Neo-Aristocracy? Devil's advocate position

[DonAthos]

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Don, what you -consider- moral is besides the point.

I disagree.

On the word "consider," which you've highlighted, I don't know how any individual has a morality except that he "considers" certain things to be moral and others immoral. And I don't know how I am to determine the "best" sort of society for me without reference to what I consider moral.

I find that you're saying that you intend to force me to do things whether I consider them moral or immoral, to tax me to support it, and to label this the best system for me (whether I agree or not). Frankly, it sounds much like what we already have.

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It matters whether you are virtuous.

As judged by whom? And how?

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Indeed, yes, you'd trust people to get it right, that's the whole idea. This is no different than trusting a doctor. In fact, a better way to put it is why I should care if you're comfortable. Of course, if the dictator failed to show ability, you'd have no reason to trust him. Why go straight to distrust at first, but not do that towards a doctor?

If doctors forced their patients into treatment, I'd not trust that at all. As things stand, I don't believe that a certain amount of skepticism is generally unwarranted where medical advice is concerned; for important matters, for instance, I highly recommend a second or even third opinion. I am glad that decisions ultimately rest--as they ought--with the patient.

[Craig24]

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Harrison, that's far more detailed than I'm talking about. I addressed it in a response to 2046 above, I said certain levels of detail are just not worth it and appear petty. I am talking about legislating morality as determined by a head of state.

You are talking about using the state to make everyone virtuous but an explanation of what the state will require of it's citizens and how they will be penalized for non compliance is necessary.  For example, will the state compel the major virtues of Objectivism such as honesty and productivity and how will it do this?  

[Craig24]

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Craig24

[Eiuol]

2 hours ago, DonAthos said:

On the word "consider," which you've highlighted, I don't know how any individual has a morality except that he "considers" certain things to be moral and others immoral. And I don't know how I am to determine the "best" sort of society for me without reference to what I consider moral.

Of course. How does it matter, though? Government isn't supposed to worry about what some people call moral or immoral, all governments enforce some moral rule. Perhaps you wouldn't like it, but I imagine Hannibal Lecter doesn't like how all murder is illegal in the US. Your line of reasoning doesn't refer to objective standards or even government standards, only what you would prefer. Some amount of people will always be told too bad. What counts is that making laws as a king/dictator would is better than a huge group like in Congress. Going further on law to go as far as legislating virtue solidifies the dictator's position of legitimate authority. What -is- virtuous is a fact, but it is judged by the dictator.

A doctor was a bad comparison for me to use. Comparison to a general is better. There's no time for second opinions as a soldier, you'd need to trust the general's absolute say. That trust is earned by the general by setting an example. How better to earn trust for large-scale leadership than being a top of the line business leader on a global scale?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

18 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Suppose you could learn precisely how to manipulate such a person into doing any arbitrary thing by spending several weeks to months of dedicated, purposeful thought; several weeks to months devoted exclusively to the tickings of their subconscious triggers and urges.

Would it be worth it?

---

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Harrison, that's far more detailed than I'm talking about. ...

That is not accidental.

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

... certain levels of detail are just not worth it and appear petty. ...

Thank you. We're in complete agreement about that; let's start there.

Morality is one way of reasoning about values; cost/benefit analysis is another. Weve established that the benefit of directly 'making mindless people useful' (through psychological manipulation) is not worth the misery that such skills cost.

17 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I am talking about legislating morality as determined by a head of state.

... As a generalized, rather than a case-by-case basis. I believe you're still talking about manipulation; just one that isn't personalized to every evader.

Correct?

Edited December 3, 2015 by Harrison Danneskjold
Brevity.

[DonAthos]

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Your line of reasoning doesn't refer to objective standards or even government standards, only what you would prefer.

My "line of reasoning"? I don't know what you're referring to, except that my saying that I would prefer a society in which my rights are respected isn't some "line of reasoning." It is not my intention to lay out some competing vision of government in this thread; I think that Rand already has, and we're already both well aware of the salient arguments.

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What counts is that making laws as a king/dictator would is better than a huge group like in Congress.

How in the world do you figure this?

Do you have any familiarity with historical dictators?

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Going further on law to go as far as legislating virtue solidifies the dictator's position of legitimate authority. What -is- virtuous is a fact, but it is judged by the dictator.

I'm not going to set some dictator's judgement on that score above my own. Why would I? What do you think is in it for me?

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

A doctor was a bad comparison for me to use.

No, it wasn't. How that comparison developed ought to be instructive.

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Comparison to a general is better. There's no time for second opinions as a soldier, you'd need to trust the general's absolute say.

How about "comparison to a God"? Wouldn't that be even better? Just command obedience by fiat.

Is any part of this thread meant to be taken seriously? (And if it truly needs to be said, we are not soldiers. And if we were, I don't know that I would counsel "trust" in "the general's absolute say," either. I may yet find the time for a "second opinion"--my own.)

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

My "line of reasoning"? I don't know what you're referring to, except that my saying that I would prefer a society in which my rights are respected isn't some "line of reasoning." It is not my intention to lay out some competing vision of government in this thread; I think that Rand already has, and we're already both well aware of the salient arguments.

All you said really is you don't prefer it. Okay. Noted. I was asking why it should matter to me, that is, why is it advantageous for me to treat all people with equal rights. Chances are, you'd do all the right things. So why is it that you want to respect the rights of, say, drug addicts? My suggested response is to "make them useful", which entails initiating force. Some portion of people will be compelled by legislation.

Rome did pretty damn well with Caesar. Smaller government leadership appears to be better than sprawling amounts of people. As far as I know, no dictatorial business leaders existed. Multinational corporations are quite new in history, so this type of dictator hasn't existed yet.  

Virtue is not defined by the dictator, he just makes the laws. I meant judge as in judge the law, not judge as in define the concept. What's in it for you to support this? The cognitive benefits I spoke of, which have hardly been discussed. You seem to be supposing the dictator couldn't possibly be trusted to make a good decision, hence your resistance to him telling you anything, even if you might already agree about honesty or pride. I get your wanting to say a doctor is a good comparison, but I am focusing on areas where there's no time to get a second opinion. Generals are people you need to trust to get it right the first time lest you die. Judges are that way, too. Any leader is that way. Whether you should trust the dictator or not depends on his performance.

[Take it as seriously as you want, it's a real argument. For the record, at some point I'll go over the points that probably needed more focus to defeat/severely wound the devil's argument. I find that a few posts are a bit stuck on particulars as opposed to attacking premises. Next post I'll get to Harrison and Craig.]

[Eiuol]

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

My "line of reasoning"? I don't know what you're referring to, except that my saying that I would prefer a society in which my rights are respected isn't some "line of reasoning." It is not my intention to lay out some competing vision of government in this thread; I think that Rand already has, and we're already both well aware of the salient arguments.

All you said really is you don't prefer it. Okay. Noted. I was asking why it should matter to me, that is, why is it advantageous for me to treat all people with equal rights. Chances are, you'd do all the right things. So why is it that you want to respect the rights of, say, drug addicts? My suggested response is to "make them useful", which entails initiating force. Some portion of people will be compelled by legislation.

Rome did pretty damn well with Caesar. Smaller government leadership appears to be better than sprawling amounts of people. As far as I know, no dictatorial business leaders existed. Multinational corporations are quite new in history, so this type of dictator hasn't existed yet.  

Virtue is not defined by the dictator, he just makes the laws. I meant judge as in judge the law, not judge as in define the concept. What's in it for you to support this? The cognitive benefits I spoke of, which have hardly been discussed. You seem to be supposing the dictator couldn't possibly be trusted to make a good decision, hence your resistance to him telling you anything, even if you might already agree about honesty or pride. I get your wanting to say a doctor is a good comparison, but I am focusing on areas where there's no time to get a second opinion. Generals are people you need to trust to get it right the first time lest you die. Judges are that way, too. Any leader is that way. Whether you should trust the dictator or not depends on his performance.

[Take it as seriously as you want, it's a real argument. For the record, at some point I'll go over the points that probably needed more focus to defeat/severely wound the devil's argument. I find that a few posts are a bit stuck on particulars as opposed to attacking premises. Next post I'll get to Harrison and Craig.]

[DonAthos]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

All you said really is you don't prefer it. Okay. Noted.

But that isn't all that I've said.

Certainly I don't prefer it. I've also asked you as to the potentiality that the results produced by this system (the decisions of your dictator, etc.) don't line up to your conception of morality, or mine. What then? You said, "If the result did not cohere with what I consider to be moral, too bad for me." You further asserted that you would still be compelled to support the state.

Okay. So you're proposing a system where I may be forced to support a government which acts immorally. That sounds self-sacrificial to me. I don't want to support a government that initiates force against me, yet that's precisely what your proposal amounts to.

 

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I was asking why it should matter to me, that is, why is it advantageous for me to treat all people with equal rights. Chances are, you'd do all the right things. So why is it that you want to respect the rights of, say, drug addicts?

I may do all the right things and that may not matter, depending on the dictator (or whatever apparatus you envision). I may do all the right things and still be crushed. That is typical of dictatorships.

I respect the rights of drug addicts because drug addicts are individuals and so am I. I demand the liberty to plot my own course through life, but I can hardly do that in any principled fashion while denying the same right(s) to others. If I were to take some stance contra the rights of drug addicts, that would necessarily weaken my own claim to those same rights. Again, self-sacrificial.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

My suggested response is to "make them useful", which entails initiating force. Some portion of people will be compelled by legislation.

And when you are not found sufficiently useful--what then?

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Rome did pretty damn well with Caesar.

I'm sure that there's a vast wealth of detail to that, most of which I'm currently ignorant and thus incapable of discussing with justice, but my thoughts about Imperial Rome have always been that Augustus paved the way for Caligula. I suspect that there's greater consequence to dictatorship than simply whether the current dictator is, himself, a capable leader (by whatever metric).

I believe that so many of the infamous names of history are associated with dictatorship (and I hardly need belabor you with a roll call, I'm sure), because horrible men seek that kind of power, and the existence of that kind of power calls out to/creates horrible men.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Virtue is not defined by the dictator, he just makes the laws. I meant judge as in judge the law, not judge as in define the concept.

But the dictator--or his officials--must understand the concept. He must apply the concept, through law and specific case. So who assesses whether or not he does this correctly? And if he does not, what then?

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

What's in it for you to support this? The cognitive benefits I spoke of, which have hardly been discussed. You seem to be supposing the dictator couldn't possibly be trusted to make a good decision, hence your resistance to him telling you anything, even if you might already agree about honesty or pride.

Yes, it's true: I do not trust the dictator to evaluate morality or virtue, and I would not empower him to initiate the use of force on that or any other basis. If I knew nothing else about him, the fact that he would have accepted such a position, and consequently endorse the initiation of the use of force against innocents, would be sufficient to have scuttled his moral standing with me.

John Galt would not condescend to be a dictator.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I get your wanting to say a doctor is a good comparison, but I am focusing on areas where there's no time to get a second opinion.

There's no time to get a second opinion in a metaphysical emergency, such as detailed in Ayn Rand's essay, "The Ethics of Emergencies." I've unhappily noted, over several threads and in conversations with many Objectivists, how often Rand's discussion (which she meant to apply to things like being caught in a flood, or on a sinking ship, etc.) is twisted to more mundane and every day circumstances, so that some initiation of the use of force may be justified (in their minds).

But at least "your devil" is consistent: dictators often justify their "extraordinary" powers by proclaiming every day an emergency.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Generals are people you need to trust to get it right the first time lest you die.

As I've said, I do not agree that generals must be trusted, or that "authority" must be obeyed. The excuse of "following orders" may have gone out of style around the time of the Nuremberg Trials, but it was never right.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Generals are people you need to trust to get it right the first time lest you die.

... Unless you're in a modern army, where your unit is expected to move and think more-or-less autonomously ... Instead of all standing in broad daylight, together, listening to one guy yell "ready, aim, fire" ... Because lots of people died very pointless deaths, that way.

It's a pretty good analogy, though.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Harrison Danneskjold
Clarity.

[StrictlyLogical]

Eiuol

Your dictatorship, like any dictatorship, is founded on non-Objective, irrational, and immoral principles, and because of that all dictatorships eventually will fall victim to revolution. 

Man by his nature is not a slave, and no matter what kind of dictator you are, how nuanced or complicated your system, or how you try to argue to yourself and to your victims the justification of making men slaves, they will eventually rise-up and your supposed perpetual plan will come crashing down around you.

 

Such a house of cards is not in your, or anyone's long term self interest.

I find your "advocated position" to be wholly, unpersuasive.

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by StrictlyLogical

[Eiuol]

On 12/4/2015, 7:49:16, StrictlyLogical said:

Man by his nature is not a slave, and no matter what kind of dictator you are, how nuanced or complicated your system, or how you try to argue to yourself and to your victims the justification of making men slaves, they will eventually rise-up and your supposed perpetual plan will come crashing down around you.

Indeed, hence the question of why it's not okay to ignore any sense of rights for some people. If your reply is simply "they will rise up anyway", I'll need you to expand on that. That never happened in the USSR, most revolutions fail or are short-lived. Countries tend to collapse from bad principles, not an angry populace. So it goes back to why respecting rights for only those who earn it is worse than respecting rights of all people.

Dictator might be a poor word choice, "emperor" is probably better for my intent. Stalin isn't a Napolean; Pol Pot isn't a Caesar. It'd essentially be only one leader delegating and always having final say in all matters. The change in context from a typical emperor is -demonstrating- through prior business leadership why he or she is trustworthy. That's why I mentioned business credentials, the leader would in fact know how to take charge on a world stage. For the record, I'm not talking about micromanaging all actions. A general or any leader knows how to make broad demands and expectations that all will follow, or else face punishment in severe cases. I listed some severe cases.

"I demand the liberty to plot my own course through life, but I can hardly do that in any principled fashion while denying the same right(s) to others." -DonAthos
Okay, but insofar as drug addiction originated in lack of virtue, and they are oftentimes severely caustic to many lives without violating rights in the usual sense, how is it best to your life for that addict to be part of society at all?

That leads me to say only a few virtues are enforceable without micromanaging: productivity and justice. Having a job, showing yourself as some kind of sustainable or making real efforts to be active, regulations for schools to offer moral education, and regulations as to rewarding people who meet certain standards for productivity. Those are considerations to make, keep in mind I'm not proposing a complete command economy. The point is an aristocratic-oriented leadership.

I tried to answer several people at once.

[DonAthos]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Dictator might be a poor word choice, "emperor" is probably better for my intent. Stalin isn't a Napolean; Pol Pot isn't a Caesar. It'd essentially be only one leader delegating and always having final say in all matters. The change in context from a typical emperor is -demonstrating- through prior business leadership why he or she is trustworthy. That's why I mentioned business credentials, the leader would in fact know how to take charge on a world stage. For the record, I'm not talking about micromanaging all actions.

Once you give someone "final say in all matters," then you're hardly in a position to decide whether they're micromanaging or not, or in general doing things as you believe they ought be done. You also don't necessarily get to pick and choose between Stalin or Napoleon (though for the record, I have no idea what life was like under Napoleon, or about his governance... so much to learn in this life, so little time). My point about Augustus paving the way for Caligula was thus, in part: this kind of power, of its nature, can quickly get out of control.

Unless the actual proposal under discussion is that Eiuol become dictator--and I would not be in favor of that, either--then once you've legitimized whomever it is, once the apparatus is in place, then it might well be too late to take it back, should your "trustworthy" businessman turn out to be less than ideal.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

"I demand the liberty to plot my own course through life, but I can hardly do that in any principled fashion while denying the same right(s) to others." -DonAthos
Okay, but insofar as drug addiction originated in lack of virtue, and they are oftentimes severely caustic to many lives without violating rights in the usual sense, how is it best to your life for that addict to be part of society at all?

There are many people who would say this same thing about atheists or Objectivists, that we are "severely caustic to many lives without violating rights in the usual sense." Yet I demand that they let me be regardless.

I may choose whether some drug addict may be a part of my society, insofar as it is within my rights, but in the greater "society" it is best for my life that drug addicts retain their liberty so that I may likewise retain my own.

And incidentally, I do not recognize "drug addiction" as being some grand moral divide, and while I think it would derail the conversation to pursue it, I suspect that many drug addicts have made notable contributions to "society."

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

That leads me to say only a few virtues are enforceable without micromanaging: productivity and justice. Having a job, showing yourself as some kind of sustainable or making real efforts to be active, regulations for schools to offer moral education, and regulations as to rewarding people who meet certain standards for productivity.

Frankly, it turns my stomach just to think about such things. But no, I don't want the government to force people to "make real efforts to be active." Productivity is virtuous, yes, absolutely, but to try to measure someone else's productivity...? Consider this (from "The Objectivist Ethics"):

Quote

"Productive work" does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

The fullest and most purposeful use of a given individual's mind. Can you imagine some bureaucracy trying to assess this? It's not simply that there would be occasional injustices, but that the entire process would be defined by misapplication.

Contrast your bureaucratic system, trying to ensure that everyone is sufficiently "active," against this lovely sentiment Harrison recently expressed in another thread:

9 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

What kind of life do you want to live?

According to Objectivism, what's "right" is what's right for you (and not necessarily "right" for anyone else in the world). In order to do that, you first have to know what's right for you. In order to know that, you first have to think about what's right for you: how do you want to spend all of the hours, days and years that you'll be alive for?

...one of the greatest things about Capitalism is that...you are free to live on whatever terms you'd prefer.

The only standards to consider are your own.

As for school offering moral education, of course they already do--that's already available, far and wide. In many cases (such as religious schools), I suspect you would disagree with the particular morality they teach, and you would be loathe for them to be in a position to force their morals onto you or your children. Yet by putting education, and explicitly moral education, in the hands of the government, you are helping to lay the groundwork for just such an unfortunate turn of events.

Alternatively, and so long as no one's rights are violated, the religious ought be able to teach their morality to their children just as I plan on instructing my child according to my own ethics. Once again, my means of preserving the very rights that I require to live my life the way I wish to live it is a principled defense of the individual's right to liberty; that I may disagree with other individual applications is sometimes unfortunate, but it's far better than turning the world into a slaughterhouse and then hoping against hope that I don't one day get the chop.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 12/3/2015, 8:52:18, Eiuol said:

[Take it as seriously as you want, it's a real argument. For the record, at some point I'll go over the points that probably needed more focus to defeat/severely wound the devil's argument. I find that a few posts are a bit stuck on particulars as opposed to attacking premises. Next post I'll get to Harrison and Craig.]

Well, I've been waiting for you to respond to my post about manipulation, but there is a lot going on in this thread; I'll just cut to the chase.

 

I mention psychological manipulation because the question of why good people should respect the rights of bad (but peaceful) people is one I've also struggled with, before. Sometimes, as you watch the people around us squabbling over their petty little powers, it seems like it would be better to just force them to stop it and be good.

The thing about it is that dictatorship (regardless of whether it helps or hurts the populace) is not a part-time job. If you were to try to make yourself the emperor, personally, you'd have to give up your other goals and aspirations in order to do it.

That's not selfish. And if you wouldn't be willing to assume that responsibility, yourself, then how could you ask an Elon Musk to do it for you?

 

It's not practical. And it's not really moral, either (whenever there seems to be a clash between the "right" and the "practical", check your premises); it stems from the idea - as expressed by Gail Wynand in the Fountainhead - that there are only two ways to deal with other people: to rule or to be ruled.

Granted, if given the choice between the two of them, it's clearly better to rule. They aren't the only options, though; it's far better (from any standard you care to pick) to do neither.

 

So the real question to answer, before you even start thinking about the best way to rule people (which is what you're presently looking at) is whether or not it's necessary.

 

Is it still possible for a man to live independently, in our society, or not?

[Eiuol]

3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The thing about it is that dictatorship (regardless of whether it helps or hurts the populace) is not a part-time job. If you were to try to make yourself the emperor, personally, you'd have to give up your other goals and aspirations in order to do it.

Why? Marcus Aurelius didn't, you're thinking of totalitarian dictators who micromanage all details like Stalin. Being emperor seems like a fine job, not inherently any more selfless than other leaders. You seem to be caught up in the word "ruler", as though the goal is to live vicariously through civilians. I say ruler, because an individual is making up rules for a government as opposed to a legislature, voting, councils, or other means of governing. The question you'd need to answer is why this is okay for a private company (where you can in fact throw a person out) but not for a government.

Theoretically I'd be willing and glad to maintain a leadership position as emperor. I just lack the business credentials I spoke of. Your claim that it's impractical needs more detail about what is impractical. So far, your claim applies to all multinational leaders - corporate or government. Such people are able to lead full lives.

Governance is necessary, that much is certain.

"My point about Augustus paving the way for Caligula was thus, in part: this kind of power, of its nature, can quickly get out of control. " -DonAthos
Rome wasn't built in a day, nor did it fall in a day. I don't know a great deal about Augustus or Caligula, but it's quite possible any supposed evils committed by Caligula were straight up lies. You know how people can be in politics. Then again, part of my point with business credentials is to prevent getting into power with family ties alone. Even if Caligula really was so bad, then why isn't removing the main problem a solution? Power itself didn't corrupt, it was that unearned leadership was permitted. The system itself was perhaps decaying exactly because people lost sight of what a good emperor actually is. I should read up on Roman history though.

If a leader can ruin a country alone, it was too late long before the leader. Or, there were never rules in the first place. As it stands, there is always a means of corruption in all governments. One way to prevent it is transparency of government actions. People like Stalin are the opposite, making up or altering documents.

So you do. Say you did kick someone out of a country for being severely caustic. I don't mean annoying people. I'm talking about people at the lowest of the low. Such people exist. What would it lead to? You wouldn't be a hypocrite for you to ask to be left alone. You'd just say "I'm not that low." For all else, you personally would be one of the virtuous.

What it really comes down to, for you, is if the second emperor is able to keep the same standards.

"Can you imagine some bureaucracy trying to assess this?" -DonAthos
Yes. Is there a reason you can't measure if a person is productive? I'm not saying motions of some job are a good way to measure. Mostly, I'm speaking of a minimum, not a total evaluation of all civilians.

[Eiuol]

"So you do" in my post was referring to this by DonAthos: "Yet I demand that they let me be regardless."

[Harrison Danneskjold]

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Why?

In order to become the emperor, you have to gain and keep that power; you have to convince the better part of three-hundred-million people to obey your commands and then keep them obedient, while you pass laws that most of them won't like (most people today, of course, being altruistic). 

Do you have any children? Do you know what kind of time and effort it takes to get one person to do something they really don't want to? Have you ever imagined what it would be like to try parenting 300,000,000 armed adults, who could spank you right back?

Do you really imagine that you could do that, in your spare time?

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You seem to be caught up in the word "ruler", as though the goal is to live vicariously through civilians.

I never meant to put it so bluntly, but yes; there's a reason why John Galt wouldn't have stooped to being a dictator.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The question you'd need to answer is why this is okay for a private company (where you can in fact throw a person out) but not for a government.

... Because business ends where a gun begins?

I'm operating under the assumption that the difference between trading and forcing is clearly understood; if not then we can remedy that.

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Your claim that it's impractical needs more detail about what is impractical.

For a selfish man to serve as emperor, and remain selfish.

Power does not corrupt; the pursuit and maintenance of power, does. It corrupts because it leaves no room for anything else, because it's never as easy as it might seem.

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Theoretically I'd be willing and glad to maintain a leadership position as emperor.

Why only "theoretically"?

[DonAthos]

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You know how people can be in politics.

Indeed. (And I do not want them in the position of assessing my virtue.)

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Then again, part of my point with business credentials is to prevent getting into power with family ties alone.

I think it's been largely unchallenged thus far as to why "business credentials" mean anything with respect to assessing virtue, or etc., but once again: once you install a dictator, you're done with "preventing" any further misdeeds. Suppose you put your Absolute Businessman into place, and when it comes time for him to pass power onto the next greatest businessman in the land, he decides that, really, it ought to be his children who takes the reins. What then?

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Even if Caligula really was so bad, then why isn't removing the main problem a solution? Power itself didn't corrupt, it was that unearned leadership was permitted.

The initial sticking point here, apart from whether someone could "earn" dictatorship, or the right to violate the rights of others, is your idea of "permitted." Permitted by whom? Rome had an emperor. Insofar as republicanism was dead, the people of Rome had already conceded that theirs was to be controlled by some master. The praetorian guard were already in place to try to enforce the will of the dictator. It then remained for people to try to seize/maintain that control. If you don't believe that the existence of that kind of power calls to it, and rewards, horrible men (which is at least as sensible a way to think of "corrupting" as imagining some noble soul who descends into depravity), then I don't know how to convince you otherwise except to counsel you to study history more, and art, too.

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The system itself was perhaps decaying exactly because people lost sight of what a good emperor actually is. I should read up on Roman history though.

If you'd like a fun place to start (not strictly "history," but still), I highly recommend I, Claudius and the sequel, Claudius the God. Both the novels and BBC miniseries are well worth the effort, though do start with the books if you're able.

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Say you did kick someone out of a country for being severely caustic. I don't mean annoying people. I'm talking about people at the lowest of the low. Such people exist. What would it lead to? You wouldn't be a hypocrite for you to ask to be left alone. You'd just say "I'm not that low." For all else, you personally would be one of the virtuous.

I was reminded of this line of argument recently as I was reading through the hubbub surrounding Donald Trump's latest blunder (but hey! he's a businessman!), where he proposed, apparently, a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

Trump's proposal drew this response, as reported by Yahoo:

Quote

A prominent evangelical leader, Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention, pushed back forcefully against Trump as well.

“Anyone who cares an iota about religious liberty will denounce the reckless, demogogic @realDonaldTrump plan for Muslims,” Moore wrote on Twitter shortly after Trump’s announcement. 

“A government that can shut down mosques simply because they are mosques can shut down Bible studies because they are Bible studies. A government that can close the borders to all Muslims simply on the basis of their religious belief can do the same thing for evangelical Christians,” Moore wrote later Monday evening. “A government that issues ID badges for Muslims simply because they are Muslims can, in the fullness of time, demand the same for Christians because we are Christians.”

You should reassure him that he just needs to say, "I'm not Muslim; this poses no danger to me."

But in all seriousness, you know (and this is partly why I continue to feel ambivalent about this entire thread), philosophy isn't some sort of parlor game. Or it isn't to me, at any rate. It's about what I believe to be really, actually true, and how I can best live my life, given what I know. You're asking whether it would be better for me to put a yoke onto others' backs, and while I find that repugnant on its own supposed merits, I have to reiterate that it's a real this-world sort of danger, once you've reduced people to chattel, that I could one day (and maybe soon) wind up on the receiving end of the same.

And whether you think your proposals (vague as they are, and I would imagine, intentionally so) amount to "putting a yoke onto others' backs," you have to understand that, to me, it's all the same. Once we have surrendered the principal matter of an individual being an end onto himself, and inviolate in his innocence, then the rest are all merely details (to be decided upon by whomever presently wields the greatest force).

To answer this more directly, you say that I "personally would be one of the virtuous," and I agree. But now you're asking me to rely upon the intelligence and virtue of others to recognize and abide by this fact--for me to wager my very life on it--and this I cannot do.

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

"Can you imagine some bureaucracy trying to assess this?" -DonAthos
Yes. Is there a reason you can't measure if a person is productive? I'm not saying motions of some job are a good way to measure. Mostly, I'm speaking of a minimum, not a total evaluation of all civilians.

Insofar as productivity is "the fullest and most purposeful use of [an individual's] mind," as opposed to "being employed," or working X hours, or producing X number of widgets, or etc. (and in fact, in allowing himself to drift through some labor beneath his mental capability, a man may be quite "productive" in the sense of producing a great many widgets, but absolutely contrary to Rand's recognized virtue of productivity), then I have no earthly idea how you would measure such a thing. I believe it a (not small) task for any individual--and I include the highly intelligent and the deeply introspective--to understand and weigh his own fulfillment of such a virtue. It is a challenging and worthy endeavor, and no, I don't trust the DMV to do it for me.

Perhaps if "productivity" had little to no meaning with respect to philosophy, or to Objectivism, then it may easily be measured. Bob produces five widgets in X amount of time, and Jim six, therefore Jim is more productive. But if we are sincerely trying to relate this to what Rand was talking about, then any currently conceivable implementation (e.g. "Having a job, showing yourself as some kind of sustainable or making real efforts to be active") strikes me as a clownshow that would quickly descend into a horrorshow.

[Eiuol]

Harrison, again, I'm not talking about babysitting a populace. That people may revolt isn't a dangerous possibility, take it from Lenin. He was sure people would rebel easily against the tsar, but no one really did. What matters is establishing a form of order in a country with laws, with measured decision-making. It's a sort of leadership also, as a business leader would do. Unless you're saying the government ought to have no leadership role, a government leader would be motivated by personal investment into the institution and its purpose to make the best sort of society for oneself.

When I ask why it's not okay for the government, I'm looking for reasoning as to why.  Yes, you pointed out a difference, that is, government as holding a monopoly on force, but not why it's inappropriate for it to operate similar to a business.

Theoretically referred to if I were in fact a multinational corporation owner.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Harrison, again, I'm not talking about babysitting a populace.

Except, Eiuol, that you are. Whether or not you choose to call it that is irrelevant; that is the nature of your idea.

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

That people may revolt isn't a dangerous possibility, take it from Lenin.

Et tu, Brute?

[2046]

Eiuol, I think this argument quite resembles many of the arguments in favor of aristocracy by the Greeks. Except I don't think they would maintain the "fake virtue" theory. They would simply say the nonvirtuous are clearly inferior and don't deserve to rule. But I don't see anymore progress being made. I think I made all the standard objections, but I can't really reply because it seems like we're just going in circles.

DA is basically saying "as an egoist, so what about your authority?" And you're saying "as an aristocracy, so what about your rights?" And both are backed in the corner saying "so what about your so what?" (Though as an egoist obviously I think DA had the upper hand there.)

So let's have the resolution already! What do you regard as the effective way to defeat the devil and why are these premises the correct or incorrect ones?

Edited December 8, 2015 by 2046

[Eiuol]

15 minutes ago, 2046 said:

So let's have the resolution already! What do you regard as the effective way to defeat the devil and why are these premises the correct or incorrect ones?

[Alright alright, I'll do that.

I kind of went as far as I wanted, or at least, there's not a lot more new I have to say. I'd say I'm not satisfied with some arguments, as they don't capture principles, more so simple dislike which comes across as moral relativism. As I said, part of it is to develop the logical implications for a story I want to write, and there's only so much I can argue before needing to concretize it in fiction.

I did brackets this time, but going forward I'll explain my own arguments.]

[Eiuol]

There was too much focus on why it's wrong to violate rights without actually addressing the specific claims that not all people deserve rights. To be sure, people need reason to survive. But some people really do throw away reason completely, enough so there is no redeemable moral quality to them. Not only that, it is possible to ruin lives without violating rights. So citing the usual arguments for rights cannot work. The devil's argument concerns the need to make moral judgment of others - so you'd need to argue why the lack of moral judgment of rights is important.

Also, a belief in rights is a moral belief, and its implementation does force people to accept it. There is no argument that will do any good if it focuses on how it would be unfair or wrong to totally force people to accept a moral belief. If you support rights, you are supporting forceful implementation of a moral belief.

To take care of both, it is important to talk about what it means to initiate force at all, and what it means to use force against those who initiate force. Yes, using force denies a person use of their mind - that's why it is a good response to force initiation. You prevent the initiator from continuing. It is a good way to stop your own destruction. But you'd want people able to make beneficial decisions, and act to the best of their ability. That requires using one's mind.

Consider though people not using their mind, and make no progress towards doing so. Why is it still wrong to deny the use of a person's mind if the person doesn't use their mind at all? Just use force in that case!

It takes a certain kind of person to use force when initiating. It expresses a personal weakness that either you can't stand the fact you're unable to get the person to act better, or that you are unable to affect your own life with those people around. The devil is largely Nietzschean, so it's interesting to note that Nietzsche was against being violent in general, just minus a principle of rights to be specific about when its use is appropriate. That is, a Nietzschean Overman wouldn't even support the idea of an "egoistic" based forced morality on even the lowest of the low. As an Objectivist emphasis, it does not express your individual mental strength and reasoning capacity. We can go on about why it offends us, that it is distasteful, that someone declaring a moral law is uncomfortable. It is better to emphasize the moral power and value of respecting rights of all people. Respecting rights of horrible people and maintaining one's virtue is going to take -affecting- one's own life.

The more important premise no one addressed is the cognitive role of seeing a head of state as a moral leader, using the government to enhance that role. I'll get to that next time.

 

 

[dream_weaver]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Also, a belief in rights is a moral belief, and its implementation does force people to accept it. There is no argument that will do any good if it focuses on how it would be unfair or wrong to totally force people to accept a moral belief. If you support rights, you are supporting forceful implementation of a moral belief.

What is the essential difference between a belief and a principle? Rights, as a moral principle, and their implementation via the use of force in order that people to accept them, fall under the principle of subordinating might to right.

edited to add from CUI - Appendix: The Nature of Government:

Quote

To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival.
Man's rights can be violated only by the use of physical force.

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by dream_weaver

[Eiuol]

What I meant is that if someone violates rights, and you respond with force, well, that's forceful implementation. The consequence of ignoring rights in an LFC government is enforcement by force, so if you didn't respect rights, you'd be effectively forced to accept rights and act according to them. "Respect rights or else force will be used." 

Rights are moral principles, yes. A principle is a belief though.