Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Don't Pay For Swamp Water

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

First of all, to call someone's argument a rationalization is bordering on ad homenim: you are questioning the persons psychological motives, not what he said.  But he doesn't accuse me of just rationalization, he says that my argument is a "psychologists wet dream."  In other words, my argument is a text book case of a person with a psychological problem.

You got it all wrong. Anyone can say what he thinks about your psychology as far as I'm concerned, as long as it is not presented as the reason we shouldn't take your arguments seriously, but as a general commentary, or as an observation arising from your arguments.

And yes, I suspect you are a troll when you come here, advocating theft in the name of individual rights, and attack people who say that your arguments sound like rationalizations. They DO sound like rationalizations. We've all heard your (rather silly) arguments, and many of us answered them properly.

It's your turn now. The one thing you are not allowed to do now is to start calling everyone here non-intellectual because they criticize you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

>> Anyone can say what he thinks about your psychology as far as I'm concerned ....

<snip>

....The one thing you are not allowed to do now is to start calling everyone here non-intellectual because they criticize you. <<

That is quite a distinction.

For the record, I do regard the statement "This isn't just rationalization: it's a psychologist's wet dream" as ad hominem, and therefore non-intellectual. But I'll not express this opinion again because, 1) there is not much point to discussing it further, and 2) I am under instructions from the moderator not to do so.

>> Its your turn now. <<

What seems to missing here is an understanding of the difficulty of applying abstract principles to concrete events and decisions. It's very often "messy" and complicated. Ayn Rand wrote, on the first page of the first issue of Harry Binswanger's Objectivist Forum: "Since philosophy deals with the broadest abstractions, which subsume and incalculable numbe of concretes, the application of basic principles is open to innumerable errors and to disagreements."

For example, there is the issue of an Objectist voting for a candidate who is gleefully in favor of the initiation of physical force. Dr. Peikoff advocated Bill Clinton in 1992, and was accused of pragmatism for it. This year, Dr. Peikoff is intensely opposed to Bush, and in favor of voting for Kerry. In fact, he is extremely intense on this issue. Robert Traczinski is in the opposite direction: he is leaning towards Bush (although hasn't presented his final recommendation on it). I respect both men, and their opinions, and their reasons for them. This is not an endorsement of contradictions on my part, its my recognition that the application of abstract ideas to concrete problems and decisions is very difficult.

This is especially true in a mixed economy - a _very_ mixed economy in our case. You cannot always expect the application of philosophy to be straigtforward. For example, consider the question of whether an Objectivist can accept a public scholarship in good conscious. Ayn Rand wrote: "The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not its victims."

As Objectivist, we should expect these kinds of issues, and not make snap-judgements about another Objectist's psychology or thinking methods. Its a messy, semi-free, semi-statist world out there. I part, this is still America, in part, this no longer America. Its not always easy to know what do.

Which is why I wrote this little piece about the Michael Moore movie. I knew that Objectivist were going to see this movie, because it is clearly having an impact on the current election. As silly as the movie is, it address itself to the most pressing issue of the day, and it is being taken very seriously by the intellectual establishment and a lot of people in general. It is the first "documentary" ever to come out as the number one movie in the country on its first day. Like it or not, this movie is going to affect the political situation on whichour physical survival depends.

Yet I can't stand the thought of sanctioning such trash, of putting money in Michael Moore's pocket for producing this garbage. So in thinking about, I came up with the pay-for-another-movie idea. I believed, then and now, that the mess of the mixed-economy public education welfare state means that it is perfectly valid not to pay for this movie.

And I thought that other Objectivists would be interested in my solution, so I posted it here. That was my motive for posting. It certainly wasn't for the purpose of starting this long discussion. I thought that there might some exactly-where-you-would-draw-the-line type of questions, but I expected to be agreed with, in the main.

I was certainly wrong about that expectation. (Interestingly, I did get one email from a frequent poster to this website who explicitly agreed with me, but did not want to get caught up in the disussion.) At this point, I certainly don't see much in hashing this out further. Unless some really new issue is brought up by somebody, hopefully we at least agree to agree that its not worth discussing our differences further.

By the way, I did see the movie, yesterday. I'll probably post a review of it later. The movie was what I expected. I paid for the movie ticket using the method I recommended here. I didn't feel much but boredom during the movie, but when it was over I did have sort of a queasy feeling in being in the same room with most of the audience (they applauded at the end and laughed and jeered during the stupidist parts of the movie). The fact that I did not pay for the movie really cut against this queasy feeling.

So, for me, it's not merely that I feel justified in doing what I did; for me, paying for this movie have been would be the explicit sanctioning of evil. My emotions and mind are in complete agreement on this issue, even if everyone else disagrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> I don't think that actual advocacy of criminal activities is considered appropriate behavior on this board. Consider yourself warned, for future reference. <<

Roark blew up a building, knowing it was a crime. Ragnar was a pirate, knowing it was a crime. In "Think Twice" the hero committed murder, knowing it was a crime.

In all these cases, the protagionist consciously, coldly, with full intention commits a crime. But there is obviously a wider context, which is made in clear in the story.

Leonard Peikoff has, on tape, explicitly answered some question regarding Howard Roark's crime. He makes it clearly explicit that civil disobedience can be morally justified.

It is not true that Objectivism has an absolute prohibition against crime. It can be morally justified. In this case, I went to great pains to say why I thought that this movie was the product of the initiation of force, and that in not paying for it, you were taking money away from a thief, just as Ragnar was.

My request is that you remove the warning beside my name, because I have said nothing remotely hostile to Objectivism. I have merely interpreted one complex application of it differently than you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two points that I sould have made earlier:

1. Fahrenheit 9/11 is distributed by Lions Gate, which is a private firm, but which recieves significant funding and subsidies by the Canadian government. So there is a real element of _direct_ government support for the movie.

2. Michael Moore himself says that he opposes the copyright laws, and so has no problem with people downloading the movie on the internet, so long as they are watching it themselves, and not redistributing for profit.

Both of these are minor points, but new to the thread and worth saying. Neither makes or breaks the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our culture is a swamp; we have no choice but to breath the fetid fumes rising out of it, but we don't have to drink it. In other words, I don't plan to see the Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 "documentary" because I get more than enough leftist propaganda from the mainstream news media on a daily basis.

You haven't actually watched the movie, and yet you have decided that it is the epitome of evil sprung from the bowels of an irrational culture? Some might suggest that you should actually sit through it before making statements such as these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> You haven't actually watched the movie, and yet you have decided that it is the epitome of evil sprung from the bowels of an irrational culture? Some might suggest that you should actually sit through it before making statements such as these. <<

Well, in the nature of the case, you are going to have to decide your opinion of whether or not it is sanctioning evil to pay for the movie before you see it, so you'd be in a catch-22 to see the movie first. As in much of life, you are forced into making a choice without all the data you might like.

And, in this case, Michael Moore is not a complex, subtle, contradictory character. He is not, for example, like Gail Wynand. If Wynand made a movie, you might not know which side of his character was going to come out. Michael Moore is more like Toohey; not quite so bad as Toohey, but bad, and just as predictable. If Toohey made a movie, you wouldn't have to guess at the moral status of its content. You'd have more than information to make a moral decision.

As as side note, I now _have_ seen the movie. It was exactly what I expected. There were no surprises in it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As as side note, I now _have_ seen the movie.  It was exactly what I expected.  There were no surprises in it at all.

Am I to assume that you have now sanctioned an evil theater owner who is in bed with Michael Moore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I am not a philosopher or a psychologist. I am simply a writer doing research on rationalizations. I have taken philosophy courses and psychology courses. I have read many books in all subjects. I do not claim to know a lot. I like and respect Ayn Rand ("The Fountainhead" happens to be my all-time favorite book.) I have read this entire arguement. I have no intention of rehashing its original intent, but I did not know where else to ask this question:

How is it that the public school system is the sole factor in creating this movie? How is it that public schooling can be responisible for "Fahrenheit 9/11" and not "Star Wars"? Why is it that you claim that if it were not for the existance of public schooling, "Fahrenheit 9/11" would not exist but "Star Wars" would?

I have read and re-read your arguements and I can not find one assertation that is based in fact and not opinion. You have not backed your statements with proof. This is why you have been accused of rationalizing your entire arguement.

As far as I understand (see above) rationalization is about justifying to yourself that something you have done, will do, want to do, or think is moral, ethical and correct. ie -- You did not go to class. True, this is not what you would consider to be immoral, but it is not considered "good" and "correct" behaviour. You justify your actions to yourself by saying the class was beneath you, a waste of your time, you learned more by staying at home reading the text than by showing up to class.

As far as I remember, an arguement can be considered rationalizing if it continuously asserts opinions and not fact. I cannot find these facts in your arguements. As a result, I do not see how public school is solely responisble for "Fahrenheit 9/11". You have not drawn the connecting line to show how this movie would not be possible if the entity known as the public school system did not exist.

The only thing I can think of is that by the non-existance of public school, everyone would be in private school. But then I cannot find the connection that the movie would not exist, as it seems to me that a privately educated individual would in fact be capable of making such a film. Would people not do documentaries? Would they then stay clear of current events and hot topics? Or would they no longer make movies?

The other arguement is that no one would go to school, in which case it is very easy to see why the movie would not have been made as no one would have that kind of knowledge. But I highly doubt you are advocating the abolishment of the education system as a whole, only the abolishment of the public school entity.

I am not being deliberately stupid, but you have not given this forum proof or fact -- only opinion. And while opinions are fine things, and everyone is entitled to them, it stands upon logic that an arguement can start from opinion, but inevitably, in order to be valid, needs to have fact to back it up.

Your arguement is solely assertations and opinions and no fact and therefore, invalid.

If you have a valid arguement for my above questions, I would be very interested in hearing them, as the subject is intriguing.

I appologize if this was the wrong place to broach this subject. It is not my intention to insult or offend anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hold some values that smile at the idea of stealing from someone who openly advocates theft. Or punching a pacifist. Or shipping a Marxist off to Cambodia. Or pretty much any ironic way of presenting the results of bad ideas directly to those who advocate them. But I don't think I would actually DO it. I respect their rights too much, even if THEY don't. Either that, or I'm just too concerned the cops will come and lock me up. Probably the latter.

...still. It is tempting.

But in this case, I think that you are not just stealing from Moore. If you were going up to Moore and picking his pocket, I would have less reservations. But there are other folks involved in your theft here. (Though, I suppose, they also advocate evil by supporting Moore's "film" in whatever capacity they do)

Maybe you're wrong to do this thing. Or maybe you're Ragnar; the other characters said they didn't like his methods. Personally, I LOVED his methods. But I don't think you're quite being a Ragnar here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...