Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dustin86

Regulars
  • Posts

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Dustin86

  1. It is indeed impossible. People who have the power to do so are always going to twist the law to their own advantage. This makes "a society based on objective laws" impossible.
  2. Dreamweaver and Plasmatic, I'm going to let the cat out of the bag here so to speak and say that I do not believe in "human progress" outside of technological progress and progress caused by biological evolution/natural selection (which takes tens of thousands of years to have any significant result). In other words I think that "human social progress" of the kind talked about by people like Marxists, Enlightenment thinkers, and Objectivists is in fact impossible. So it's not just you guys I'm picking on here. That is why I am making my point about the USA. In my previous posts in this thread, I am dressing down any claim that the USA represented any kind of "human social progress" beyond what existed before. Ayn Rand obviously thought that the USA did represent "human social progress"; her writings are replete with quotes that demonstrate her views here. If human social progress is impossible (outside of that which is directly tied to biological/evolutionary progress, which takes place only on the scale of tens of thousands of years) then an Objectivist society is for all intents and purposes impossible. That is the point I am making on this thread.
  3. Dreamweaver, no I did not remove context, you are quoting from a completely different text. I am quoting from The Virtue of Selfishness, in which Rand clearly refers to the United States as "the first moral society in history". If Rand never truly understood the United States, if the USA truly was no more moral than any other place according to Objectivist or any other morality, which is what I argue, it seriously calls into question the feasibility of what you refer to as a fully Objectivist society because it shows that not even a partially Objectivist society has ever been achieved.
  4. softwareNerd and Repairman: From the Ayn Rand Lexicon, regarding Kerensky: Regarding Rand's attitude on the early period of the United States: Is this enough quotational evidence or do I need more? Because I can get 10 times more if this isn't enough. I think we're talking past each other again. I am contending that Rand never truly understood the United States and its nature during what she called "its great era of capitalism". What I am saying is that people were bought off from being their usual selves by free land and what ended up being a false and broken promise (namely the promise of Equality as laid out in the Declaration) - thus creating the illusion that what Rand labeled "the first moral society in history" had been achieved. Now whatever immorality was avoided is going to be paid back tenfold because now there is nothing here left in the USA to dull people's rage over the broken promise.
  5. Yes, that is my primary argument for the most part; the one part you left out is that people who get their hopes up because of promises and then those hopes are dashed are far more likely to become violent than people who merely lived in a bad or mediocre situation for their whole lives and never got their hopes up at all. Really not just "more likely" but "inevitable" if we are talking on the scale of tens or hundreds of millions of people. That is why America is destined to degenerate into a violent civil conflict. I don't agree with you. Both Ayn Rand and Yaron Brook (the current director of the Ayn Rand Institute) cited the USA from 1776 up until the 20th century as being the closest society historically to what they would consider "a truly Objectivist society". I'm pointing out the fundamental weakness in that statement (of Rand's and Brook's). The real truth about that period of American history is that "proto-Objectivism" was not achieved so much as that that people were pacified by cheap/free land that existed before the closing of the frontier. Then, when that ran out (i.e., the "closing of the frontier" happened) a "non-Objectivist" measure, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, had to be taken to pacify people once again, to distract them from their anger at the broken promise. Now that the New Deal, too, is now running out, there is now nothing to divert people from their anger at the broken promise. And because the most dangerous man is a man who gets his hopes up because of promises and then those hopes are dashed, America is now destined to degenerate into a violent civil conflict.
  6. But we're not talking about politicians here. We're talking about the fact that the promise was put into the Declaration, which enshrined it in a way that no politician trying to get elected could have done by himself.
  7. I don't agree with that, actually. It's very true that " no system can do an end run around this widespread ignorance and folly", but still, like I keep saying, "there is no more dangerous man than a man who gets his hopes up because of promises and then those hopes are dashed when those promises are broken". So the promise of equality should never have happened, because now people are getting violent because they didn't get their promise. It doesn't require fooling them; it does require not promising things to the common man that can never materialize in his day-to-day reality.
  8. Yes I am but guess what? When it says in the Declaration that "All men are created equal" and that this is made so by a perfect creator-god, and that monarchy was standing in the way of this creator-god's promise being realized, and that the republic of the United States of America was where this creator-god's promise was to be finally put into practice in human affairs, the common man took that very, very seriously. People said to themselves, "Hallelujah, my ship has come in!" Look, all that really matters here is that in the mind of the common man, the promise was not fulfilled. And his hopes are dashed over what he feels is a broken promise. And just like I said, there is no more dangerous man than a man who gets his hopes up because of promises and then those hopes are dashed when those promises are broken.
  9. I want to be very clear that this isn't something that I gloat over, and I have no illusions about the "good old days of monarchy", but I do feel that we have replaced bad old days with what are about to be far worse new days, just as happened in Russia/the USSR. softwareNerd, your position would be stronger if the United States (and other liberal democracies) had successfully been able to create equality under the law. But as I explained in my last post, they weren't, and they never will be. Rich men have gotten away with crimes, even murder, since they have the money to pay for Johnny Cochrans. Poor men have been imprisoned for decades for crimes that they obviously didn't commit because they were represented by overworked and incompetent public defenders. They are also much, much more likely to die at the hands of police due to no fault of their own (e.g., the death of Freddy Grey). You are wrong that the common man gives little thought to the Declaration. He gives it great thought, and awaits the fulfillment of its (impossible) promise that "All men are created equal." He is now beginning to figure out that, at least under the current system of individualistic liberal democracy, this promise shall never be fulfilled. And now with what seems to be permanent joblessness and marginalization for so many people, now his rage can no longer be contained, hence the recent riots we have witnessed. These riots are just the beginning. My view is that if inequality under the law is inevitable (which it is) then don't promise people equality under the law, because there is no more dangerous man than a man who gets his hopes up because of promises and then those hopes are dashed when those promises are broken. Such a man has a strong tendency to violence, much stronger than because of simple abuses alone.
  10. I'm not talking about Lenin and Mao and other people in the "rogues' gallery" here. I'm talking about people like the Kerensky people in Russia and people like the US founders, people that were all lauded by Rand at one point or another in her life: some before, during, and after Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged. The Kerensky liberal-democratic-individualist February Revolutionists obviously paved the way for the "proletarian" October Revolution. In other words, they clearly paved the way for something far worse than the "irrational" Tsarist regime that they were overthrowing. I see the same process happening too in America, albeit it's taking a longer time to play out. Countless numbers of times since before I was born at least, politicians here have approached a podium here speaking about how the USA has not lived up to the promise laid out in the US Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal". Now, I have heard Yaron Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute, say that that's not supposed to mean equal outcome or equal opportunity, but merely equal under the law. And even this is a complete fiction, because what equality under the law does some destitute guy who has to rely on an overworked public defender have with some rich guy who has the money to pay for a Johnny Cochran? None. But in the end it doesn't matter, because the promise of equality laid out in the Declaration was vague enough to mean so many things to so many different people that really it doesn't matter what Yaron or Jefferson or anybody else in intelligensia says it's supposed to mean. To the man on the street, his hopes of what the Declaration and the USA meant are dashed now, and now that that "free land" that existed before the closing of the frontier has run out and the New Deal has run out, Social Security, etc. is running out, now he can no longer be bought off, nothing left to dull his rage over that "broken promise of equality", and since there is nothing more dangerous than a man whose hopes have been dashed over a broken promise, now he is going to get violent. Very violent. Hence the upcoming American Terror.
  11. Let me put it this way, the French Revolution was followed by the French Terror. The Russian (Kerensky liberal-democratic) Revolution was eventually followed by the Russian Terror. My view is that the American Revolution will soon indeed be followed by an American Terror as well if things do not drastically change very soon, now that the frontier of the world's "last virgin continent" has been closed and the "New Deal" has run dry. (The Ferguson Riots, the Baltimore Riots, the Crybullies, etc. are just the beginning.) None of those Revolutions started out as a violent terror, and they were created by well-meaning people, but ultimately people who were unleashing forces far beyond even their comprehension much less their control, and nose-thumbing at everybody who opposed them as "irrational" or "reactionary", et. al.
  12. One big example is the 1917 Kerensky regime created by the liberal-democratic "February Revolution" in Russia (which Rand supported by the way), which overthrew the Tsar and aimed at a liberal-democratic individualistic society, and was all but plowed under 8 months later by the Bolshevik "October Revolution" led by "proletarians" who manifestly thought in terms of group identity, group rights, not individual rights, and had no problem toppling the Kerensky liberal-democrats. The Tsarist regime thought in terms of group rights as well, but who can deny that the "proletarians" made things 100 times worse when their class, along with their sense of class grievance, took power. (If that's "classist" I don't care, it's historical truth.) And who can deny that the Kerensky liberal-democratic individualists paved the way for them to ultimately take power. I also cited the "crybully" movement of our own times, located here in the United States and in the liberal-democratic West. Who can deny that our own Revolution here, despite whatever positives it may have had, paved the way for the crybullies. Paved the way for something that may end up far worse than what originally existed here in America (and unfortunately it looks to me to be heading that way). My point here is that Objectivism and similar movements are just making things worse, just like things ultimately got worse in Russia because of the Kerensky people.
  13. Usually when people talk about problems with Objectivism, they discuss theoretical and philosophical problems. However, there is one giant practical problem with Objectivism that has probably done more than anything else to prohibit an Objectivist society from actually existing during as long as any of us have been alive. People with very strong group identities who think in terms of group rights (not individual rights) and may even have very strong group grievances always end up "hijacking" objectivist societies away from the atomized Objectivist individuals who comprise said societies (and I'm not just talking racial groups here, I'm talking about class groups, etc). The USA is a case-in-point. Ayn Rand often lauded the USA as it existed during the period of roughly 1776 until roughly the beginning of the 20th century as the 'one bright spot of history' that existed between a 'dark period' before the USA's founding and another 'dark period' that supposedly began sometime in the early 20th century and that continues unto this day. In our grandfathers' day (the early 20th century) it was (here in the USA) in the form of a "class conscious proletariat" who banded together to usher in new things like the New Deal overtop of the pleas of the individualists. In our day, it's racial groups. For instance, it's the so-called "crybully movement" who are calling for special treatment for various racial groups on the grounds of past grivences such as slavery. And they've been remarkably successful. Libertarians and objectivists have been plowed under, frantically waving their hands around begging for "individual rights" while crybully grievence groups laugh in their face, truly knowing that they have the power. Now, I'm going to say right off the bat that I don't necessarily think that being someone with a very strong group identity is necessarily worse than being an atomized libertarian individual. In fact I think it is better (although I do think it is wrong to use that for the purpose of crybullying). In fact, I would even go so far to say that the kind of society that Objectivists plead for eventually necessarily leads to socialism and communism. Just look at America, just look at all the places that have suffered through Communism. Are those places better off or worse off than before the Enlightenment revolutions? Was Russia better off or worse off than after the February 1917 revoluton which toppled the Tsar (which Rand was for, by the way)?
  14. Premise 1 and definition 4 seem to directly contradict one another.
  15. (My advice on how to be more persuasive.) Personally, I think that Objectivists need to stop being such inveterate atheists. There are billions of people who have had experiences with gods, angels, and the spirit world. I for one take a very dim view of atheist attempts to label all of these billions of people as somehow "insane" or "hallucinating".
  16. Well, it's upward of 95% of people on the globe who love either their race, and/or their nationality, and/or their religion and/or some other kind of group identity that Objectivism considers "irrational". I'd say it can be called human nature for all practical purposes.
  17. Like I said at the beginning, it's clearly an is-ought issue. But the "is" wins out over the "ought", especially since your philosophy claims to be "Objective". I definitely don't endorse hating other races, but Objectivism goes far beyond saying "don't hate other races", by saying don't love your race, nor your nationality, nor your tribe, nor your religion, etc., etc., etc. This isn't just "many people" who are "irrational" according to these criteria. This is the vast majority of people in the world. The fact of the matter is that people have very strong group identities, and have had, for all of human history. This is where Objectivism (and Liberalism, and Marxism, for that matter), really fails. Objectivism, especially if it pretends to be so "Objective", really needs to wake up and smell the facts here, not try to change the facts to fit itself.
  18. The breakup of Yugoslavia. South Sudan. The struggle to create "Kurdistan". The struggle to "liberate" Northern Ireland. There are news stories about all these things and many, many more. People are not just atomized individuals. People have very strong group identities, this is a part of human nature. Objectivism needs to change itself to fit the facts about human nature, not try to change the facts to fit itself.
  19. Just pick up a newspaper or watch TV news or read internet news, it's pretty clear.
  20. See, this is where Objectivism really fails, in my opinion. This is clearly an "is-ought" problem - but nationalism, "racism", tribalism are clearly part of human nature and for Objectivist "missionaries" to tour the world trying to preach away people's "irrationalities" in this regard is clearly a fool's errand.
  21. Harrison, I think I'm starting to understand what you meant. In that vein, I would even go so far as to argue that "command-economy socialism" and "democratic socialism" really end up being the same in the end. In "democratic socialist" countries such as Greece and Venezuela, there have been: government nationalization of entire industries, government expropriation of businesses, banks and individuals' bank accounts, political repression where people have been jailed over "political crimes", etc. If there is any difference, it is one of degree (like the difference between Stalin and Khrushchev, for instance). Not a difference of kind. As for "A is A", if I had been the author of Atlas, I would never have phrased it that way, because it's a very abstruse way of phrasing what I think she wanted to say. I would have phrased it in terms of people being intellectually honest or dishonest. (When Rand talks about "blank-outs", really she's talking about people being intellectually dishonest.)
  22. Greetings, I have been posting here for a little while, but I have not introduced myself. My two biggest political influences are Yuval Levin and Christopher Ferrara. The basic thing that differentiates me from Leftists is that I do not see people as "the government's children". The basic thing that differentiates me from Objectivists is that I do not see people merely as disconnected, atomized individuals. I believe that people thrive in the spaces that exist between individuals and government. Religious institutions, private clubs, and indeed the free market are some examples of those spaces. Modern Western governments, by their sheer weight, by the sheer amount of their nations' productive capacity that they consume, have crowded out a significant portion of the rest of society, of those crucial intermediary spaces that I mentioned. Because of this, plus the increasing amount of corruption (e.g., more and more people hired, because of political favor-trading, as bureaucrats at $200,000+ a year salaries to do essentially nothing), plus the soaring interest payments from the increasing government debt pile (over 100% of GDP at present), society is pedaling harder and harder just to stay in the same place. Our current situation simply cannot be sustained. I suppose what draws me to this forum as a non-Objectivist is that Objectivists are some of the only people who recognize this hard truth and will be honest about it rather than trying to hide from it.
  23. Well Harrison, I tried to do that. You talked about how the wealthiest Americans should be more public spirited about the means of production, I said that about 36% of the means of production is already in the hands of government, a level eclipsed only during the heights of Total War during World War II. It's like we have a permanent wartime economy that never goes back to a peacetime economy. If we were to raise the percentage higher by any significant level on a permanent basis, we would actually reach World War II spending levels (which usually fluctuated between around 40-50% of GDP at any given time) and we would be there on a permanent basis. As far as our economy would be concerned, it would be like we were fighting World War II on a permanent, neverending basis. As far as economic security, government bureaucracies have proven ineffective in alleviating problems such as poverty, because they are like a leaky, hole-riddled pipe connected between the taxpayer and the person who is supposed to receive the benefits. In between the taxpayer and the person who is supposed to receive the benefits, there are the huge internal costs of the bureaucracies themselves, and there are tons of bureaucrats making $200,000 a year or more for doing nothing, and because of the corruption and favor-trading that invariably accompanies such megaburaucracies, the number of bureaucrats hired to do nothing invariably increases year after year. So we as a society are pedaling and pedaling harder and harder year after year just to remain in the same place.
  24. The next thing I would say in the debate would be: "The government, at all levels (federal, state, and local), is currently spending about 36% of our nation's GDP, that's over a third of it. Most of that is taken directly out of our nation's productive capacity, some of it is taken out as debt to other nations and added to our national debt which is now more than 100% of GDP. It is not healthy for any government to expend such a large portion the nation's productive capacity for so long because it crowds out the rest of society.
×
×
  • Create New...