AisA

Just to offer a point of clarification: Objectivist epistemology does not hold that percepts "are the direct objects of awareness". The "direct object" of awareness is existence. Percepts are the base-level form of that awareness. Or to put it another way: Perception is the means, but what we perceive is existence.

That is one difference, and the near-universal reverence for Muhammad among Muslims makes the story of his life -- a life of military conquest -- a powerful recruiting tool for the jihadists.

For a good overview of Islam, go here.

I have not read any of Warraq'a books. But Spencer makes a convincing case that the jihadists are not simply "cherry picking" the violent verses of the Koran and arbitrarily ignoring the peaceful verses to justify their terrorist attacks. Actually, that is a misstatement. It is not Spencer that makes that case – he merely shows how the most respected Islamic scholars and biographers make that case. And that is what is so useful about Spencer’s work. He simply provides page after page of quotes showing the logic by which these authority figures justify violent jihad against the infidel. According to Spencer, Muslims are guided by three things. The Koran, the hadith and the Sira. The Koran is Allah’s revelations to Muhammad, but it is not complete (there are many subjects it does not cover) and in many places it is simply unintelligible. To assist in interpreting it, thousands of anecdotes about Muhammad’s life have been compiled describing the situations he faced at the time of the revelations. These compilations are called the hadith. According to Spencer, the two most respected of these (there are dozens) are those written by Ismail al-Bukhari and Muslim al-Qushayri. They are considered absolutely reliable. Other hadiths are considered “strong”, “good”, “weak” and some are even known to be “forged”. The third thing Muslims are guided by is the Sira, the biography of Muhammad. The two most reliable of these were written by Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham. Spencer shows how these Muslim authorities justify violent jihad. For instance, just to give one example, Spencer shows how they invoke the principle of abrogation to resolve conflicting verses in the Koran. As you noted earlier, the peaceful verses were revealed early in Muhammad’s career when he was in Mecca, was relatively powerless and surrounded by fellow tribesmen who resented his claim to be the exclusive receiver of Allah's messages. The verses that feature violent calls to jihad came later, after he had gone to Medina, raised an army and commenced attacking the other tribes. Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq and Hisham resolve this as follows. Someone pointed out to Muhammad that Allah's messages were inconsistent. Previously Allah had said, "There is no compulsion in religion." Now he was saying, "Slay the infidels wherever you find them". Muhammad resolved this by having another revelation in which Allah tells him, "I can do all things, including giving you new, better revelations that abrogate earlier ones". (S. 2-106) Presto! Problem solved. Thus, the principle of abrogation is used by Islamic authorities to claim that the calls for violent jihad trump any earlier verses to the contrary. To buttress this claim, these figures also point to Muhammad’s life and career of military conquest. In Islam, Muhammad is the absolute standard of morality; whatever he did is the good, and if he did conflicting things, whatever he did last is what counts. This is why it is so difficult to get Muslims to absolutely denounce jihad. Doing so means denouncing Muhammad – and I’ve never heard a Muslim utter a single negative thing about Muhammad. Spencer does not claim that this proves that “true Islam” is inherently violent. That is not his goal. His goal is to expose how the jihad recruiters – like bin Laden and al-Zawahiri – use Islamic authorities like Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq and Hisham to convince Muslims that “true Islam” requires them to wage jihad against the infidel. Spencer's critics cannot grasp this distinction; they constantly accuse him of "cherry picking" the Koran and "focusing on the hateful while ignoring the peaceful". But all you have to do is read his books to see that it is Islam's leading authorities that push such a focus, not Spencer.

Have you read any of Robert Spencer's books?

Not necessarily. Miss Rand made clear that there are a number of cases where a failure to act constitutes a violation of rights. For instance, a unilateral breach of contract wherein one fails to deliver product is a violation of rights. So is a parent's failure to support a child.

Do you agree that we have a right to have the government use retaliatory force on our behalf when we are the victim of a crime?

But don't the rights of others include the right to have the government use retaliatory force on our behalf when we are the victim of a crime? And aren't those that obstruct the government's effort to use retaliatory force violating that right?

But is there such a thing as the right to obstruct the defense of rights? Since we delegate the use of retaliatory force to the government, the victim of a crime has a right to have the government use retaliatory force on their behalf. Those who withhold evidence required to properly use retaliatory force are violating that right.

But is there really an inconsistency here? Is it not true that both parties, the accused and the witness, may invoke their right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination?

I don't see how you can consider this an answer. You have offered nothing here to explain in what sense I “bear responsibility” for the welfare state that I have worked to prevent. According to your position, when Objectivism triumphs, and we transition to laissez-faire capitalism, all of capitalism’s enemies -- including all of the leftist/socialist/communist intellectuals in the universities and in the main stream media who are relentlessly working to bring about the destruction of capitalism – will “bear responsibility” for the existence of capitalism. Used in this fashion, I do not see that "bear responsibility" has any meaning at all. I am responsible for feeding and freeing myself. The question is who "bears responsibility" if you make that impossible by enslaving me or stealing my crops and I die as a result? What I do not understand is your desire, under those conditions, to place the burden of "bearing responsibility" on the victim instead of placing it on those who initiated the use of force. Granted, he is not absolved of the necessity of feeding himself; the issue is your claim that he “bears responsibility” if he dies as a result of the actions of the vandals. I’ve yet to see any sort of argument that supports the idea that one “bears responsibility” for the consequences of the actions of others.

Really? Please give us some examples, because I don't see them. In my last post I gave you four examples of assertions you made completely without support. For instance, what is your argument in support of the claim that those who work against the welfare state also "bear responsibility" for the welfare state? What is your argument for the claim that I "bear responsibility" for anything other than my own actions? If you don't consider these claims to be axioms, provide some proof, evidence or support -- something other than a restatement. But you have offered nothing to explain why "innocent victims" who are "not responsible for the immoral state of the world" are nonetheless responsible for the political results created by that immorality. How can I be responsible for the effect -- which is politics -- when I am not responsible for the cause -- which is morality? Can you answer these questions -- or are you merely going to restate that we "bear responsibility for making sure we get good government"? Why? Because you say so? Where are the "many arguments seperate from Ayn Rand's statements" that support this? What is your support for this assertion? What does it mean to say that I "bear responsibility" for "making sure" of something? How, short of initiating the use of force, can I "make sure" of what others will or will not agree to? What is your answer to these questions? Do you have anything besides repeating an Ayn Rand quote? Can you offer any reasoning, evidence or proof -- or will you continue to just repeat the statement, "Everyone bears responsibility for making sure they have good government"? More unsupported assertions? I agree, but how do you get from the notion that I am responsible for "taking those actions" to the notion that I am responsible for the actions taken by others? Thank you for demonstrating that you do, in fact, consider Miss Rand's statements to be axiomatic. You offer no support except the claim that it is "self-evident". Well, it is not. And it is not self-evident that everyone "bears responsibility" for any government that does not collapse. So what? Why do all citizens "bear responsibility" for whatever government comes about, whether they have worked for or against the particular form of government that results? What is your support for that assertion?

In addition to quoting Miss Rand out of context, you apparently think her statements are axioms, i.e. they are self-evident and require no additional support or proof. You quote her, and then, in response to any objections that are raised, you simply repeat the quote -- as if no other support is required. However, they are not axioms, and repeating them does not constitute support for your assertions. Posts 65 and 66 are not “answers”, they are simply more of these unsupported assertions. For instance: Why is it different? Because you say so? Why does my working against the welfare state not make me any less responsible for it? Because you say so? Why are they still responsible? Because you say so? Why does "everyone", including those who Miss Rand called "innocent victims", "bear responsibility"? Because you say so? Why does it necessarily include them? Because you say so"? Miss Rand’s statements, in this case, are not axioms and merely repeating them does not support your assertions.

But you have not said that one is merely "responsible for his own life". You have said that when someone else violates your rights, you must assume responsibility for having your rights violated. See HERE. in post 10. Nor have you ever explained what "assuming responsiblity" means; you have only indicated what it does not mean.

Yes, you have done a lot to explain what "bearing responsibility" does not mean. You have explained that it does not mean that we deserve to pay for the sins of the government. You have explained that it does not mean that we are to be morally blamed for those sins. You have explained that it does not mean that we are responsible for paying for the sins of the government. And you have explained that it does not mean that we are all equally responsible. What I am still waiting to hear is what "bearing responsibility" does mean. As near as I can tell, it means nothing under these circumstances. Of course, you are free to repeat another out-of-context quote from Miss Rand, but unless you come up with something new, you will not be doing anything to give your position on "bearing responsibility" any meaning.

First, let me point out that you are using a phrase from a statement made in 1972 to make a claim about a statement from 1976. From 1972: "If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government—as all of us are paying for the sins of ours." From 1976: "But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it." You might be able to claim that the phrase "as all of us are paying for the sins of ours" implies that the 1972 statement applies to all situations, dictatorships and welfare-states alike. But you cannot stretch it to cover a completely seperate statement made four years later. In the second place, and more important, it is clear from the question she is asked and her complete response, that “bear responsibility" means “expect to be destroyed” if you live in a dictatorship and it attacks a free nation. In the third place, in any apparent conflict between what Miss Rand said extemporaneously, as in a question and answer session with a diverse audience free to ask about any subject, versus what she wrote, greater weight must be given to her written word. That is why you cannot simply dismiss a quote like the following: "Third -- and most important -- the young people of today are not responsible for the immoral state of the world into which they were born. Those who accept the welfare-statist ideology assume their share of the guilt when they do so. But the anti-collectivists are innocent victims who face an impossible situation...." (The Question of Scholarships in “The Voice of Reason”, pg 42) Previously, you claimed that you saw no contradiction between the statement above and your notion that all citizens, under all conditions, "bear responsibility for their government and must pay the price for its sins". This would mean that "innocent victims" in an "impossible situation" must still "bear responsibility" for that situation. And it means that “people not responsible for the immoral state of the world” are still responsible for the political system created by that immorality. It means that the “anti-collectivists” who do not “assume a share of the guilt” are just as “responsible” as the collectivists who do “assume a share of the guilt”. But the fact is that in order to escape these obvious contradictions, you have conceded that we do not deserve to pay for the sins of the government, that we are not to be morally blamed for those sins, and that we are not responsible for paying for the sins of the government. Given those stipulations, what is the meaning of the first statement that you made on this issue: If the "library Internet user" does not deserve the treatment he got, if he is not morally to blame for it, and if he is not "responsible for paying the price for the government's sins", then what does it mean that he "must assume responsibility for it"? What does responsibility mean under these conditions? The answer is it means nothing more than "if you cannot prevent it, it will happen". When asked to provide a definition of responsibility, you said: Those who are working against the welfare state are obviously not a cause of the welfare state; this means, according to your own definition, that they are not responsible for the welfare state. In fact, in assigning responsibility to everyone, you are ignoring cause and effect by lumping the causers and the non-causers into the same collectivistic pot and declaring them equally "responsible". A far more reasonable interpretation, and in fact the one given by Miss Rand, is that we are responsible for opposing statism intellectually and philosophically at every opportunity; but if we devolve into a dictatorship, we cannot expect to be exempt from the retaliatory force used by any free nation the dictatorship attacks.

So we don't deserve to pay and we are not responsible for paying. That is certainly different from what you said in post 21; You put the emphasis on the word "must" in that statement. This is a lame attempt at the argument from intimidation. When you quote Miss Rand out of context, and ignore everything else she has said on the matter, you are not "with her", you are merely exploiting her statements to cover your pre-selected position. As Miss Rand said: "But, you see, I don't think any information can be conveyed by any one sentence out of context. If it could be, then we wouldn't need to write a book. Therefore, when you read a particular sentence, you have to take cognizance of the context which has been established." (ITOE, pg 174) If you want to be "with her", you need to follow this and stop dropping context. That remark of hers, which you keep quoting like a mantra, concerned the issue "innocent" civilians in a dictatorship that has threatened a free nation and whether or not the presence of such people negate a free nation's right to defend itself -- not the issue of citizens using Internet terminals in a library in a welfare-state that is still semi-free. And if you doubt that this distinction mattered to Miss Rand, you only have to look at all of the other quotes I have provided.

The fact that I can be forced to pay does not prove that I am responsible for paying. This is known as a non-sequitur. If I don't deserve to pay for those sins, it is ridiculous to claim that I am nonetheless responsible for doing so. This is true no matter how many times you quote Miss Rand out of context.

I understand the bill's sponsor is a Republican.

So your position is that we don't deserve to pay for those sins, but we are responsible for paying for those sins nonetheless.

I see. And it is your position that the boy who gets drafted, sent off to war and killed in combat -- and the businessman who is prosecuted and jailed under the Anti-Trust laws -- both got what they deserved for failing to change the government. Both "paid for the sins of the government" since it was their responsibility to change it and, having failed to change it, they have no right to complain or expect different treatment. This is what you think Miss Rand meant.

I agree we are responsible for the consequences of our choices. But are you saying that the choice to walk through the park, or the choice to live in society instead of living alone, is also the choice to be mugged?

There is a limit to what any one person can do. Since human beings possess volition, you cannot dictate the content of their consciousness just as you cannot dictate their actions. If one does everything that can reasonably be expected to oppose fascism, that is, if one does what Miss Rand says we are responsible for doing (see the earlier quotes I provided), and fascism happens anyway, then only an omnipotent being can be said to have "evaded responsibility". If you wish to hold such a view, that is your right. But this is not Miss Rand's view, as is clear from the quotes I provided.

So you see no contradiction between the statement, "There cannot be individual responsibility for something that is the government’s fault" and the statement, "we all must bear responsibility for the political system that is established in our name"? Here is another one: "The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance, or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the "right" to force employers and unwilling coworkers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money -- and they would not advance the cause of their of freedom if they left the money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." (The Question of Scholarships in “The Voice of Reason”, pg 43) So, the victims who opposed the laws have a right to any refund of their own money, whereas those who advocated the laws have no such right -- but "we citizens must bear the responsibility, pay for the sins of our government." I assume you see no contradiction there, either. Here is more: "The victims (those who oppose the welfare-state) do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare state laws offer them some restitution, the victims should take it." (The Question of Scholarships in “The Voice of Reason”, pg 42 Emphasis in the original) Why would Miss Rand emphasize that the victims should take any restitution if she believed "we must all bear responsibility and pay for the sins of our government"? It is blatantly clear that Miss Rand does not believe that everyone, victims and perpetrators alike, “must bear responsibility and pay for the sins” of the welfare state. It is clear that whenever the victims can avoid “paying for the sins”, she thinks they should. You are misrepresenting her position.

Daedalus: I have given you direct quotes in which Miss Rand defines who is and who is not responsible for the government in our current situation (a welfare state). If you are going to ignore or evade them and continue to insist that we are all responsible, there is no point in responding further.