact that people are rational, and these ideas are based on irrational premises. While I couldn't tell from present conditions, we may pull the United States from the descent into the Leviathan/welfare state, but religion will always have a hold on people. This doesn't concern me. What concerns me is that as the United States flounders, religious movements will have the upper hand as people become more demoralized. The religious movements will be more successful, because their followers were introduced to "god" at an early age. Speaking strictly for myself, I wouldn't even raise the subject of Ayn Rand to anyone other than my closest associates, unless they confide with me their disbelief of the supernatural, and their frustration with the current direction of our collective social order. To try to "push" Objectivism on anyone else would be a waste of their time, but more important to me, it would be a waste of my time. I have no criticisms of your parents; I don't know them.
  2. So far, this is the strongest and most simplified argument for NOT proselytizing Objectivism to anyone other than your children. Why bother trying to change the minds of those unwilling to embrace the fundamentals of Objectivism. Why bother probing the minds of people who likely would not be good company. The connection between fun and popularity needs little explanation. But satisfaction does not come from being popular; satisfaction comes from being successful. One can easily attract all the friends one needs after one has achieved success, and it's entirely possible that one, two, or more of your friends will activate their minds enough to reconsidering their views. They might even become Objectivists. But if they don't, there's no reason they couldn't remain one's friends, as long as one wishes them to be. If one is striving for success, I have found that it is of little benefit to strive for fun or popularity, when one's time could be better spent reaching one's next goal. The greatest impediment to Objectivism's popularity is the atheist component. From personal experience, sharing Objectivism with people who plan to retire for eternity with their good buddy, Jesus, is a bad idea. I don't expect such people to be receptive to reason, nor would I expect them to have much in common with me. And while I realize that this is not at all an either-or-proposition, I'd rather be right than popular. No one proselytized to me. I had to discover the works of Ayn Rand after many years almost entirely at random. While I suppose it's better late than never, I am hopeful, that is, I am still able to rise to a higher level of personal success. I am hopeful that one day a franchise of secular private elementary schools may make The Fountainhead part of its required literary studies. I am hopeful that just such an effective learning environment could discover new ways to make philosophy fun, and thereby more popular. Maybe someone will invent a popular video game that promotes reality-based morality. I will leave that task to much younger innovators. Persuasion can yield results, but early indoctrination would work much better. Just look at the results early indoctrination as had for the government and parochial schools.
  3. Let's Change! Exactly what does this declaration mean? If I am to follow my personal interests, the only changes I will focus on are those that advance myself toward my goals. I am one who knows myself, and I suppose a great many people can make the same claim. I know that I am a kill-joy, less interested with style than I am interested in substance. If my purpose were to entertain others, I would be very concerned with broadening my sense of humor. In fact, I would broaden it beyond pointlessness, because that's what comedians do. They want to reach the broadest audience possible. I don't care about the broader audience. But if I were an aspiring entertainer, I would most certainly need to change that attitude. I choose not to change, at least not for the purpose of impressing people whose views will never align with mine. I wish to have meaningful engagements with intelligent people, not twist balloons into representational sculptures of dachshunds. The vast majority of the people I know would be more entertained by the balloon clown than having a discussion about history, global affairs, and/or least of all, philosophy. Regardless as to how you market ideas, it is only through cultural products,i.e. music, movies, literature, or live stage theater that one conveys a theme to a large audience. This is not say that I have never slipped in a bit of humor into my posting on this forum, or in casual personal conversation. To the contrary, people appreciate my humor, as deadpan as it is, when dignified professionalism is all that they've come to expect. Wit must not be conflated with "being fun." If you are a "fun person," wonderful; perhaps you don't need to change anything. If you intend to convey a serious idea with humor, you may find that you need to refine and practice your routine, and prepare for the serious rebuttal. Personally, I find self-styled clowns rather boring. Perhaps no one will ever accuse me of being a fun guy, but the world has enough human whoopy-cushions to keep us all in blissful hysterics. I disagree with the assertion that Ayn Rand lacked humor. Having read her novels, I found the sort of humor I can appreciate in the caricatures of her antagonists. And if I had to defend an unpopular idea in public, I might be just as precise and combative as was she. I want to give a special thanks to StrictlyLogical for the vintage video of Robin Fields. I watched it all the way through. I will pass it along. It is an exceptional piece of entertainment, and never strays from his intended point.
  4. Policies do not convey character traits, unless you might include the excessive use of executive powers as a measure of executive self-aggrandizement. Of course, he'll have quite a way to go to catch up with Obama's conceit.
  5. Yes, I suppose you could say he is a pragmatist. I suppose there are a great many adjectives one could use to describe Trump. Two that come to mind are, blunt and ambitious. Two adjectives I would not use to describe him are, dignified and intellectual. One could argue that he is rational in the sense that he is WINNING! (with an arm pump), but avarice, conceit, and megalomania are not virtues by Objectivist standards. It is too early to judge his legacy as president. However, if you want to know this Objectivists opinion, there are decades of publicity shedding light on his character and politics, which support my views.
  6. At the onset of the 2016 primary season, I would not have believed it possible for Donald Trump to win the nomination. How wrong I was! There are two rhetorical questions to consider when forming an opinion about Trump: 1) Is Trump the most qualified individual for holding the office he now holds?; 2) What has happened to the nation that made his success in politics possible? Is Trump qualified? He meets all of the legal requirements. The legitimacy of his election remains a legal matter to be settled. Was he unlawfully assisted by Russian confederates, or not? I think he stands a good chance of surviving this problem. As others have noted, he gives the appearance of a petulant anti-intellectual bully. If anyone can offer up proof that Trump's threats have actually caused a chilling effect on the press, or direct harm to any American individual or corporation, I'd be willing to look at the evidence. But as far as I can see, he has stayed within the limits of the law in carrying out his agenda. The big question is, just what is Trump's agenda? Is he actually seeking to establish needed reforms, possibly raising his persona to one of a great American historical leader, in his words, "Make America Great Again?" If that is the case, he needs to more clearly define what is the standard of "American Greatness." Is his objective to further enrich himself, and his special friends? Donald Trump is a schemer; there is method to his madness. At this point, Trump has already shown that he never had any principled plan for the economy, but only a plan to seize more control of the economy. His support for minimum wage and trade protection may prove to be smart political moves aimed at assuaging the fears of those in lower wage jobs. More likely, if his policies pass, they will result in greater opportunities to the largest companies, while the smaller competitors struggle even harder, or fold. Many of the Trump supporters I've talked to were totally unaware of the billions of dollars which he had at the start of his enterprises, his abuse of eminent domain, and the allegations of his cheating workers out of their wages. On all of this, I believe Donald Trump's only principle is: WINNING! (with an arm pump.) Were there more qualified candidates? Perhaps. But there is an overwhelming number of Americans who hate anyone who has any association with DC policy-making. Many of these people never vote, and for that very reason. But in 2016, many of them did get out the vote, because they approved of Trump's language, incoherent as it may be. And he could get away with saying these things because he has held no previous office, inside or outside of DC. I believe this was one of the qualifications his blue-collar supporters find most appealing. In a similar way, Barak Obama appealed to many who never voted before, merely because his complexion more closely matches their demographic. This leads to the second rhetorical question: What has happened to the United States, the nation that once led the world in the pursuit of individual liberty and industrial innovation? How could so many voters support a leader who makes no apologies, who openly brags of aspiring to become a strong-man dictator? (I suppose the short answer might be that fewer wished to see a strong-woman dictator. If identity-politics was the only controlling force, 50 percent of the voters would have turned out for Hillary Clinton.) To fully answer this important question, I would encourage you to read, Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff. I'm reading it for the second time. While the US economy has a long way to go before it hits the depth of Germany's in the 1920s, the breakdown of politics is quickly taking the shape of that of the Weimar Republic. While I do not agree with those who claim that Donald Trump is a Nazi, not even a racist, I would contend that his election is proof that a significant number of Americans would favor a dictatorship, provided that that dictatorship enabled them to oppress those of the opposite ideological and/or racial camp. Doctor Peikoff wrote this book 35 years ago, and it has never been so relevant as in our present times. I believe we are on the road to tribalism. I can live with being wrong, but I hope I'm dead before that ever happens. I hold onto the hope that the checks and balances of the US Constitution will prevent this from happening. If not, I believe Ayn Rand would say: "Brother, you asked for it."
  7. For better or worse, it seems we're straying quite a way away from the opening topic of Colorado. But for what it's worth, may I offer some constructive criticism: As I've already admitted, I know next to nothing about video games, or how they might be used to convey complex ideological concepts to their participants. "Sonic is cool in universe because he’s the good guy! He’s fast, smart, and has a can-do attitude." While traits such as fast, smart, and possessing a can-do attitude may well be attributes of a hero, they may just as well be the attributes of a villain. "Sonic feels no duty to fight Eggman… he fights Eggman because it’s fun for him! As the good guy, Sonic realizes how competent and excellent he is, and how weak and pathetic Eggman is." Based solely on this description, I would assume Sonic is an evil megalomaniac exacting pleasure by tormenting the retarded Eggman. I find nothing in your description that would define Sonic as a champion of the Good as defined by Objectivist standards. In addition to his sadistic pursuits, Sonic has little to worry about, as his friends, Tails and Knuckles, will back him up if he finds himself out-matched. Those names sound like stereotypes from a list of characters in a 1930s gangster film. None of this sound very sporting to me. Of course, their must be more to your scenario, but I see no distinct Objectivist message here. I am reminded of a little known historical figure, named, Otto Skorzeny, whose claim to fame was as one of Adolf Hitler's personal entourage, a soldier of remarkable prowess and prestige. He is alleged to have rescued Benito Mussolini from captivity single-handedly with the use of a hang-glider. While Otto Skorzeny, KGB officers, and mafia-goombas might justify their violence as a duty to a higher cause than self, they enter those very challenging roles likely because it brings them some sort of sense of superiority over others. It doesn't matter if their opponents may be more formidable or less than a challenge. Robotnik sounds evil, in that he enslaves others. (Are Eggman and Robotnik one in the same entity?) But in the Objectivist ideal, man is not a weakling to be enslaved, waiting despairingly for a hero to rescue him. Maybe I'm confused about all of this, because I have no experience with these interactive videos. If the small woodland creatures of Mobius are enslaved by a "weak and pathetic" nemesis, they are none-the-less small woodland creatures. This all sounds very much like the morality plays presented as children's cartoons where the pet cat preys on the heroic mice, and in their celebration, the mice inhabit your cupboard and eat your food. Generally, the moral to the story is: if enough little guys band together, they can take whatever they want by force.
  8. I hope your artistic endeavors bring you happiness. As with many of my generation, the video game culture doesn't interest me very much. There is no denying the effect of this relatively new medium. One thing I would like to emphasize is that in your "good vs evil" themes, it is vitally important to identify that which is "the good," and that which is "the evil," is the most unambiguous terms. On Trump, I have a wait-and-see attitude. Having held the lowest of opinions of both of the candidates of 2016, having been sufficiently surprised by his success, I can only hope for the best, as I have for every new US president.
  9. Realistically and regretfully there is no quick solution to popular opinion and the political norms that rise from it. It is popular opinion that must be cultivated, and that could take a very long time. I'm certain I'll never see the turning point. And I'm not so certain that America is doomed, not so much as I was in the past. Technological innovators continue to improve the quality of life for those willing to hang on to their hopes. Assuming that our ideology is more than rhetoric supporting free-markets and free-people, an ideology that challenges individuals to think independently, rationally, one that demands the individual to take more control and pride into their own individual lives, and one that celebrates genuine achievement, rather than conspicuous consumption, then it must be spread through every means possible to a free people. I do not work in the mass media; I don't even subscribe to nor watch cable-network TV. But, perhaps one day a celebrity-host of a late night talk show will take an Objectivist point of view; a trend in movies might resurrect the meaning of true individuality and the spirit of heroics. The people who entertain us and inform us are the real leaders of cultural change, not politicians. My point is supported by the fact that abnormally large numbers of lower-working-class stiffs voted for a gas-bag billionaire with no governmental experience. How did he get so popular? Answer, he had a TV show. And welcome to the forum.
  10. Then I gather that you're perfectly willing to support "Red" evils, as opposed to "Blue" evils. You've made the point that "Red" ideology denies individual liberty, (with the exception of tobacco and firearms.) Could you be so sure that "Red" government officials would reverse the existing regulations in a manner that wouldn't slant just a little economic advantage to their special friends? Then after they've made their friends richer, the opposition raises the matter of profiteering cronies in campaign advertisements, and they make it back in, so they can help their special friends. I vote for Republicans far more often than not, but both parties make sure that their friends in the private sector get their grease. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the majority of the voters actually want their government officials to have control over other people's wealth. And as you've pointed out, the people want government intervention into the lives of others. I may vote for Republicans, but I'm not proud of it. Until a persuasive and successful argument can be made to the majority of voters, exposing the fundamental evil of allowing massive government control over their businesses and their lives, and that they, the people, must respect the rights of others to govern their own flawed lives as they value their own liberty, they merely shift that control back and forth as if power were a basketball. And that argument will never be accepted so long as so many Americans do such a miserable job of managing their own affairs. If I may assume that you are advocating for the Republican Party, what is your argument that theirs is a "far superior economic policy?" (Emphasis on "far superior.")
  11. How would you define the ideology and/or policies of a "solid red" state?
  12. Let's suppose you settle in an established country. You'd have to live by the laws of their land, or put up some sort of resistance, likely resulting in an escalated conflict. "...shoot down the local school levies..."? What does that mean? Maybe you could develop your settlement-scenario for the benefit of clarity. I'd like to know what it is that you are imagining.
  13. Your question opens a number of other questions: I'll address the last question first: obviously a society formed on the Objectivist concepts of minimal government would be desirable. The practical creation of a micro-nation on earth comprised of Objectivists would have great difficulty protecting itself from hostile nations. It would also have problems with citizens who believe that there could be some "practical" solution to age-old problems, such as, common usage of certain resources and many of the very practical problems raised on this forum. What would prevent mysticism and altruism from reemerging as popular ideas? What would be the criterion for banishment? How would you qualify a citizen as being a "true" Objectivist? Would there be a court of judgment deciding ideological fitness of a citizen in question? The children of Obectivists may not necessarily agree with their parents. Would you create "special schools" for "proper orientation"? The real question of any nation's ability to endure would be the principles of its law of the land, its constitution. A society based on the protection of man's freedom would also protect his right to disagree with the majority.. Anyone promising utopia without working out the details should be held suspect. In my opinion, we will never see such a settlement of Objectivist on this planet, certainly not in the near-future. But, given time, perhaps a few hundred thousand committed Objectivists might stake out a piece of territory in fantastic futuristic experiment. It may become necessary for their survival. Atlas Shrugged was one such fantasy. Keep in mind that the citizens of Galt's Gulch had a fantastic futuristic means of defending their enclave. And we'll never know what sort of problems the next generation of Gulch dweller might have faced. All said, we will have to deal with reality as it is. For me, this means living my life for my own sake, defending my own person and ideas, and on occasion enjoying a persuasive conversation with a fellow traveler.
  14. Wayne, Welcome to the forum. "If you want to help them, you will not be stopped." How can this statement be interpreted to mean anything other than giving approval for you to use your own judgement and free will? The word, "selfishness," will carry a pejorative definition to most as long as they remain unaware of the antithesis of selfishness: selflessness. If one were to find the the dictionary definition of "selfish," they would find: self-interest. I made this discovery at an early age, and understood the truth of the matter that anyone who does not admit to taking an interest in one's self is a hypocrite. It was not until quite late in life that I read Ayn Rand, and discover the pejorative definition of selflessness, altruism, and sacrifice. It occurred to me at that point that a great many people world-wide and throughout history are not merely content to "save" other people, but to save those other people from themselves. The selfless altruist must oversee the lives of not merely the unfortunate ones who are victims through no fault of their own, but must make it the obligation of others to sacrifice on their behalf. Through the sacrifice of their leadership, the altruist concerns him/herself with the duty of "saving the world." Or on a smaller scale, the altruist must impress upon others their duty to the family, not from a selfish sense of compassion for those that are loved, but from a selfless sense of guilt. Compassion is a perfectly normal human trait, one that no doubt helped in the survival of mankind since the earliest days of his existence. Ensuring the survival of those you love, of those upon whom you rely for your own survival, be that in a material or an emotional sense, is no sacrifice. And if your compassion motivates you to lending assistance to those who have value, those whom you judge to be worthy of your assistance regardless of your familiarity, then, by all means act upon your selfish and rational judgment, and volunteer your support. True charity can never be an act of coercion; it is an act of selfishness.
  15. Boydstun, I would disagree with this statement, only because more people of the United States, (and for that matter, the world) need to understand the complexity of Americas' past where race and slavery are involved. Specifically, Robert E. Lee was both a slave owner and aware of the evils of slavery, (or so I've read). That being said, there was a period shortly after the war, when brandishing the Confederate flag was illegal. That period passed into an period of reconciliation, rather than reconstruction, a period when the healing nation embraced the Southern white man for his valor, and the federal government abandoned the cause of leading the freedmen to full citizenship. Too many Euro-Americans are completely ignorant to the injustice of the Jim Crow Era, or they minimize the long-term effects. The erection of statues to Confederate war "heroes" and the revival of their flag were errors made out of a near-sighted attempt to pander to Southern nationalism, in spite of the obvious nature of the lost-cause of the South, i.e. the defense of race-based slavery as an institution. We are now in an era that may be understood only from a distance, just as those pre-Civil Rights years are better understood now. It would be right that those monuments, even the ugliest reminders of the KKK, and other relics of the post-Civil War Era be put on display in a museum, where they can be studied in their proper context, rather than as celebrated symbols of honor. And the Jim Crow Era might be better understood with its complexities. I honestly don't know the exact details of the "white-nationalist" protesters, but one thing is clear. That is, this nation, with all of the progress made toward liberty and justice, is degenerating deeper into tribalism. If these legally licensed demonstrator were allowed to make their statements without interference, we might better understand their grievances, or perhaps we would not have had such a tragic escalation of violence. Most likely, many would have been offended, but would anyone have been physically hurt? We'll never know. I expect this won't be the last such incident of this sort. Obviously, more restraint of personal feelings, a better understanding of history, and a moderated forum would help to create a more rational climate for debate.
  16. I'll second the motion for Heinlein's, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and having recently finishing Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame, I'll cast a vote for it. In addition, anyone interested in Objectivism ought to read the two great novels by George Orwell's, Animal Farm, and 1984.
  17. Welcome to the forum, Zack Gines. Have you read much of Ayn Rand's non-fiction? I'm looking forward to your contributions.
  18. Are you suggesting that there are no absolutes? As for the concept of individuals taking responsibility for their own lives, I suppose that couldn't possibly be taken seriously? Don't you suppose it's the responsibility of the individual as to whether or not they choose to poison themselves with heroin or meth? But again, these are straw-men and the real problem is how to convince others as to just what is meant by rational self-interest. Fifty years ago, people would never have taken you seriously if you advocated homosexual marriages or an African-American president.
  19. Szapalski, Check your premise. Your claim that Objectivism is somehow flawed has not been supported with substantive argument. This is because you have no argument. From everything I've read so far, your argument is as follows: 1) Objectivism does not specifically address the shortcomings of the welfare-state, it does not offer statistics supported with exploratory data. For example your rationale: or... This rhetorical listing of random libertarian policies is coupled with an acceptable generalization that, 2) these policies are unpopular. 1) Objectivism is a philosophy, not a registered political party. If you wish to debate the pros and cons of taxation or Medicaid, there are other threads addressing specific policies. Specific to your primary concern, 2) What difference does it make if an idea is popular or not, as long as it's right? Being popular is for politicians, not philosophy. Speaking for myself, I'd much rather be right than be popular. It's even better when I have the strongest argument. If I needed to persuade (for the sake of my personal satisfaction), I might switch tactics to meet the understanding level of my interlocutor. Whether I persuade them or not, it's not my fault that some people are incurable altruists or some other reality-denier. So, go ahead and reject Objectivism, but you'll be struggling for a long time trying to prove that its flawed.
  20. And yet, you expend a great deal your creative energy (and time) making a pointless argument. Obviously, you hold metaphysical convictions that conflict with Objectivism. Ayn Rand did not contradict herself. If you watch the Tom Snyder interview to the end, she uses a religious reference in closing: "God bless America." Immediately prior to that statement, she clarifies her use of the term, God, as meaning: all that is good. Clearly, she did not always express herself literally, although she seems to be very conscientious of her choice of words. There is no "perhaps" in regard to Ayn Rand's convictions. As a person of independent thought, you may interpret information, perceptions, sensations, or the random fulfillment of wishes any way you so desire, but that does not make your interpretations matters of fact. Selling a house or making a financial contract may very well be creative, but it is not art. Not by Objectivist definition. You could say that there is an art to installing PVC piping, or landing an airplane, or folding your laundry. You could say that there is an art to picking pockets, or picking up a one-night-stand date, or stacking a deck of cards. The creative process is certainly applied to all of these examples. Some require human intuition. But it's not art. And you can say that it is, just as you could say: A is non-A. But merely saying so doesn't make it a matter of fact. So, in response to your statement: "you do not perceive creating and reality the same way I do," you are certainly correct. Objectivists require facts and evidence to support their interpretations. The distinction between your perception of reality, from the Objectivist understanding of reality, is defined as: the Primacy of Consciousness, versus, the Primacy of Existence. If you have any further interest in the works of Ayn Rand, you may do your own research. But it seems to me that that would be as much a waste of your time, as you have stated that you believe in a multitude of "existences" and that all metaphysical interpretations are mere speculation. Score one for Immanuel Kant.
  21. "Blessed are the children for they shall inherit the national debt."--Chinese fortune cookie

    1. dream_weaver

      dream_weaver

      Sounds like a recipe for a Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

  22. Repairman

    Marxism

    If by coercion, you mean to apply military force, I would disagree; it would only be necessary to prevent a Marxist nation from taking the offensive and expanding. This was the doctrine of the Cold War, and for the most part, it worked. If we're talking about North Korea, my understanding is that this is a very different animal from other Communist countries. While I have not read the literature you've alluded to, I view the PDRK as having a unique ideological mysticism that drives its actions and confounds the world. I am not an expert on either North or South Korea, but from the little I've learned about the North, their national economic policies include counterfeiting, kidnapping, assassination, extortion, and a great deal of slave-labor. I am not aware of any part of Marx's plan that directly calls for these practices in the creation of the workers' utopia. Their arms-sales must be capitalistic enough to compromise with free-market principles. As you said, they have compromised their Marxist purity. I would argue that they've compromised it beyond anything resembling Marxism, and into something more along the lines of an organized crime superpower. Only to the degree that their government has had some success at re-inventing humanity into their collectivist ideal, I don't think it's reasonable to equate North Korea with Marxism. Perhaps a nuclear-armed cult would be more apt. Whether or not they prove to be a suicidal cult is yet to be seen. But they are not driving toward independence. They are very dependent on the production of wealth produced by other nations, as a parasite feeds on its host. But I would agree that there is method to their madness: klepto-capitalism writ large is working for now, but only because the nations of the more sane world have no plan to counter their policies. Marxist individuals are on average intellectual. They can be engaged to some pragmatic outcome, and their success, however marginal, relies on compromise with their opponents on the side of objective truth. Some nations are rouge-states. They cannot be engaged for any constructive outcome. For these reasons, I engage in debate with altruists (for lack of encountering very many Marxists) as individuals, and leave those on the world stage to debate the national and academic leaders of communist/socialist persuasion. So far, I have not heard of many public spokespersons advocating or even defending laissez faire capitalism. Is there any reason to wonder why the North Koreans are as successful as they are?
  23. Repairman

    Marxism

    William O, It may very well be a complete waste of time arguing with anyone about anything. Unless it's a matter of business, there is no profit in argument. However, I occasionally engage in argument as a matter of entertainment; i.e. I may not necessarily wish to change anyone's mind. I like to develop my persuasive powers, and I like to be right by objective standards. You are quite correct to emphasize reason as the fundamental means of validating one's convictions. And I think we can agree that it is reasonable to assume that some people could never be persuaded to change their minds about their opinion. In fact, most people are perfectly happy to make an irrational statement no matter how it fails to stand up to facts and sound judgement. Generally, I won't waste much time arguing with such people. Many Marxist/altruists meet this criterion. They will always hold to their convictions regardless of rational argument. If one doesn't wish to engage in argument for whatever reason, then don't. On the other hand, if I were to engage someone who recognizes the contradictions of their Marxist or altruistic orientation, I may find the process of persuasion enjoyable. It is an intellectual contest. Dealing with one individual may have no gain of anything other than a mutually gratifying conversation. I wouldn't be changing the world, but I might earn the respect of someone I might or might not otherwise consider to be my ideological adversary. I might even make a new friend. And a new friend has value. Then, I would not have wasted my time.
  24. Eiuol, Please consider that this hypothetical situation began with three distinct options: If X-Prince were Hitler's son, option three may be the best choice. National-Socialism was deeply ingrained in the minds of the German people, and socialism remains to this day. Empires destabilize for reasons other than civil war. Economic crisis often precedes the gradual decline and fall of empires, even massive empires. Had the Third Reich succeeded, I believe the global economy would have struggled with a severe depression resulting from trade restrictions with Europe. The prospects of the Third Reich collapsing within 100 of its proposed 1000 years would have been very high, just as the Bolshevik state crumbled from a weak economy and immoral foundation. But let's go with your scenario. If all that X-Prince could do is to set into motion a civil war within Nazi Germany/Europe, there would be no certain outcome; the chaos could last indefinitely. There would be absolutely no guarantee that any single group, rebel or otherwise, would take the advantage. Our enlightened X-Prince may leave his once-mighty empire a mere rump of its former glory, but the legend of empire lives on. In the aftermath, the prospect of prolonged misery would far outweigh the prospects of an enlightened and prosperous nation emerging. Germany's external enemies would certainly conquer it much more easily than they did in 1944-45. Or it could be left to collapse internally, without an external invasion, as was the case of the fall of the Soviet empire in 1991. With no external invasion, no alternative ideology would displace the traditional beliefs. X-Prince would be branded as a traitor. In a similar fashion, Germany was left to sort out its mess in 1919, they branded the liberal politicians as traitors; the results were not very good. Without the good fortune of an outside nation of more sound ideology occupying the former-Third Reich, West Germany would likely never have risen above the standard of the Wiemar Republic. Likewise, the former Soviet Union languished in chaos for nearly a decade before its ubermensch arose from the ranks of the KGB. Anarchy is not a very good prerequisite for good government in any situation; it is perfectly reasonable, even desirable to expect a strongman-dictator to rise from the ashes. Nazi attitudes would survive with or without an empire. If X-Prince could not turn public attitudes from racism, altruism, collectivism, and mysticism, the generational cycle of preparing for a return to empire would be every bit as likely as Vladimir Putin "making Russia great, again." While ideology is not exactly the same as religion, for an unreconstructed-former empire, nationalism and militarism would endure with the tenacity of an ancient and sacred belief. Assuming that X-Prince wishes to remake his nation in the form of an enlightened, prosperous, and self-sustaining state, he would need to address the ignorance, irrationality, and evasive attitudes of his citizens. (Incidentally, many historians and some Germans I've met hold to the notion that the Third Reich may have been more successful had it not been that many of its military leaders intentionally undermined the Nazi mission, after they realized the dishonorable character of Der Fuhrer, and his murderous plans. This melds with your scenario somewhat.) In a nation that has always relied on strong leadership, the character of the new-style leader must be unimpeachable. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of educating the descendants surviving former dictatorships, fictional or real. Beginning with a direct and honest assault on the worst characteristics of the dysfunctional society, one can only hope that the new (Objectivist) ideas would bear long-term results, in spite of the lessons of history to the contrary. If I may digress slightly: Look at how long it took to reconstruct the norms of the Southern Confederacy, and you'll still occasionally hear echoes of the past. "Ole times there are not forgotten." We are witnessing the echoes of Nazism in the streets of Germany even today, this after years of peace and pacifism. I am not by any means advocating a brainwashing program. I am advocating awareness of the irrational ideas that result in irrational violence even within our own borders. In our not-so-hypothetical society, we will not see the appearance of a hereditary dictatorship, (not likely.) But in the event that we continue to falter from the effects of a politically controlled economy and a lack of rational philosophy, on one dark day, future generations of Americans may find themselves desperate for one.
  25. Indeed, our hypothetical philosopher-king would never enjoy the luxury of taking both eyes off of his potential enemies. If we're talking about someone with the "moral character of John Galt," intentionally destabilizing your own nation to the breaking point, resulting in factions of rebel groups, would seem a bit out of moral character. Wars of any sort are messy. The end results seldom turn out as planned. The use of force would be restricted only to the just cause of self-preservation. Sending people to fight for or against causes they don't understand would make him no different than the old guard. Here, I'd like to take the liberty of creating a convenient identity for the reluctant ruler, that is, our hypothetical John Galt-like-dictator-philosopher-king does not intend to be a dictator nor a king; so may I refer to him as X-Prince? It's easier to use. Broadcasting the truth to the people would be essential. If X-Prince's means are deception, the ends will be that of a nation that regards deception as a legitimate means to they own greedy ends. When people have survived by living lies and sneaking about, they don't abandon their ways in a single generation. The lives of such people are well-documented throughout history. No one said it would be easy, but being honest to the people is critical to the nation's sustainability. Perhaps you're talking about concealing the intentions of reform until X-Prince holds the power to make his reforms. If that is the case, he would be rather tight-lipped until the day after his coronation. Having absolute power by law would allow him to change the law by legal right. But systemic justice can't be instituted in a single generation. In fact, it may never come, but the task of free people is to try to establish justice, or deliver it as close as possible. If people have never had justice defined to them, you can be certain it will never arrive. Indeed, our Objectivist X-Prince would need to be extremely careful, balancing both Machiavellian and Randian philosophies. No one said it would be easy.
×
×
  • Create New...