Why do good things happen to bad people?

[tadmjones]

Going back to the OP, by what standard are they 'good things' and 'bad people' ? If you mean how can some people enjoy undeserved material wealth, I think the answer is by force with all its variants and the sanction of victim principle though not necessarily both in every occurence.

[hernan]

Going back to the OP, by what standard are they 'good things' and 'bad people' ? If you mean how can some people enjoy undeserved material wealth, I think the answer is by force with all its variants and the sanction of victim principle though not necessarily both in every occurence.

 

Obviously I was being loose with terms but I think you get the right idea. One cannot address the question without also addresing the question of desert and power.

 

Let me try to address this with a few examples. Would you say that someone who left their wallet laying on their front porch deserved the money it contained? Or someone who left their doors unlocked deserved the flatscreen tv in their living room? Is not the failure to safeguard one's possessions a form of sanctioning the thief?

 

When, then, is taking by force, or the threat of force, immoral?

 

Clearly there are those who enjoy the fruits of force. We might agree that society is poorer overall for their choice but I think it's not reasonable to say that those who use force to enrich themselves are never the better for it. In the most innocuous example, a starving man who steals a loaf of bread lives another day.

 

The reality is that we are all quite vulnerable to thievery of various forms. That is the human condition. In a crude sense, government represents the most honest thief. To the extent that paying taxes is voluntary (choke, choke) it is because the alternative would be worse. The makers tolerate the theirvery of the takers because they must.

 

One of the most interesting scenes in Atlas Shrugged was when Rearden was confronted by Jim Tagger and his political gang and he realized that they were counting on him to work in spite their openly professed intention to nationalize his enterprise. In his case, it was a pretty easy choice to opt out given the obvious ruin he faced but in real life we are all better off to just grit our teeth and pay our taxes.

[tadmjones]

Obviously I was being loose with terms but I think you get the right idea. One cannot address the question without also addresing the question of desert and power.

 

Let me try to address this with a few examples. Would you say that someone who left their wallet laying on their front porch deserved the money it contained? Or someone who left their doors unlocked deserved the flatscreen tv in their living room? Is not the failure to safeguard one's possessions a form of sanctioning the thief?

 

When, then, is taking by force, or the threat of force, immoral?

 

Clearly there are those who enjoy the fruits of force. We might agree that society is poorer overall for their choice but I think it's not reasonable to say that those who use force to enrich themselves are never the better for it. In the most innocuous example, a starving man who steals a loaf of bread lives another day.

 

The reality is that we are all quite vulnerable to thievery of various forms. That is the human condition. In a crude sense, government represents the most honest thief. To the extent that paying taxes is voluntary (choke, choke) it is because the alternative would be worse. The makers tolerate the theirvery of the takers because they must.

 

One of the most interesting scenes in Atlas Shrugged was when Rearden was confronted by Jim Tagger and his political gang and he realized that they were counting on him to work in spite their openly professed intention to nationalize his enterprise. In his case, it was a pretty easy choice to opt out given the obvious ruin he faced but in real life we are all better off to just grit our teeth and pay our taxes.

[tadmjones]

hmm I still seem to have a problem with the quote function so excuse the cut and paste.

Given o'ist ethics:

Would you say that someone who left their wallet laying on their front porch deserved the money it contained? Yes. Assuming the money in the wallet was was the owner's. The person taking possession of it would be morally wrong to appropriate something they were certain was not 'their's'.

The same answer applies to the television for the same reason, regardless practical circumstances. Regarding practical circumstances re govt and taxes, the funds expended to ensure civility in a society should , in my opinion, not be seen as anything other than voluntarily contributed. Engineering and instituting a fully equitable scheme is a whole other ballgame. Ethics suggest it could and should be done on principle, how to accomplish that particular holy grail falls to a rational philosophy of law and governence.

[hernan]

hmm I still seem to have a problem with the quote function so excuse the cut and paste.

Given o'ist ethics:

Would you say that someone who left their wallet laying on their front porch deserved the money it contained? Yes. Assuming the money in the wallet was was the owner's. The person taking possession of it would be morally wrong to appropriate something they were certain was not 'their's'.

The same answer applies to the television for the same reason, regardless practical circumstances. Regarding practical circumstances re govt and taxes, the funds expended to ensure civility in a society should , in my opinion, not be seen as anything other than voluntarily contributed. Engineering and instituting a fully equitable scheme is a whole other ballgame. Ethics suggest it could and should be done on principle, how to accomplish that particular holy grail falls to a rational philosophy of law and governence.

 

Then the answer to the original question is pretty simple: Good things happen to bad people when good people make property or other rights claims that they are unable (or unwilling) to enforce. Bad people simply take advantage of the unrealisitic claims made by good people. I think Rand addresses the unwilling part of this with her concept of the sanction of the victim but not the unable part.

[theestevearnold]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 As I noted originally, Rand's theory was the "sanction of the victim." But this explanation is, I believe, inadequate. Yes, there may be some situations where this holds true and it may well be part of the problem in every case but it cannot alone resolve the paradox.

 

 

It's adequate, and paradox-free, if you don't drop the context:

 

AS is set in the U.S., where there is no slavery, so your slavery example (below quote) is a straw man.

 

The strikers in AS withdrew their minds' as group, within a short time frame, which made it work, and which makes your implications regarding citizens in jail for tax evasion serving to warn others (below quote), a context-drop, because it doesn't properly recognize that crucial element of the story.

Example: If enough U.S. citizens recognized forced taxation for what it is and, suddenly (say, within the time frame of Ellis Wyatt's strike and Hank Reardon's), refused to sanction it, it would stop. The IRS wouldn't dare prosecute a hundred million Americans earners who suddenly said no to taxes, and publicly explained why.

 

Sometimes a victim withdrawing his sanction can be as easy as saying no, and maybe hiring a divorce lawyer.

 

Sometimes it requires an impeccably-timed orchestration of a single genius who offers his fellow victims a specific way out. (Who is that?)      

 

Precisely. Similarly, we can say that slaveholders do not need the sanction of slaves so long as they are wiling to be absolutely brutal. It's true, of course, that dead slaves don't till soil and that citizens in jail do not pay taxes. But that they do serve as warnings to others.

[hernan]

It's adequate, and paradox-free, if you don't drop the context:

 

AS is set in the U.S., where there is no slavery, so your slavery example (below quote) is a straw man.

 

The strikers in AS withdrew their minds' as group, within a short time frame, which made it work, and which makes your implications regarding citizens in jail for tax evasion serving to warn others (below quote), a context-drop, because it doesn't properly recognize that crucial element of the story.

Example: If enough U.S. citizens recognized forced taxation for what it is and, suddenly (say, within the time frame of Ellis Wyatt's strike and Hank Reardon's), refused to sanction it, it would stop. The IRS wouldn't dare prosecute a hundred million Americans earners who suddenly said no to taxes, and publicly explained why.

 

Sometimes a victim withdrawing his sanction can be as easy as saying no, and maybe hiring a divorce lawyer.

 

Sometimes it requires an impeccably-timed orchestration of a single genius who offers his fellow victims a specific way out. (Who is that?)      

 

Well,  the "if enough people" agument was addressed in this thead alrady but it's worth revisiting. (Also note that I am aware that Atlas Shruggedis a work of fiction with a particular given set of circumstances, I pointed that out as well earlier. The question here is whether it is merely fiction and, if not, what conclusions we can draw about life from it.)

 

Let's look closely at your last point, which I will repeat with "it" replaced by what I presume it to represent in order to clarify your words:

 

"Sometimes [a victim withdrawing sanction] requires an impeccably-timed orchestration of a single genius who offers his fellow victims a specific way out."

 

This expands the meaning of the phrase to meaninglessness. If my withdrawal of sanction depends on the actions of John Galt and  the coordinated activities of dozens of others then it's not very meaningful. I am not, in that case, a victim merely because I am sanctioning my oppressors but because some external chain of events has yet to transpire.

 

Returning to the example of slavery, it's like saying that slaves sanction their enslavement because they have not been liberated yet.

[theestevearnold]

 

 

This expands the meaning of the phrase to meaninglessness. If my withdrawal of sanction depends on the actions of John Galt and  the coordinated activities of dozens of others then it's not very meaningful. I am not, in that case, a victim merely because I am sanctioning my oppressors but because some external chain of events has yet to transpire.

 

Returning to the example of slavery, it's like saying that slaves sanction their enslavement because they have not been liberated yet.

Did you fail to notice the context surrounding each instance of withdrawal of sanction? (Notice that Reardon had to drive down all the way down to the court building, stand up, and give a speech to withdraw his sanction.  

 

But maybe you consider a "withdrawal of sanction" simply a thought without action?  Do you? I don't. Thought without subsequent action is an academic excersize at best. If I wanna opt out (withdraw my sanction) of an internet service, I must take the action of clicking the link, then clicking the opt out box. Sometimes withdrawal is much more difficult. Context must be considered when determining the actions required.

 

Again, you revert to your invalid slavery example. Withdrawal of sanction is possible in certain contexts, like the context of the situation in the U.S. at the time Atlas Shrugged occured. AR never implied that withdrawal of sanction would've been an appropriate remedy for slaves, and  although I don't have the quote, she's indicated that in a full-blown, statist, totalitarian dictatorship with full censorship, it would be too late. (It would take force, which is not a "withdrawal of sanction.")  

 

And the context of each particular victim's situation dictates the level of action required. andCan you provide an example that would fit into the context of the U.S. (in the near future, before it falls into full blown statism)?

 

 Or can you pick a specific example of an instance in Atlas Shrugged and invalidate it by applying it to the current situation of the U.S.'s trajectory.   

[hernan]

Did you fail to notice the context surrounding each instance of withdrawal of sanction? (Notice that Reardon had to drive down all the way down to the court building, stand up, and give a speech to withdraw his sanction.  

 

But maybe you consider a "withdrawal of sanction" simply a thought without action?  Do you? I don't. Thought without subsequent action is an academic excersize at best. If I wanna opt out (withdraw my sanction) of an internet service, I must take the action of clicking the link, then clicking the opt out box. Sometimes withdrawal is much more difficult. Context must be considered when determining the actions required.

 

Again, you revert to your invalid slavery example. Withdrawal of sanction is possible in certain contexts, like the context of the situation in the U.S. at the time Atlas Shrugged occured. AR never implied that withdrawal of sanction would've been an appropriate remedy for slaves, and  although I don't have the quote, she's indicated that in a full-blown, statist, totalitarian dictatorship with full censorship, it would be too late. (It would take force, which is not a "withdrawal of sanction.")  

 

And the context of each particular victim's situation dictates the level of action required. andCan you provide an example that would fit into the context of the U.S. (in the near future, before it falls into full blown statism)?

 

 Or can you pick a specific example of an instance in Atlas Shrugged and invalidate it by applying it to the current situation of the U.S.'s trajectory.   

 

Let me note the points of agreement and the proceed to the points of disagreement. I agree that context matters. I agree that there exist contexts where a mere withdrawal of sanction is sufficient (I previusly gave the example of Rearden and his wife and family).

 

It is right to ask what is "sanction of the victim". I read that term as meaning some choice that the individual makes. In the example of Rearden and his wife and family, he was choosing to allow himself to be impresoned by them. Once he realized this he was able to choose differently. Their power over him rested on his sanction alone. However, defining sanction of the victim as you have seems absurd for the reason I noted previously. Better, I think, to say, as you seem now to imply, that in some situations a victim can gain his freedom by withdrawing sanction and recognize that this is not the general case.

 

The examples of slavery, then, is not invalid. It is simply an example of a situation where sanction of the victim does not explain and thus withdrawal of sanction is useless.

 

As for being "too late" in some situation, this is also pretty useless. When has society ever been without taxation, for example? When have the makers ever been free of takers? It would be more useful to inquire as to resolution in any actual situation or in the most dire situations (e.g. slavery or full blown statism). Did Rand really have nothing useful to offer to those living under Communism, for example? If you can answer the worst or the general case then you can answer the easier cases. If you can only answer the easy cases then, well, so what?

 

Perhaps I expected too much from Rand's explanation but, if so, I am not alone. See e.g. the second post in this thread.

[whYNOT]

Turn it round, why do bad things happen to good people? Or, why do good things happen to good people? Or bad things to bad people?

The questions presuppose that everyone always gets his justice in reality - or, is rewarded/punished by some mystical Being (which can be safely dismissed in this company.) But being "good" in Objectivist terms, while no guarantee of only good things, in the short run - sets one up to withstand the bad things: supporting one's values by dint of rational selfishness and one's virtues.

A "bad" person by any definition, is always one who exists (in one way, or other) through, or by, other people - is therefore, self-sacrificial - therefore, altruistic. When he gains anything "good" by immoral means, he cannot take pride in their possession. When the bad things come along as they will (and victims withdrawing their sanction is only one possibility) he has nothing left, existentially, because he has already surrendered his self.

[theestevearnold]

Let me note the points of agreement and the proceed to the points of disagreement. I agree that context matters. I agree that there exist contexts where a mere withdrawal of sanction is sufficient (I previusly gave the example of Rearden and his wife and family).

 

It is right to ask what is "sanction of the victim". I read that term as meaning some choice that the individual makes. In the example of Rearden and his wife and family, he was choosing to allow himself to be impresoned by them. Once he realized this he was able to choose differently. Their power over him rested on his sanction alone. However, defining sanction of the victim as you have seems absurd for the reason I noted previously. Better, I think, to say, as you seem now to imply, that in some situations a victim can gain his freedom by withdrawing sanction and recognize that this is not the general case.

 

The examples of slavery, then, is not invalid. It is simply an example of a situation where sanction of the victim does not explain and thus withdrawal of sanction is useless.

 

As for being "too late" in some situation, this is also pretty useless. When has society ever been without taxation, for example? When have the makers ever been free of takers? It would be more useful to inquire as to resolution in any actual situation or in the most dire situations (e.g. slavery or full blown statism). Did Rand really have nothing useful to offer to those living under Communism, for example? If you can answer the worst or the general case then you can answer the easier cases. If you can only answer the easy cases then, well, so what?

 

Perhaps I expected too much from Rand's explanation but, if so, I am not alone. See e.g. the second post in this thread.

I said it's not too late because there are certain contexts when withdrawal of sanction doesn't work, as when a government becomes too oppressive, and the U.S. government is not there yet.   

 

AR never said it would be appropriate for slaves. She never said it would be appropriate in all contexts. You've found a context where it wouldn't apply and you repeatedly point to that as your example.

 

And since this issue was in the context of the U.S. moving towards statism, and you ask me if AR had nothing to offer communists, it's clear that, while you aknowledge the importance of context, you seem intent on removing the context by pointing to situations (slavery, communism) that don't apply.  

 

And it's clear that you aren't recognizing that the thought, "I withdraw my sanction," requires action. You only speak of making the "choice" to withdraw sanction. I choose to be rich. But that alone ain't gonna do it. Actions must follow. Whether withdrawing my sanction is as easy as the action of saying, "I won't comply," or as difficult as Ghandi and a million other sanction withdrawers getting together to sit down and refuse to do what the cops tell them to do (which wouldn't have worked in other, much more brutal nations at that time, aka other contexts), action follows thought or it's just ivory tower blather.   

[theestevearnold]

Turn it round, why do bad things happen to good people? Or, why do good things happen to good people? Or bad things to bad people?

The questions presuppose that everyone always gets his justice in reality - or, is rewarded/punished by some mystical Being (which can be safely dismissed in this company.) But being "good" in Objectivist terms, while no guarantee of only good things, in the short run - sets one up to withstand the bad things: supporting one's values by dint of rational selfishness and one's virtues.

A "bad" person by any definition, is always one who exists (in one way, or other) through, or by, other people - is therefore, self-sacrificial - therefore, altruistic. When he gains anything "good" by immoral means, he cannot take pride in their possession. When the bad things come along as they will (and victims withdrawing their sanction is only one possibility) he has nothing left, existentially, because he has already surrendered his self.

Thank you, man. I agree, if you're implying that the question has a false premise. And it smacked of determinism or some kinda oriental karma trip. Or just plain ol pessimism.

 

What are good people? People who think and act in accordance with reality.  

 

Why do good things happen to them? Most importantly, because they shape events to produce good outcomes. 

 

What are bad people? People who don't think and act in accordance with reality.

 

Why do bad things happen to them? Among other things, they sometimes feel that wishing for things is enough to stop bad things from happening to them, or when they do take action to shape events to prevent a bad outcome, their lack of adherance to reality causes their efforts to fail.

[theestevearnold]

And why do bad things happen to good people and vice versa?

!@#%* happens.

[hernan]

I said it's not too late because there are certain contexts when withdrawal of sanction doesn't work, as when a government becomes too oppressive, and the U.S. government is not there yet.   

 

AR never said it would be appropriate for slaves. She never said it would be appropriate in all contexts. You've found a context where it wouldn't apply and you repeatedly point to that as your example.

 

And since this issue was in the context of the U.S. moving towards statism, and you ask me if AR had nothing to offer communists, it's clear that, while you aknowledge the importance of context, you seem intent on removing the context by pointing to situations (slavery, communism) that don't apply.  

 

And it's clear that you aren't recognizing that the thought, "I withdraw my sanction," requires action. You only speak of making the "choice" to withdraw sanction. I choose to be rich. But that alone ain't gonna do it. Actions must follow. Whether withdrawing my sanction is as easy as the action of saying, "I won't comply," or as difficult as Ghandi and a million other sanction withdrawers getting together to sit down and refuse to do what the cops tell them to do (which wouldn't have worked in other, much more brutal nations at that time, aka other contexts), action follows thought or it's just ivory tower blather.   

 

So tell us how you withdraw your sanction of the IRS? I submit that the cases where the withdrawal of sanction is applicable are negligable.

 

If we are going to entertain what it means to withdraw sanction let's begin with what it means to sanction.

What does it mean to you if someone sanctions the IRS? How, then, is withdrawing that sanction going to relieve them of being a victim of it?

Edited January 2, 2014 by hernan

[theestevearnold]

So tell us how you withdraw your sanction of the IRS? I submit that the cases where the withdrawal of sanction is applicable are negligable.

1. I decide to withdraw my sanction from the IRS.

2. I think about what would be the most effective way to do it (Defining "most effective": a plan that would ensure that the repercussions would be something I am willing to accept, and one where the end result would quite possibly not turn out to be that my efforts were all for naught)....I get an idea! I think about if it is worth the risk.

3. I decide to go for it.

4. I take action. I text my homegirl, Kennedy, 'cause she just landed a new show called the Independents on Fox Business. I explain to her that I wanna give a five minute speech on her show that will garner great ratings, due to the controversial nature. I explain the general outline and assure her that, when she reads it, if she doesn't think it's worth it, I won't pressure her.

5. I write a speech which, in five minutes, will explain the philosophical principles that prove taxation is immoral and convince the majority of taxpaying Americans to go on a tax strike until the government finds moral ways to earn revenue, some of which I'll outline, along with mentioning legislators from both sides who have said they could support my ideas.

6. I show Kennedy the speech. She says, "Your nuts, but go for it. Five minutes. Then no fillibusterin', and your gonna have to debate a former IRS bureaucrat." I accept and thank her.

7. I put on a suit and tie and shave and Kennedy's makeup artist covers up my face and neck and hand tats. I go on her show immediately following a segment about the IRS targeting not only righties, but lefties too, and showing the negative impact on the young regarding the Obamacare mandate tax (with clips of outraged lefties and righties and college kids). I look great, I give my speech and spank the IRS dude in the debate.

8. My speech hits all the media outlets and, although I don't like the word "populism", that's the word all the journalists, commentators and pundits are using when they hear about the tens of millions of former taxpayers who have gone on strike until the government implements moral ways to earn revenue.

9. The IRS doesn't try to arrest everybody. They can't.

My example was withdrawing sanction against the U.S., one of the hardest to do, but possible. There are almost an unlimited number of other lesser instances that occur constantly in lives all over the world, and all those cases that you submit, the application of which, as being negligible, I submit as being a profoundly vital recognition, choice, and action available to billions of people. The principle remains the same whether it's withdrawing sanction from a powerful, immoral government or an ungrateful wife. It doesn't apply to all situations and wishing it to work out fine won't achieve the desired results. But it can be an important realization and decision and application in many lives in which the context makes it a good option.

[hernan]

Turn it round, why do bad things happen to good people? Or, why do good things happen to good people? Or bad things to bad people?

The questions presuppose that everyone always gets his justice in reality - or, is rewarded/punished by some mystical Being (which can be safely dismissed in this company.) But being "good" in Objectivist terms, while no guarantee of only good things, in the short run - sets one up to withstand the bad things: supporting one's values by dint of rational selfishness and one's virtues.

A "bad" person by any definition, is always one who exists (in one way, or other) through, or by, other people - is therefore, self-sacrificial - therefore, altruistic. When he gains anything "good" by immoral means, he cannot take pride in their possession. When the bad things come along as they will (and victims withdrawing their sanction is only one possibility) he has nothing left, existentially, because he has already surrendered his self.

 

We all exist through or by other people. That is a fact of life. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. We are literally brought into existence,  birthed, by others. Worse, as I noted, our possession of property is quite dependent upon the indulgence of others. You enjoy your house only so long as your neighbors don't burn it down. Marx was brilliant in noticing this.

 

When good things happen to bad people is it merely luck? Is it merely a short-term advantage to be lost in the longer term? That's hardly obvious. Slavery existed throughout the ancient world probably from prehistory for mellinnia. Has there ever been a society without taxes?

 

Now the argument of pride I think has some merit though even there I think you understimate the self satisfaction of looters. It's probably true that those who build have more pride and life satisfaction than those who steal for themselves but it's hard not the escape the impression that those who live by theft are not nearly as distrought as we might imagine and those who gain power by stealing from some to give to others seem to be quite impressed with themselves.

[hernan]

1. I decide to withdraw my sanction from the IRS.

2. I think about what would be the most effective way to do it (Defining "most effective": a plan that would ensure that the repercussions would be something I am willing to accept, and one where the end result would quite possibly not turn out to be that my efforts were all for naught)....I get an idea! I think about if it is worth the risk.

3. I decide to go for it.

4. I take action. I text my homegirl, Kennedy, 'cause she just landed a new show called the Independents on Fox Business. I explain to her that I wanna give a five minute speech on her show that will garner great ratings, due to the controversial nature. I explain the general outline and assure her that, when she reads it, if she doesn't think it's worth it, I won't pressure her.

5. I write a speech which, in five minutes, will explain the philosophical principles that prove taxation is immoral and convince the majority of taxpaying Americans to go on a tax strike until the government finds moral ways to earn revenue, some of which I'll outline, along with mentioning legislators from both sides who have said they could support my ideas.

6. I show Kennedy the speech. She says, "Your nuts, but go for it. Five minutes. Then no fillibusterin', and your gonna have to debate a former IRS bureaucrat." I accept and thank her.

7. I put on a suit and tie and shave and Kennedy's makeup artist covers up my face and neck and hand tats. I go on her show immediately following a segment about the IRS targeting not only righties, but lefties too, and showing the negative impact on the young regarding the Obamacare mandate tax (with clips of outraged lefties and righties and college kids). I look great, I give my speech and spank the IRS dude in the debate.

8. My speech hits all the media outlets and, although I don't like the word "populism", that's the word all the journalists, commentators and pundits are using when they hear about the tens of millions of former taxpayers who have gone on strike until the government implements moral ways to earn revenue.

9. The IRS doesn't try to arrest everybody. They can't.

My example was withdrawing sanction against the U.S., one of the hardest to do, but possible. There are almost an unlimited number of other lesser instances that occur constantly in lives all over the world, and all those cases that you submit, the application of which, as being negligible, I submit as being a profoundly vital recognition, choice, and action available to billions of people. The principle remains the same whether it's withdrawing sanction from a powerful, immoral government or an ungrateful wife. It doesn't apply to all situations and wishing it to work out fine won't achieve the desired results. But it can be an important realization and decision and application in many lives in which the context makes it a good option.

 

Let's set aside the fortuitous circumstances (your girlfriend, that people listen to you, etc.) and focus simply on this: what does the term "withdrawal of sanction of the victim" add to the above? If you had simply outlined the above plan as a method for freeing yourself (and others) from the IRS it is at lease plausible. But what did the "sanction of the victim" contribute to the explanation? (And, note, we could as easliy invent a story that liberates a slave population (see e.g. Exodus) or a population from Communism (see e.g. the fall of the Berlin Wall).)

 

I noted before that a story that rests on populism is not very interesting. That's old-school politics. What made Rand's story so interesting was that it entailed so few people going on strike. People were not persuaded by Galt's speech. Any plan which rests on perduading a significant number of people that the IRS is evil and that they should, in some coordinated fashion, obstruct it, is just not realistic. Is that too pessimistic?

[theestevearnold]

Marx was brilliant

Who Is Marx?

[tadmjones]

Then the answer to the original question is pretty simple: Good things happen to bad people when good people make property or other rights claims that they are unable (or unwilling) to enforce. Bad people simply take advantage of the unrealisitic claims made by good people. I think Rand addresses the unwilling part of this with her concept of the sanction of the victim but not the unable part.

The simple answer is that some people steal. Defining stealing and the assigning of normative estimations of people and their actions starts to make it more complicated. Force by itself is amoral. Property rights and other claims are principles applied to the disposition of physical objects.

[theestevearnold]

Let's set aside the fortuitous circumstances (your girlfriend, that people listen to you, etc.) and focus simply on this: what does the term "withdrawal of sanction of the victim" add to the above? If you had simply outlined the above plan as a method for freeing yourself (and others) from the IRS it is at lease plausible. But what did the "sanction of the victim" contribute to the explanation? (And, note, we could as easliy invent a story that liberates a slave population (see e.g. Exodus) or a population from Communism (see e.g. the fall of the Berlin Wall).)

 

I noted before that a story that rests on populism is not very interesting. That's old-school politics. What made Rand's story so interesting was that it entailed so few people going on strike. People were not persuaded by Galt's speech. Any plan which rests on perduading a significant number of people that the IRS is evil and that they should, in some coordinated fashion, obstruct it, is just not realistic. Is that too pessimistic?

You don't understand how great fiction works. Unlike the slice of life naturalists who present an issue that only applies to a specific bunch of folks next door, Good Romantic fiction presents grand themes with moral implications that can be applicable to a billionaire industrialists or a skateboarder, when the general guiding principles are understood.

Do you understand?

[hernan]

Who Is Marx?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

[hernan]

The simple answer is that some people steal. Defining stealing and the assigning of normative estimations of people and their actions starts to make it more complicated. Force by itself is amoral. Property rights and other claims are principles applied to the disposition of physical objects.

 

Right, but where property rights claims and the ability to defend property rights diverge theft becomes normal, even profitable.

[hernan]

You don't understand how great fiction works. Unlike the slice of life naturalists who present an issue that only applies to a specific bunch of folks next door, Good Romantic fiction presents grand themes with moral implications that can be applicable to a billionaire industrialists or a skateboarder, when the general guiding principles are understood.

 

So tell me how skateboarders stop the motor of the world.

 

I think the most reasonable inference is that "sanction of the victim" is not a guiding principle or a grand theme but simply part of the fictional setting.

 

Pity.

Edited January 2, 2014 by hernan

[theestevearnold]

What would that brilliant Marx fellow say in this situation?

[theestevearnold]

On my post #45, I accidentally put my words in Hernan's quote box. My words begin when I told him: "You don't understand how great fiction works."