Publius

You are free to doubt the existence of whole fields of science if you choose, but you should at least search for justification for doing so, other than you simply disagree with the conclusions reached. You would have to find causation for government action forcing specific actions taken by individuals in the market to bolster your case. Your statements here are just a general slam on government action, without specifying how a specific government action caused so much widespread misjudgment in the financial sector. You paint the government as some kind of puppet master pulling the strings of helpless investment bankers. The truth is the subprime mortgages were willfully made to feed the growing demand on Wall Street for new mortgage backed securities. Commercial banks had no interest in the ability of people to pay back the loan, because they were selling them off to Wall Street to be bundled as mortgage backed securities. They made their fees and shipped them off to a market that was hungry for more. And no one forced AIG and other insurers of the mortgage backed securities to not keep enough capital on hand to pay out in case the securities went belly up. Say what you want about government and its proper role, but this financial crisis is grounded in bad decision making in the banking industry. You can't tell me these guys were all so dumb as to not understand the risks they were taking with these subprime mortgage backed securities. The profits were phenomenal and no one wanted to be left out of the feeding frenzy, and this trumped measured responsible risk taking in all too many cases.

They are a problem if the government doesn't get funded because of them.

Okay, but I don't see any empirical evidence of that. How would people suddenly bridge the racial divide under capitalism? Didn't restaurants around the country pretty uniformly refuse service to blacks until the 1960's, thus directly hurting their own pocketbooks?

A social contract theorist would say the agreement is implicit by enjoying the stability and infrastructure government provides (using government roads, public education for your children, air traffic control system, monetary system, police, courts, public parks, sidewalks, etc.) as an adult. It is your responsibility if you disagree with the more accepted definition of natural rights, to win others in the society over to your view. Failing that, you must accept the decisions of the society you live in, or move to a new one. If the government violates a people's natural rights, e.g. your freedom of movement, to participate in society, or freedom of one's body and mind, then the government must be democratically removed or forcefully overthrown. Being eaten would be a violation of one's natural rights, under anyone's definition, and therefore forbidden. Another relevant concept to discuss is political pluralism. Pluralism acknowledges the diversity of interests and considers it imperative that members of society accommodate their differences by engaging in good-faith negotiation and compromise. This concept goes back to the founding of the US and is fundamental to understanding any western government. The minority opinion cannot be squelched or silenced because they have rights, both natural and civil (codified by law and the Constitution). The definition of what is a right is constantly evolving. That definition you speak of was popular for a time in the 18th and 19th centuries. But it fell out of favor when societal stability began to fracture as evidence of a strong relationship between wealth and societal power began to emerge. So to convince the masses that a dialing back of the notion of natural rights to include a prohibition on taxation, you would have to present evidence that society is best managed when government's only intrusion is to run the police, courts and national defense. Unfortunately, after the recent economic turmoil, public opinion is not heading in that direction. No that would be a violation of natural rights, in this case your freedom of movement.

Unless you advocate for anarchy, a state is essential to at the very least protect the rights of its citizens. So the continuity of a state is in everybody's interest. Social contract theorists argue that natural rights do not extend to an absolute right to property, as an individual is part of a society and therefore there is a balance struck between the needs of the individual and the needs of the community. The justification for this is the need for a well ordered society, that this is crucial for a society to flourish. This balance is dictated by individuals using their right to change the government as they see fit. Again, the power is not absolute, it is subject to the will of the people via elections. If the government begins to disregard the will of the people, the government itself can justifiably be removed.

I'm surprised that social contract theory is never mentioned on this forum. It is the defining philosophy of government in the West and has been since representative government came into being. It is the social contract which Objectivism seeks to replace, which is kind of a big deal. The theory says that the people, by being free to choose the form of government they want by way of voting, are endorsing the social contract. The contract can be violated if the government does not work towards the general interest of the people, or violates certain natural rights of the citizens. When failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature. The controversy is the whole natural rights thing. There is disagreement over what constitutes natural rights, rights that can't be ceded to the state voluntarily or involuntarily. Objectivists believe taxation constitutes confiscation of property, property being a natural right, and thus is a violation of their natural rights. Such a liberal view of natural rights is not widely held among political philosophers. I would say it isn't so much a matter of understanding, its a matter of opinion about what the eventual outcomes will be. Can we say definitively that an Objectivist society, although just in the sense of preserving natural rights of property, would not be more chaotic and disorderly? No, I don't think you can know that. So, on one hand, one might say it is rational to have a system of government that doesn't initiate force on its citizens. On the other hand, one might say it would be rational to cede some rights to the state in return for a more ordered and stable society. Proponents of the latter might say it would be decidedly irrational to advocate for a societal structure that is fundamentally unsustainable. Food for thought anyway.

Hey Zips. I am wondering how you were able to ensure you would be able to always afford it. How did you guarantee you or your wife would always be gainfully employed, that you wouldn't get sick or disabled (or die), or that the economy wouldn't tank, or that large unexpected expenses would arise? Not trying to be an ass but people who thought they were secure one day often find things can change on a dime. Again, I'll play devil's advocate. People don't make decisions based on economics only. If they did, we wouldn't have historically seen so much discrimination. People can hold all sorts of prejudices that hinder economic outcomes not only for them but for the people discriminated against. And often large areas of the country can be unified in holding them (the south in the US, for example).

In the United States, everyone who collects a paycheck, which is most people, automatically pays into Social Security and Medicare. This is true even for most illegal immigrants, who can't make use of the services. I don't think you can conflate paying for insurance with paying taxes. In the case of insurance, there is the tacit agreement that the insurance company will pay to fix your car, pay your medical bills, etc., in exchange for your premium. So there is a direct incentive to keep paying into the system. In the case of voluntary government funding, if you don't pay, you still get use of the benefits of the government. The ever-present free rider problem.

It's worth taking the field of social psychology into account when assessing the efficacy of capitalism vs communism and the sustainability of either at their most extreme. A recent study I read found that worldwide and through different cultures and societies, the concept of fairness was strongly linked to how individuals perceived their economic standing compared to others. Essentially people tend to judge their standing in relative terms, not absolute terms. So if there is massive income disparity, regardless of the reason, it tends to create social upheaval. Capitalism has the effect of increasing living standards and building wealth for all, but the overall effect is heavily skewed towards relatively few individuals. This helps explain the deep social turmoil that brought communism into being in the first place. Here in the US it gets forgotten just how much acceptance communism and socialism was making in the early 20th century due to perceived feelings of unfairness and oppression by the ruling elite and the excesses of unchecked capitalism. So if we can find a way to rewire the human brain, through education and conditioning perhaps, it could be possible to de-link perceptions of fairness from one's position in the economic hierarchy. Another problem with capitalism is the unpredictability of human behavior. This interesting article appeared today in the NY Times about how the variability of actors in the market defies prediction. We tend to think markets will always seek out the most efficient and equitable outcomes, and in theory they should, but the human element can cause unforeseen outcomes. Ultimately, as in the case of our current economic turmoil, risky short sighted behavior by some, say those in the banking industry, can create massive problems and devastating financial losses for nearly everyone.

Unfortunately there are no modern historical examples of voluntary payment of taxation or funding on such a large scale. Objectivists essentially are taking a leap of faith on this assertion, usually with the caveat that a "moral revolution" has already taken place. As SN said, it comes down to coming to an agreement on the role of government in society. As for limiting it to military, police and courts, there is the problem, in the United States anyway, of the U.S. constitution, which clearly gives powers (and responsibilities) to the government that extend beyond that. So you would have to scrap the constitution, or substantially amend it, to reduce the government to such a bare bones entity. Not to mention 200+ years of stare decisis in the US court system that would have to be ignored. A much more effective argument would be to use a hypothetical Objectivist country in which to argue about principles of taxation, with a given that the country has already been founded on Objectivist principles.

It's difficult to discuss economic issues here, where a "the way things should be" mentality pervades, versus the reality of the society we actually live in, which is not Objectivist-based (yet). Its tempting to apply free market solutions across the board but people aren't ready for it yet, and without whole-hearted support politically, free market policies can actually be counter productive; if they are not allowed to run their course, you never see the full benefits. Then people blame the market for any failures (see 1930's). Americans aren't ready for the ramifications of free market capitalism because most are operating on a completely different value system. The primary concern for the economy now is stability. This is a much more motivating factor in inducing investment than even levels of taxation. That is what the bailouts are intended to do, ease people's minds that the economy isn't imploding, and that its still safe to invest and loan money. Government helped create this mess but short sighted bankers and investors are to blame too. The government mandated that a certain percentage of mortgage loans go to poor people, but nobody forced banks to make so many bad loans, without even getting good documentation. And nobody forced investment banks to buy bad mortgage loans bundled as securities. And then there is the whole credit default swap mess. It was basically euphoric recklessness on Wall Street. Everyone was looking for the quick buck to make their year end bonus and not keeping their eye on long term growth.

Sorry, here is that link

Here's a good summation of the potential fallout from AIG's collapse (subscription needed so I've posted the most salient part).

I'm assuming there are some college grads on this board, so there should be plenty of forum members here who have taken a college philosophy course. Was it a different experience than this one? Was the (likely) non-Objectivist instructor competent? Was Kant explained to your satisfaction? Kevin, if you're really that upset about this guy, print off some copies of his postings and submit them to the chair of the philosophy dpmt. You probably will come off as an intelligent and industrious, the kind of student the head of the dpmt. may find value in spending an hour or so delving into the finer points of Kant. Or you can stomp away in a huff and continue playing the role of misunderstood philosophy genius. Your choice.

Okay, I must have missed it, but I didn't see where he advocated adhering to duty anywhere but in the first post. And I stand by my interpretation given the limited context and not knowing anything else he said, so I don't know why he is being labeled a Kantian. But if you think he's a Kantian, then he's a Kantian. I'm not really interested in talking about that further. I was referring to "belief" and "hypothesis". Again, not much use in further talk about that. I'm not trying to argue with you on anything, especially Objectivism, Kantianism, etc. I'm only saying is that you haven't demonstrated you understand the point your professor was trying to make, or made an argument, and this is leading to your professor's frustration with you. Now if you look at Odden's last post above, you'll see an actual argument along the lines of what your professor is probably looking for regarding duty (by the way that pained me greatly to give Odden credit for making a logical argument ) I was just interested in the thread because I had a similar experience in college with a multicultural professor. My papers were returned riddled with counterarguments to my thesis and points, but I always got an A. Office hours was another source for good back and forth (maybe in an online course your don't get that kind of back and forth with the professor). But I understood the subject matter in a much more complex way. I discovered I still disagreed with multiculturalism, but that I could argue much more convincingly against it once I mastered the subject matter.

No one said you need to do anything. But you'll have gotten more out of the course if you at least clearly understand opposing views, rather than creating a caricature of opposing views in order to more easily dismiss them. BTW his talk of "duties" to me refers to each student's duty to himself to use reason. I find it hard to believe that someone who has had put in that kind for time to philosophical study would deem it to be insignificant. Judging by the first quote in this thread I think he seems quite passionate about it. I also find it hard to believe that he thinks people should never be "concluding". Maybe he just means entry level students should get a little more reading under their belt before they formulate their grand worldview. I think you are way too intellectually combative for your own good. He was persuasive in his comments regarding your using your own definition of words, instead of the common usage, in order to talk about ideas. He was persuasive (and correct IMO) that you need to be able to understand the phenomena of why people act out of a sense of duty. You make the false comparison of the concept "duties" to "Santa Claus, a physical perceivable entity, then make the claim that the concept does not exist. But clearly people DO act out of duty, and why this is this so has to be explained somehow. You made a false assumption about his views on Kant, because when he said he was "the greatest", you jumped to the conclusion that he meant he was the the most correct. I would at least own up to this error. I'm guessing he may be just responding to your rhetoric. I have no contextual knowledge of your relationship to this point, but I read this in his post: I recognized early in the course that you are under the impression that you've thought enough about these issues and that you have reached conclusions regarding many philosophical question. I don't know what you said or how you said it to give him this impression early on, but I'm sure the tension has been building.

I would definitely NOT walk away from this conversation with the professor. You paid money to learn, and it would be useful to understand what he's trying to explain. This might be the last time for a very long time that you will have the opportunity to engage with someone you disagree with on philosophy, who is at least well read on the subject, who is willing to discuss it at length, and who is not an unknown persona on the internet; so I say take advantage of it. I agree with eriatarka that you are kind of talking past him and not engaging a lot of his points. I would move the conversation back to a more respectful tone. Thank the instructor for his time in helping you "understand" and ask more questions. He has some pretty thoughtful answers even if you don't agree with everything. You seem to be focused on "winning" a debate with your professor. Just have him help you be clear about what he's saying. In my experience, the best way to get a good grade is to take the opposite position of the professor and argue it. This shows the professor you're not just parroting back his lectures but are actively engaging the subject matter. So I wouldn't worry about getting a poor grade because you had the "wrong" philosophical conclusions.

I have also read this before and never understood its meaning. I read that Rand did not think women should seek power, that they are not equipped to handle it so it would be irrational, or something. I don't know how Objectivist women feel about this.

I don't think there is a historical parallel here, but economic sanctions did work on Libya, and were containing Iraq's ability to produce weapons before the war. It's important to take steps in their proper sequence. Sanctions are the proper step to take now as Iran is not capable to producing a weapon yet. There is time to influence them to reconsider their options. Perhaps you're familiar with the events of 9-11? It's not the nation states you have to worry about as much as the radical groups such as Al-Queda and Hezbollah and others. The asymmetrical warfare they employ is difficult to defend against. What a better recruiting tool to draw in more economically impoverished Arabs and Muslims around the world than to nuke a city. We'll have a siege mentality for generations.

Very well put, brian and eriatarka. The Iranian problem must be dealt with, and decisively so, but nuclear weapons shouldn't be an option at this point or probably ever. It seems highly irrational to resort to the maximum amount of force (nukes) unless it solves the problem without considerable blowback. I think such casual use of nukes greatly increases the likelihood that a United States city will be targeted for a portable nuclear device in the future. The Arabs know how to hold a grudge; the Shi'ites and Sunnis have been battling it out for over 1000 years now. The Crusades are still a sore subject. Air strikes using conventional guided missiles could do the job of neutralizing Iran's nuclear facilities. Real tough economic sanctions (which we're only starting to use) could provide the incentive for them to give up the idea of nukes before such a strike is necessary. From a cultural point of view, the Iranian common people LOVE the West, especially the US. It would be foolish to not use this sentiment to our advantage. The Iranian government is not as stable as it appears from the outside.

In another thread I read the below quote by Chops and wanted to ask some questions about it. I'm confused about this idea of what "works" vs what is moral. What Chops seems to be saying here, in this case relating to socialized medicine, is that whether a program works or not is beside the point, that it is practically irrelevant when it comes to moral and immoral government action. So if I take the worst case scenario of something "not working", for example a free market health care system, one in which many people are priced out of the market for affordable health care. Would this be an example of health care "not working", but yet morally acceptable? I'm not looking to engage in argument, or to make the case for socialized medicine. I'm just asking about morality vs immorality, and I want to be clear about the true definition. Does this all mean that to act morally, as defined by Objectivism, does not require the consideration of negative overall outcomes due to a particular action, as long as the action does not violate property rights or involve initiation of force? What if the moral action/inaction results in negative consequences for the cohesion of the society and its long term sustainability? More broadly, if the actions or inactions of a moral society result in that society's inability to sustain itself, whether through social collapse/revolt, inefficient/insufficient infrastructure, environmental problems, corrupt/inefficient justice system etc., can such a society be said to be acting in a moral fashion? So I'm asking, doesn't it indeed matter if something "works", if the potential negative consequences of it not working lead to a society's demise, and thus the ability for individuals to maximize their own existence? I suppose if it was possible to know with certainty that the free market would never deliver destabilizing outcomes this would be an easy question to answer.

Using the Holmes quote was a way to jump into the question of why Objectivism is not more influential and appears hardly anywhere in mainstream public discourse on government or economics, despite Atlas Shrugged having been published 50 years ago. Most people influenced by Rand I've met apply the philosophy to their personal lives, often in limited ways, and stop there. I'm sure many people new to Objectivism are wondering this very thing. I am just wondering why this is so, and if the marketplace of ideas is a valid concept. I am not making an argument, that would be inappropriate in the "Questions about Objectivism" subforum. You mis characterized my post completely, then used it as a means of yet again spewing subtle insults. I did not make personal attacks after, for example, your moronic ramblings on the "uncontacted tribe" thread (okay, well now I did). I am sorry if confronting ideas you don't like disrupts your delicate psychological equilibrium, but I have to conclude you must be getting used to it.

But it seems Objectivist ideas aren't even on the racetrack, not even in the race. There is virtually no integration of Objectivist ideals into the mainstream. Why has the marketplace of ideas failed in this regard? I am merely quoting Holmes, not saying it is correct. Obviously Communism took hold in the early parts of the 20th century and has been roundly repudiated. Religion serves a purpose for the 90+ percent of humanity that subscribes to it. For one, it is a psychological crutch on which one can lean to explain events in one's life and the world that are beyond one's abilities to understand or cope with. It is difficult for most people to accept a finite end to one's existence or that of a loved one. Rational reasoning doesn't assuage this kind of psychological anxiety, at least not yet. Religion, despite all its drawbacks, provides hope and solace in this regard. So you can see why it has reigned in the "marketplace." Maybe most humans aren't psychologically evolved yet as a species to accept atheism? I saw the Holmes quote and thought it would make for a thoughtful discussion. I must say I don't find your snarky remarks and smug, dismissive attitude towards ideas and individuals you disagree with to be constructive. Your contributions to this forum are unmatched, but many of your posts I have read have been filled with invective and vitriol. Since it is your assertion that persuasion is the best means for spreading the word about Objectivism, you are only doing your cause a disservice by casting yourself as a disgruntled curmudgeon.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” If this was true, why hasn't the "market" accepted the Objectivist philosophy more so than it has, especially when it comes to government and economics? Can anything be gleaned from Objectivism's limited appeal worldwide, despite the overwhelming popularity of its main selling vehicle, Atlas Shrugged? Are market forces at work when it comes to good ideas/bad ideas? Why or why not?

Do you have a better sample? Perhaps in your travels you have personally encountered such politicians, which would be interesting to hear about. You would have to provide evidence that most or all are not sincere, if that is the claim you are making. Who is the "they" you are referring too? Are you saying you have never met one economist, or someone "somewhat familiar with economic history", that has not been an Objectivist or hard core libertarian? Interesting. Your circle of contacts is either peculiarly limited, or there are a hell of a lot more libertarians and Objectivists out there than I thought. You should check the salary for state senate and state house positions. Far more politicians serve in such lesser positions and make not very much money, and don't get big bucks for 1 hour speeches. As for the lobbying jobs, I wonder why more congress people don't cash in sooner then. Why do they keep running for office? Levin, since I mentioned him earlier, has been in the senate since 1979. What is he waiting for? $169k is not chump change, but it is not a fortune compared to the wealth of lobbyists, businesspeople and special interests folks they deal with. $169k doesn't go as far in Washington as in Topeka, either.